Ken Ham and Bodie Hodge – Atheism is Religion

Almost all atheists claim that, because (supposedly) there is no God, their own worldview is not a religion. Many of them would argue that they have a “nonbelief.”

One of the definitions of religion in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, however, is this: “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.”

Atheism certainly fits that definition, and many of its adherents are quite zealous about their faith system.

Atheists have an active belief system with views concerning origins (that the universe and life arose by natural processes); no life after death; the existence of God; how to behave while alive; and so much more. Honest atheists will admit their worldview is a faith. Atheism is a religion!

One candid atheist wrote, “My attitude is not based on science, but rather on faith . . . . The absence of a Creator, the non-existence of God is my childhood faith, my adult belief, unshakable and holy.”

The Religion of Atheism Is Growing

This secular (anti-God) religion of atheism is growing. Atheism is all around us in various forms. It is practiced (and funded) by almost all government schools. In essence atheism has become the religion of the state, and it pervades the media, courts, museums, textbooks, the internet, science journals, and influences many people you encounter.

About 90% of children from our church homes attend government schools. Your kids and grandkids have likely been adversely influenced by this religion…and they may not have even realized it.

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:
0

Avery Foley and Ken Ham – Atheism: Hopeless, Meaningless, Purposeless

atheism-hopeless-meaningless-purposeless

In our secular Western culture, the religion of atheism is on the rise, especially among the millennial generation. Young people are increasingly abandoning the religion they grew up with and turning to life without God. But all they’ve done is replace one religion with another one — the religion of atheism.

The Religion of Atheism

Now, when I call atheism a religion on social media, many atheists get very upset. They hate having atheism referred to as a religion or a belief system. But that’s exactly what it is. One of the definitions of religion is:

A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.1
Atheism is a system of beliefs that atheists cling to with both ardor and faith. Below are some of the tenets of this belief system. Notice that none of them are scientifically proven (and even go against science!)—that’s where atheists’ faith comes in. They accept these assertions based on faith that they are true.

– There is no God or gods.
– There is no supernatural.
– Everything is the result of naturalistic processes over time.
– Life evolved from a single-celled organism.
– Death is the end — when you’re dead, that’s it.

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:
0

Jason Lisle – Atheism: An Irrational Worldview

1608_AtheismAnIrrationalWorldview_WebBanner_945x300

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.” Will Christians be prepared to “give an answer” to the atheists’ claims?

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.

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:
0

Bob McKelvey – “I’m an Atheist. So Why Can’t I Shake God?”

atheism

An Honest Admission

Recently, this title in the Washington Post (Feb 4, 2016) caught my eye: “I’m an atheist. So why can’t I shake God?: Turns out it’s pretty hard to believe in nothing when your psyche is wired for faith.” Elizabeth King, the author, then tells how she abandoned her childhood Christian faith for atheism. Yet, “somehow God has found a way to stick around in my mind.” She thinks that “God’s lingering presence” could be attributed to “the inner-workings of the human mind” against which the atheist battles hard. She claims, “If I could. . . banish this figure from my psyche, I would.” In the end, she has to admit, “I have no choice but to accept that I’m an atheist with a sense for God.”

Not only did I appreciate her candid confession, I also identified with it. I used to be an atheist, one who claimed in Sociology class that God was created in the image of man. Still, without expressing the same words, I too wondered, “Why can’t I shake God?” The Puritan Steven Charnock (c1628–1680) answered this question well in his Discourses on the Existence and Attributes of God (1682), one of the most profound yet practical treatments ever written on the doctrine of God.

We Are All Atheists

Charnock develops upon Psalm 14:1, “The fool has said in his heart there is no God.” This verse describes everyone, for we all as sinners try to escape God (like fallen Adam did) and push him out of existence. Some of us manifest a conscious “disowning of God” while the rest of us exhibit a practical atheism affirming God but denying him in our hearts by sinful lives. We distort a “right notion of God” and fail to seek and love him, for which we were created. Indeed, whoever fails to love God, “denies God.” We are all by nature atheists.

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:
0

David Robertson – Atheism Preys on Fear and Prejudice

full_atheism-preys-on-fear-and-prejudice

If God died in the 1960’s, then someone forgot to tell the English publishing industry. Books about God have been surprising bestsellers for the past decade. Richard Dawkin’s The God Delusion which has sold over a million has been joined in the best seller lists by Christopher Hitchin’s God Is Not Great, Sam Harris’s Letter to a Christian Nation, A.A. Grayling’s Against All Gods, and a host of other books extolling the virtues of atheism and the dangers and follies of religion.

Atheist publications are not new, and for anyone with any knowledge of basic philosophy and religion, the arguments put forward in these books contain nothing new. What is interesting is why they have proved to be so popular. They are clearly tapping into something in the popular zeitgeist in sections of both European and North American society. From a publishing point of view, it is clearly the right place and the right time to launch the New Atheist publishing. Why?

There is no doubt that the books are in general well-written, entertaining, and informative. They are written in a populist style about subjects, which most people would consider important and interesting. Little wonder that they have proved a hit. Yet there are other reasons why they have hit the spot.

The first is fear. People are afraid of religion. After all, as is pointed out ad nauseum by all the atheist writers, atheists don’t fly planes into buildings. Granted, but then neither do they build hospitals or establish schools because of their atheism. Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and the others love to warn us that the religious are going to bomb us, take us back to the Dark Ages, and abuse our children.

Prejudices and Generalizations

Another reason for the popularity of these works is that they appeal to the prejudices of their readers. Prejudices such as the idea that all religions are essentially the same and that therefore what can be said about one must apply to the others. The illogicality of that should be obvious — but sadly when it comes to matters of religious belief, logic often seems to be thrown out of the window. Dawkins makes it no secret that he is preaching to the choir. He just rejoices that it is a big choir.

Most people who read these books are delighted with them, not because they challenge pre-existing beliefs, but rather because they reinforce them. The books are read with all the delight of a believer reading Holy Writ. One can almost hear the Amens and Hallelujahs being shouted across atheist living rooms and media outlets.

In addition, whilst making some clear and reasonable criticisms of religion, criticisms which religious people have to face up to and indeed have been doing so for centuries, the New Atheist authors are able to get away with their sweeping generalizations, ad hominem arguments, and simplistic philosophy because they are largely appealing to people’s ignorance.

In a world where, thanks to Google and Wikipedia, everyone has instant “knowledge” to suit their own prejudices, it is easy for the wisdom of previous ages and of those who have studied and thought about these issues for many years, to be dismissed as irrelevant and meaningless. Thus our New Atheist writers are able to dismiss all theology as useless as a chocolate teapot.

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:
0

Dan DeWitt – Atheism and the Problem of Evil

gospel-evil02

What Is Good?

The biblical explanation of the cosmos is a theme emphasized in the opening verses of Genesis, where each day of creation is stamped with the words “it was good.” But can an unguided world governed by mere chance, as the atheistic worldview suggests, provide any sort of objective foundation or absolute definition of “good”?

If the world is a product of chance, is governed by nothing, and is heading nowhere, then how can we point to some overarching value of goodness? As the prominent atheistic ethicist Kai Nielsen once said, “We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view. . . . Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality.” And if we cannot get to the moral point of view from a purely scientific perspective, then how can an atheist use a moral point of view to reject the existence of God?

5 Minutes of Hell

Many atheists would disagree with Nielsen’s statement. But the real test is whether they can provide an objective foundation for the morality they defend. They may be hanging on—mid air, white-knuckled—to a value system that lacks any sort of real grounding. In this way, their values are entirely wishful thinking. How can there be personal good and evil in an impersonal universe of mere matter and energy? If the universe doesn’t care, then why do you?

Consider two scenes from recent history. In January 2014 a New York based Satanist group submitted a proposal to build a seven-foot statue of Satan at the state capitol of Oklahoma in protest of a monument of the Ten Commandments displayed there. [2] A spokesperson described the statue as a place of serenity and contemplation where children could sit and find inspiration. I doubt I’m the first to regard the mental picture of this scene as over-the-top creepy.

It should be noted, however, that most Satanists, like the group lobbying for the statue, don’t really believe in Satan. Most Satanists are actually atheistic in their outlook, disavowing any spiritual realm. In fact, the group’s spokesperson described Satan as a literary construct and made it clear they don’t believe in some actual embodiment of evil in the world. They are more or less a political group using Satan as an icon to express their desired secularism.

Now, consider another scene that took place a little over a year prior to the proposal for this statue. Only eleven days before Christmas, twenty children lost their lives at gunpoint in a small northeastern town. On the morning of December 14, 2012, at 9:35, a twenty-year-old man entered Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and went on a killing rampage before committing suicide at 9:40 a.m. In the five intervening minutes the horrors of hell were on full display in hallways and classrooms filled with teachers, administrators, and little sons and daughters whose parents would never hold them again, or tuck them in at night, or read them another bedtime story. Before these precious children left for school that morning, they likely had breakfast with their families in homes warmly decorated for the holidays. There were probably stockings hanging from the mantle and Christmas trees where gifts would never be opened. No one would have guessed that this day would end in bloodshed. Except for a young man who was busy finalizing his plans and loading his gun.

We all rightly call the act he committed “evil.” It was categorically evil. Psychobabble doesn’t capture our outrage. And even the most secular among us seem willing to adopt biblical terminology in the face of such an atrocity. Every fiber of our humanity screams “evil,” and for good reason. That’s why worldview discussions are not cute intellectual games. We are not playing around. We’re confronted with a real question, and it’s one every thinking person must consider at some point: What worldview can account for the human desire to classify certain actions as truly evil?

To go back to the capitol scenario, imagine if the group had succeeded in building its statue of Satan as a symbol of secularism next to the monument of the Ten Commandments. Two images, two contrasting worldviews. One monument representing a world free from religious explanations, and the other, a world ordered by a moral source. Which of the two gives the ethical framework needed to evaluate the events at Sandy Hook?

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:
0

Tony Breeden – What’s So Dangerous About… Merry CHRISTmas

“Have a Happy Holiday,” I said.

I had purposely avoided saying Merry CHRISTmas because I’ve been told that I am somehow shoving my religion down everyone’s throat ever time I say Merry CHRISTmas. And far be it from me to play havoc with the mercurial beliefs of those weak-willed enough to convert based on a simple greeting.

Honestly, I had no idea that such a sentiment could be so powerful. Did YOU know that wishing someone a Merry CHRISTmas would force them to convert to my faith? Did you know that acknowledging the existence of an officially recognized national holiday celebrated by the majority of a democratic nation would officially set up a Christian Theocracy?? Did you know that the mere mention of CHRISTmas would have such an effect? I am assured it is so.

Now, IF there are really folks out there who are so weak-willed that my wishing them a simple Merry CHRISTmas will actually “force my religion” on them, then perhaps I could remedy the situation by also wishing them a Happy Independence Day! Would such a greeting as that, reserved for patriotic sentiment, somehow engender an independent thought to help them stand resolute against this pernicious assault of contrary sentiments?

Far be it from ol’ Sirius to force someone to covert to my faith by such a simple, yet pernicious means. Though, honestly, if I’d known people were such willy nilly weak-willed sheep, I wouldn’t have wasted my time with such tedious methods as knocking on doors, passing out tracts, debating, preaching, reasoning or what-have-you: I would’ve simply sent more CHRISTmas Cards.

What is it about this little phrase, Merry CHRISTmas, that makes some guys so rabidly Christophobic, I wonder? Wishing one a Merry CHRISTmas does not force you to believe in God, angels, the Immaculate Conception or wise men, any more than it mandates belief in elves, flying reindeer, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, potentially falsifiable fictional characters in general or Tim Allen’s acting ability. It may give you the irrational urge to listen to Christmas music, sing carols or watch Christmas movies like National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation, How The Grinch Stole Christmas, It’s a Wonderful Life or Die Hard [my fave]. You may feel inclined to indulge in a drink of egg nog, a saccharine bit of candy cane or really show what a masochist you are and visit the relatives. The very mention of a Merry CHRISTmas greeting may even cause you to wish it would bloody snow already. But it will not force you to participate at all!

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:
0

Craig A. Parton – God Does Not Believe in Atheists

The current virulent strain of evangelical atheism does a disservice to many of the arguments of traditional atheism. I am thinking here of the latest efforts by the new Apostles of Atheism, Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), Sam Harris (Letter to a Christian Nation), and Christopher Hitchens (God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything). It certainly does not advance the atheist position to have a proponent like Dawkins rambling around the world arguing that if one raises a child to be “religious,” then one is basically raising them to be an axe murderer and/or a terrorist. Dawkins’ extremism alone has led renowned atheist Michael Ruse to confess that “The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist.” (1)

This article summarizes the arguments of traditional or “classical” atheism-i.e., atheism as it has been presented since the eighteenth-century Enlightenment. The articulation of these arguments also serves to cover the essential arguments of the new Apostles of Atheism, without the need for dealing with their hysteria from which even other atheists such as Ruse are beginning to distance themselves. Next, each argument is separately analyzed and found to be wanting in evidence and in logic. Finally, since one has hardly proved enough by ending at the existence of God if God has chosen to be silent, the importance of the case for God’s specific entrance into the human situation is put forth.

My vocation is one of a trial lawyer. The assertions of atheism-as well as the assertions that God is there and has not been silent-will, therefore, be implicitly tested by legal canons of evidence employed in law courts for almost a millennia as a means for arbitrating competing factual claims.

We only note in passing that God does not believe in atheists because, as pointed out by trial lawyer John Warwick Montgomery, in the end there really are no atheists and never have been in the history of the world. In fact, everybody has what Paul Tillich called an “ultimate concern,” something that gets first place in one’s life when the chips are down. That “ultimate concern” is that person’s religion, regardless of whether they formally consider themselves to be an atheist. More importantly, that ultimate concern is their god-whether it be their intellect and ability to reason logically, a girlfriend, a Ph.D., buffed abs, an Academy Award, a toy poodle, or season tickets to Green Bay Packers games.

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:
0

Calvin Smith – Sleeping With the Enemy

CMI has long pointed to the connection between atheism and evolutionary teaching. By definition all thinking atheists must believe in evolution of some sort (and its co-joined concept of millions of years of earth history) to explain their existence without a creator. F. Sherwood Taylor (former Curator of the Museum of the History of Science, Oxford) summarized his belief about his country’s general apostasy this way; ‘ … I myself have little doubt that in England it was [uniformitarian, long-ages] geology and the theory of evolution that changed us from a Christian to a pagan nation.’1

And as street preacher/evangelist Mark Cahill stated; “I think the real issue is if people know that evolution is true, they then know that the Bible would not be true and that then leads to the conclusion of atheism.”2 From their universities’ inner halls to their wide open streets, evolution’s effect on the western nations has been the same. The obvious implication is that if the Bible cannot be accepted as plainly read then why trust it at all?

Of late, some Christians have added a new slant to this by claiming it is Bible believing creationists that are actually the cause of people rejecting the Christian faith. The twist is this. They say that when Christians affirm a plain reading of the Bible and teach it to young people they are setting them up for apostasy. Why? They declare that once youngsters get older and learn ‘real science’ (which is often stated as millions of years and evolution) then they reject all of Christianity, not just the Genesis account.

Typical of this type of attack is Karl Giberson’s article in the Huffington Post titled; “Creationists Drive Young People Out Of The Church”.3 In it he cites studies by Barna pointing out the alarming defection of young people from the church and points to a tension between Christianity and science as a major culprit.

In his online Christianity Today article “Young Earth Creationism Makes Life Difficult for Everyone” author Rob Moll bashes biblical creationists and then quotes Stephen Moshier (department chair of Wheaton Christian College) saying; “Many of us at Christian colleges really grieve at what a problem this young-earth creationism makes for the Christian witness.”4

And these views are making inroads. CMI Canada’s ministry dept recently received an email communication from a supporter attending one of the largest churches in Western Canada who confessed his Senior Pastor had declared from the pulpit that biblical creationists are “ … responsible for the spiritual demise of millions of discouraged Canadian church youth … ” and that the literal biblical creation account is outdated and that those who hold to it “ … show disgusting pride”. (An interesting note is that this supporter is a physician with extensive training in zoology, psychology, theology and ancient history with earned degrees in all of these areas.)

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:
0