Richard Dawkins is the arch atheist, but he has plenty to say. He wrote books satirizing God and the supernatural. He even quotes the Bible to "disprove" it. He must have read 2.Timothy 3:16: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God...". All these entrenched atheists deliberately ignore the symbiotic interdependence of terrestrial life forms. All this had to come into existence all at once in order to function. Here we have evidence of an extradimensional, super-intelligent mastermind with unlimited creative powers. The entire universe is really a product of the ultimate reality and is controlled by that reality. Human history is controlled with an iron fist "from above"! Alexander, the Greek conqueror, was shown the ancient writings of Daniel the prophet, predicting a Greek conqueror would become master of Egypt. He was well disposed towards the Jews for that good news. But they didn't tell him of Alexander's predicted early death at the height of his power. He was 33 and died in Babylon.- - - - -
"The fool say in his heart 'There is no God'. (Psalm 14:1) -- Inspired scripture!
Quotes from the Bible are not proof positive of Gods existence.
The Bible is a book written by man for man translated from the original ancient languages, not contemporaneous with the events, pieced together from hearsay well after the events, interpreted for a multitude of different languages, amended and rewritten to suit different nationalities and King James Some 50 years after the first English version to suit himself, modernised, until today we have some 3000 odd versions in some 2000 odd different language but no actual proof that the Biblical God exists.
There is so much proof that God exists. All creation points to the existence of a Creator. We have consciousness - where did that come from if not from God? The sheer detail in every aspect of the human body and in the world around us show unlimited creativity and genius. We experience love! Surely this is a gift from God.
If anyone reading this post is either an atheist or has difficulty in believing in the God of the Bible may I urge you to watch a U tube video called "23 minutes in hell" by a committed Christian called Bill Wiese. His terrifying experience gives a very clear picture of what Jesus came to save us from. If I can finish by saying what most of you already know that when we take a step of faith, repent of our sins and ask Jesus to please come and be Lord of our life, then we are saved and the proof comes afterwards in many different ways and circumstances.
On the one hand “we are free to do whatever we wish” and on the other hand “DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”
I might remind those disposed to atheism that they believe that there is no such thing as free will. According to their gospel, every person’s responses and actions are predestined purely by their genetic makeup, modified by the circumstances in which they find themselves.
There is therefore no part of you capable of making a free choice that is not defined by those predetermined parameters.
Within the predetermined framework of human history, we humans are still independent, free moral agencies. We must decide to do right or wrong, good or evil. But we must come to the true knowledge of what is right and what is wrong. And it is the God of creation who defines that. When human authorities declare their ideas of good and evil, disaster results.
In one sense I agree. What is right and wrong is defined external to us, not within us.
But there is another element I want to consider regarding the decision about what is right and wrong.
It was the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil that actually separated man from God (instead of making man "like God", as the lying devil promised). In our hands, knowledge of good and evil results in judgement, separation and division, very unlike God.
Jesus sorted it out when He was asked. Love God with all your heart, mind and soul strength, and love your neighbour as yourself. That summarises the whole thing. If that motivates you, the struggles associated with knowing good and evil fall away.
Clearly mankind is beset by men who do not love God or others in this way. And by others whose ideas of God are flawed. But Christianity as Jesus defined it (not as we define it) is such that if the WHOLE WORLD behaved in that way, it would be a better place. And as Christians, the injunction is to love. That's how they will know you are Christian. Love is to supersede our knowledge of good and evil.
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”
Atheist, agnostic, nonbeliever or believer are just titles and may form the basis for each type of person but each individual is entitled to their own respective choices.
I’m a realist and as a former Detective Senior Sergeant of The Australian Federal Police with over twenty years experience, I look for facts which can withstand the level of ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ and I believe that standard of proof does not exist when it comes to the Biblical God.
I’m not even sure that the lesser standard ‘on the balance of probabilities’ could be justified.
That is my opinion and if it is different to yours, it doesn’t make me immoral in any way shape or form.
I don’t see that I need to believe in God to be a moral person. Obeying the laws of the land is a must (even though sometimes the law is an ass) and I have an inbuilt moral compass plus a wife who would give me the rounds of the table if I ever acted or thought immorally.
Obeying the law of the land has nothing to do with being moral. Mao's communist party members deliberately murdered 70 million people to obey their ideology; about 25 million by violence and 45 million by following Maos stupid policies that starved them to death. Hitlers followers obeyed German law to start a war that killed 60 million, including millions of Poles, gypsies and other lesser sub humans like Jews and the mentally and physically retarded in concentration camps. Stalin made the laws in the USSR and murdered 65 million plus under his laws.
These murders are not moral to Christians who follow Gods teaching that each life comes as a gift from Him and that individual lives are valuable.
Mao, Stalin and Hitler were all behaving morally under your definition of moral behaviour as they wanted power, believed they had the right and were simply exterminating their class enemies and so were behaving morally and within their laws.
The Hindu priests of Khali sacrificed a 10 or 12 year old boy each week at their temples until Christian British missionaries stopped them. Amy Carmichael, another British Christian missionary was repeatedly locked up in jail by police for disturbing the peace, because she stole the 4 to 6 year old girls that had been sold to Hindu temples by their poor parents to be used by male worshippers as temple prostitutes.The Hindus were obeying their laws but that doesn't make them moral.
In lots of countries the natives practised canabalism including Australia, New Zealand and Fiji. Their law allowed this. Was it moral? even though allowed by custom and widely practised. Canabolism was still being practised in central Aust in 2000, the year of the Sydney Olympics.
As a retired policeman you clearly failed your education as you served in a Christian country where all the original laws were clearly based on the bibles laws even down to the need for witnesses and proof and an honest Judge before anyone could be punished for an alleged crime. Our whole legal system and common law is loosely based on biblical law, way back to Alfred the Great 899 AD and even before him to an English king who lived about the time of Abraham , approx 1990 BC. God tells us that he has given us a conscience, has given us a universe and his written word so that man is without excuse.
You may not need to believe in God to be a moral person but where did you get your values from? You may approve of murdering unborn babies but that doesn't make abortion moral for Christians even though it is now legal.
I stand by my comment in relation to obeying the law as part of my morality, as it relates to me, as does my moral compass which defines right from wrong. I don’t know or care where my values come from, I know I am comfortable with them.
You are drawing a long bow by comparing Mao, Hitler et al and their laws to life and laws today in Australia.
I certainly don’t need you to lecture me on where our laws were derived even though you accuse me of clearly failing my education and I can sense your anger when you accuse me of approving the murder of unborn babies, as a blanket statement.
You may not approve of me and my opinions but I am what I am with no excuses.
Thankyou. I am especially worried by your comment that obeying the law in Aust is part of being moral, as if our law can decide or guide what is moral.
What happens when the law is changed, even reversed. Example _ is paedophilia of adult homosexual men preying on teenage boys right or wrong? If your values were that it is wrong then what would have happened if it had been changed as it very nearly did in NSW a few years ago. The Labor party and the ABC ran a big campaign over many months to abolish this archaic law so that homesexual men could practice boy love. The ABC to support changes to the law a few days before the vote in parliament played an interview with a homo man who said that 25% of active homosexual men were currently having sex with teenage boys so the law should be changed to reflect what was happening.
The law was approved by 1 house but very narrowly defeated in the upper house by the Libs/ Nats and the deciding votes were Rev Fed Nile and his other vote plus Labor senator Franca Arena who crossed the floor for the 1st time in her 18 years in parliament . By 1 vote paedophilia was still a crime. The Labor senator was disendorsed at the next election by her party for crossing the floor to vote against the changes and disobeying her party.
Something is either morally right or wrong but the values can't come from the govt as this example and Mao, Hitler, Hindu's shows.
Christians say we accept values that come from God our creator not from other men who are as sinful as we are.
That God made a universe that is too vast and complicated to have happened by chance. The fact we still teach such stupidities as evolution and the big bang theories in schools, even though both are scientifically impossible says more about many people wanting to ignore the implications of having to accept that a creator God exists and somehow we need to respond to Him.
I did say that sometimes the law is an ass, and I should add into that, also the people who make laws as you so rightly gave a good example of.
At least in that case, which I was not aware of, thankfully the law was not passed but it does highlight the type of people who govern us.
However, we need law and order otherwise we have anarchy and with that there would be no morals with people doing whatever they pleased. So in my mind morals go hand in hand with laws of the land although it is not singular and personal values must be taken into consideration.
Harking back to the above case, had the law been passed it would have been a very good test of morals within the community to see if there would have been sufficient hue and cry to have it repealed.
In your reference to God as creator of the universe, this is where my doubts arise. I do believe there was a creator but my question is, was it the Biblical God as portrayed and revered as the knows everything, sees everything entity but has never been seen?
I’m yet to see any hard evidence of real existence to justify the faith people have.
I think it takes far more faith to be an atheist and believe we came from nothing than to have faith in Creator God, the eternally existant one. They should never celebrate Christmas but they do have one day a year for their atheism - April 1st
Thank you for a most spiritually uplifting, thought provoking and beautifully composed critique. You have provided succour in a time of darkness. Bless you.
There is so much beauty in the world, natural and man-made. There is a grand design at play. I just can't ponder this and see it as a random thing. There is something lurking behind it all.
In fact the atheist only believes in him or her self and uses the atheism as a license to indulge themselves.
In a sense it is a meaningless term because they have eternity in their hearts and if they find creation ‘transcendent’ then there is a spark of belief in something, even if it is only in their ability to appreciate creation.
I know this comment is late in the debate! I hesitated at first, then I saw Jim's comment and it was so fitting to the content of the article.
Every prudent man dealeth with knowledge: but a fool layeth open his folly.
Cheers
Great article James! Thought provoking and very agreeable.
A fascinating experience to read the ensuing comments and conversation.
Thanks Phil. Glad you're enjoying. Have a great week.
Richard Dawkins is the arch atheist, but he has plenty to say. He wrote books satirizing God and the supernatural. He even quotes the Bible to "disprove" it. He must have read 2.Timothy 3:16: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God...". All these entrenched atheists deliberately ignore the symbiotic interdependence of terrestrial life forms. All this had to come into existence all at once in order to function. Here we have evidence of an extradimensional, super-intelligent mastermind with unlimited creative powers. The entire universe is really a product of the ultimate reality and is controlled by that reality. Human history is controlled with an iron fist "from above"! Alexander, the Greek conqueror, was shown the ancient writings of Daniel the prophet, predicting a Greek conqueror would become master of Egypt. He was well disposed towards the Jews for that good news. But they didn't tell him of Alexander's predicted early death at the height of his power. He was 33 and died in Babylon.- - - - -
"The fool say in his heart 'There is no God'. (Psalm 14:1) -- Inspired scripture!
Quotes from the Bible are not proof positive of Gods existence.
The Bible is a book written by man for man translated from the original ancient languages, not contemporaneous with the events, pieced together from hearsay well after the events, interpreted for a multitude of different languages, amended and rewritten to suit different nationalities and King James Some 50 years after the first English version to suit himself, modernised, until today we have some 3000 odd versions in some 2000 odd different language but no actual proof that the Biblical God exists.
Hi Jim,
There is so much proof that God exists. All creation points to the existence of a Creator. We have consciousness - where did that come from if not from God? The sheer detail in every aspect of the human body and in the world around us show unlimited creativity and genius. We experience love! Surely this is a gift from God.
If anyone reading this post is either an atheist or has difficulty in believing in the God of the Bible may I urge you to watch a U tube video called "23 minutes in hell" by a committed Christian called Bill Wiese. His terrifying experience gives a very clear picture of what Jesus came to save us from. If I can finish by saying what most of you already know that when we take a step of faith, repent of our sins and ask Jesus to please come and be Lord of our life, then we are saved and the proof comes afterwards in many different ways and circumstances.
Yeah Anne, the supernatural is always airily dismissed by hard-nosed "rationalists".
What a great and fantastic article !!
What a fascinating topic that raised my level of excitement as I love listening to, reading and debating about this topic.
Religion, beliefs, values, history, and each individuals belief systems and world views.
Now that is cognitive dissonance!
On the one hand “we are free to do whatever we wish” and on the other hand “DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”
I might remind those disposed to atheism that they believe that there is no such thing as free will. According to their gospel, every person’s responses and actions are predestined purely by their genetic makeup, modified by the circumstances in which they find themselves.
There is therefore no part of you capable of making a free choice that is not defined by those predetermined parameters.
Within the predetermined framework of human history, we humans are still independent, free moral agencies. We must decide to do right or wrong, good or evil. But we must come to the true knowledge of what is right and what is wrong. And it is the God of creation who defines that. When human authorities declare their ideas of good and evil, disaster results.
In one sense I agree. What is right and wrong is defined external to us, not within us.
But there is another element I want to consider regarding the decision about what is right and wrong.
It was the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil that actually separated man from God (instead of making man "like God", as the lying devil promised). In our hands, knowledge of good and evil results in judgement, separation and division, very unlike God.
Jesus sorted it out when He was asked. Love God with all your heart, mind and soul strength, and love your neighbour as yourself. That summarises the whole thing. If that motivates you, the struggles associated with knowing good and evil fall away.
Clearly mankind is beset by men who do not love God or others in this way. And by others whose ideas of God are flawed. But Christianity as Jesus defined it (not as we define it) is such that if the WHOLE WORLD behaved in that way, it would be a better place. And as Christians, the injunction is to love. That's how they will know you are Christian. Love is to supersede our knowledge of good and evil.
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”
Romans 1:20
Tell that to the atheists!
Atheist, agnostic, nonbeliever or believer are just titles and may form the basis for each type of person but each individual is entitled to their own respective choices.
I’m a realist and as a former Detective Senior Sergeant of The Australian Federal Police with over twenty years experience, I look for facts which can withstand the level of ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ and I believe that standard of proof does not exist when it comes to the Biblical God.
I’m not even sure that the lesser standard ‘on the balance of probabilities’ could be justified.
That is my opinion and if it is different to yours, it doesn’t make me immoral in any way shape or form.
On what basis do you define "immoral" if God does not exist Jim?
I don’t see that I need to believe in God to be a moral person. Obeying the laws of the land is a must (even though sometimes the law is an ass) and I have an inbuilt moral compass plus a wife who would give me the rounds of the table if I ever acted or thought immorally.
Obeying the law of the land has nothing to do with being moral. Mao's communist party members deliberately murdered 70 million people to obey their ideology; about 25 million by violence and 45 million by following Maos stupid policies that starved them to death. Hitlers followers obeyed German law to start a war that killed 60 million, including millions of Poles, gypsies and other lesser sub humans like Jews and the mentally and physically retarded in concentration camps. Stalin made the laws in the USSR and murdered 65 million plus under his laws.
These murders are not moral to Christians who follow Gods teaching that each life comes as a gift from Him and that individual lives are valuable.
Mao, Stalin and Hitler were all behaving morally under your definition of moral behaviour as they wanted power, believed they had the right and were simply exterminating their class enemies and so were behaving morally and within their laws.
The Hindu priests of Khali sacrificed a 10 or 12 year old boy each week at their temples until Christian British missionaries stopped them. Amy Carmichael, another British Christian missionary was repeatedly locked up in jail by police for disturbing the peace, because she stole the 4 to 6 year old girls that had been sold to Hindu temples by their poor parents to be used by male worshippers as temple prostitutes.The Hindus were obeying their laws but that doesn't make them moral.
In lots of countries the natives practised canabalism including Australia, New Zealand and Fiji. Their law allowed this. Was it moral? even though allowed by custom and widely practised. Canabolism was still being practised in central Aust in 2000, the year of the Sydney Olympics.
As a retired policeman you clearly failed your education as you served in a Christian country where all the original laws were clearly based on the bibles laws even down to the need for witnesses and proof and an honest Judge before anyone could be punished for an alleged crime. Our whole legal system and common law is loosely based on biblical law, way back to Alfred the Great 899 AD and even before him to an English king who lived about the time of Abraham , approx 1990 BC. God tells us that he has given us a conscience, has given us a universe and his written word so that man is without excuse.
You may not need to believe in God to be a moral person but where did you get your values from? You may approve of murdering unborn babies but that doesn't make abortion moral for Christians even though it is now legal.
I stand by my comment in relation to obeying the law as part of my morality, as it relates to me, as does my moral compass which defines right from wrong. I don’t know or care where my values come from, I know I am comfortable with them.
You are drawing a long bow by comparing Mao, Hitler et al and their laws to life and laws today in Australia.
I certainly don’t need you to lecture me on where our laws were derived even though you accuse me of clearly failing my education and I can sense your anger when you accuse me of approving the murder of unborn babies, as a blanket statement.
You may not approve of me and my opinions but I am what I am with no excuses.
Thankyou. I am especially worried by your comment that obeying the law in Aust is part of being moral, as if our law can decide or guide what is moral.
What happens when the law is changed, even reversed. Example _ is paedophilia of adult homosexual men preying on teenage boys right or wrong? If your values were that it is wrong then what would have happened if it had been changed as it very nearly did in NSW a few years ago. The Labor party and the ABC ran a big campaign over many months to abolish this archaic law so that homesexual men could practice boy love. The ABC to support changes to the law a few days before the vote in parliament played an interview with a homo man who said that 25% of active homosexual men were currently having sex with teenage boys so the law should be changed to reflect what was happening.
The law was approved by 1 house but very narrowly defeated in the upper house by the Libs/ Nats and the deciding votes were Rev Fed Nile and his other vote plus Labor senator Franca Arena who crossed the floor for the 1st time in her 18 years in parliament . By 1 vote paedophilia was still a crime. The Labor senator was disendorsed at the next election by her party for crossing the floor to vote against the changes and disobeying her party.
Something is either morally right or wrong but the values can't come from the govt as this example and Mao, Hitler, Hindu's shows.
Christians say we accept values that come from God our creator not from other men who are as sinful as we are.
That God made a universe that is too vast and complicated to have happened by chance. The fact we still teach such stupidities as evolution and the big bang theories in schools, even though both are scientifically impossible says more about many people wanting to ignore the implications of having to accept that a creator God exists and somehow we need to respond to Him.
I did say that sometimes the law is an ass, and I should add into that, also the people who make laws as you so rightly gave a good example of.
At least in that case, which I was not aware of, thankfully the law was not passed but it does highlight the type of people who govern us.
However, we need law and order otherwise we have anarchy and with that there would be no morals with people doing whatever they pleased. So in my mind morals go hand in hand with laws of the land although it is not singular and personal values must be taken into consideration.
Harking back to the above case, had the law been passed it would have been a very good test of morals within the community to see if there would have been sufficient hue and cry to have it repealed.
In your reference to God as creator of the universe, this is where my doubts arise. I do believe there was a creator but my question is, was it the Biblical God as portrayed and revered as the knows everything, sees everything entity but has never been seen?
I’m yet to see any hard evidence of real existence to justify the faith people have.
Atheists can be moral or immoral; believers in God (the God of the Bible) can be moral or immoral. It is a matter of character.
I think it takes far more faith to be an atheist and believe we came from nothing than to have faith in Creator God, the eternally existant one. They should never celebrate Christmas but they do have one day a year for their atheism - April 1st
Very well written, James.
The fact that one must try so darn hard day in & day out not to believe in something would suggest there is in fact something better out there.
Exactly. It must be so much effort being an atheist - continually trying to convince yourself of something that you know deep inside to be a lie.
Thank you for a most spiritually uplifting, thought provoking and beautifully composed critique. You have provided succour in a time of darkness. Bless you.
There is so much beauty in the world, natural and man-made. There is a grand design at play. I just can't ponder this and see it as a random thing. There is something lurking behind it all.
Even 'Blind Freddy' can tap that out with his white stick.
In fact the atheist only believes in him or her self and uses the atheism as a license to indulge themselves.
In a sense it is a meaningless term because they have eternity in their hearts and if they find creation ‘transcendent’ then there is a spark of belief in something, even if it is only in their ability to appreciate creation.