The fight against atheism.

There is a fight against atheists?

Atheism is hardly a worthy adversary. It is quite funny knowing that you are about to have a ''''serious''' discussion with someone whose belief's title insinuates there is no God. When not just some, but ALL the evidence that exists is proof of His existence.

The ONLY question is ''who is the real God?''. Time would be better spent helping Muslims or Hindu's imho. It is as though atheists are carryinga flag ''I am intentionally ignorant, arrogant and obstinate...now come have a serious discussion with me...... .
Anyway, good luck with your book! Hope you get the funds you need.

In my observations and discussions, I have concluded that people make a philisophical decision that there is no creator, and then use science to back it up.
In thier mind, they observe the state of the world and mankind with all its tragedy, crime, war, hatred, violence, death, and deduct that if there was a creator (a god) these things wouldn't be. Then they conclude that since there is no god, then science would back that up.

It does no good as far as I can tell, to use science to change their mind. In the end, their science neither confirms nor denies the existence of a creator.
However, logic says that the odds are infinitely higher that there is one than not. In my own meditation on this, I pondered what all of life has in common. I came up with a few things. All life consumes nourishment, grows, and reproduces. Therefore it is not enough that it may have emerged from some sort of primortal soup millions of years ago. These traits would have needed to be in play from the very beginning or the new life would have merely died and become extinct. So if the odds were not already millions to 1 that life could have happened by sheer chance, they would increase another tens of millions-fold that survival would have occured, given the requirements for it as I have pointed out.

Then we have this subject of evolution. Consider the odds. Millions of species of life, most of which science claims have yet to be discovered, have evolved? Plants, animals, insects, fish, birds, and innumerable scores of microscopic life...all from the same source? And how do they justify that this is so? They simply say it is just a matter of adding enough time into the equation. Notwithstanding that this is also apparently all a matter of chance as well, since it was not designed by an outside entity.

But if that is not incredible enough, then just listen to the t.v. programs on life and nature. Virtually every one of them demonstrate how a certain species evolved a certain trait that helps them adapt or survive in a certain envoirnment. That in itself implies a purpose. They hardly deny that, but rather insist that it is so. Justified by simply concluding that purpose itself has evolved from nothing, including intelligence and awareness.Be that as it may, evolution is said to be a matter of random mutation. This contradicts purpose. But purpose is still implied.

However, the one thing that puzzles me is if a certain species, such as those who have the ability to mimic their surroundings to blend in, evolved that trait in order to survive or catch prey, then given the fact that they also include the extended amount of time that evolution requires...how did the species cope or survive while waiting to evolve this trait that it apparently needed in order to cope or survive? Talk about a logic failure!

Forget it. The lack of logic that is required to accept evolution, and the ignoring of the mathimatical odds against it as well, requires one to be so obteuse that I can only surmise that these people are desperate beyond exaggeration, to refuse to accept that there might be intelligent design behind the emergence of life in the universe. Who in that state of mind is looking or open to having their mind changed?

williemac said:

However, logic says that the odds are infinitely higher that there is one than not. In my own meditation on this, I pondered what all of life has in common. I came up with a few things. All life consumes nourishment, grows, and reproduces. Therefore it is not enough that it may have emerged from some sort of primortal soup millions of years ago. These traits would have needed to be in play from the very beginning or the new life would have merely died and become extinct. So if the odds were not already millions to 1 that life could have happened by sheer chance, they would increase another tens of millions-fold that survival would have occured, given the requirements for it as I have pointed out.

Click to expand...

All you're doing here is invoking the "God of the Gaps" fallacy, which only plays right into the atheists' hands. I mean, what happens when scientists do discover a plausible pathway for the origin of life? If your argument is "no explanation = God", then logically "explanation = no God", right? Or were you expecting to have it both ways?

Then we have this subject of evolution. Consider the odds. Millions of species of life, most of which science claims have yet to be discovered, have evolved? Plants, animals, insects, fish, birds, and innumerable scores of microscopic life...all from the same source? And how do they justify that this is so? They simply say it is just a matter of adding enough time into the equation. Notwithstanding that this is also apparently all a matter of chance as well, since it was not designed by an outside entity.

Click to expand...

Now you're not only invoking another "God of the Gaps", you're also invoking a straw man of evolutionary biology. If you truly think "they simply say it's just a matter of adding enough time" is all there is to the field, then you're probably one of the people who need to not speak like an authority in a subject they know very little about.

But if that is not incredible enough, then just listen to the t.v. programs on life and nature. Virtually every one of them demonstrate how a certain species evolved a certain trait that helps them adapt or survive in a certain envoirnment. That in itself implies a purpose. They hardly deny that, but rather insist that it is so. Justified by simply concluding that purpose itself has evolved from nothing, including intelligence and awareness.Be that as it may, evolution is said to be a matter of random mutation. This contradicts purpose. But purpose is still implied.

Click to expand...

That's because if you study biology, it becomes pretty difficult to believe that God purposefully and intentionally created/designed all the bugs, pathogens, and parasites that inflict disease and have caused immense suffering over the course of history. If you argue that only God can create/design such complex organisms, then you also have to believe God deliberately created the malaria parasite with the express purpose of killing people.

However, the one thing that puzzles me is if a certain species, such as those who have the ability to mimic their surroundings to blend in, evolved that trait in order to survive or catch prey, then given the fact that they also include the extended amount of time that evolution requires...how did the species cope or survive while waiting to evolve this trait that it apparently needed in order to cope or survive? Talk about a logic failure!

Forget it. The lack of logic that is required to accept evolution, and the ignoring of the mathimatical odds against it as well, requires one to be so obteuse that I can only surmise that these people are desperate beyond exaggeration, to refuse to accept that there might be intelligent design behind the emergence of life in the universe. Who in that state of mind is looking or open to having their mind changed?

Click to expand...

Everything you've said in this post is exactly what atheists want Christians to say. They like to portray Christians as backwards, anti-science Luddites who not only don't know much about science, but don't have enough sense to leave it to the experts. And here you are, playing right into that narrative.

Thank you River Jordan for stating the obvious. This is precisely why I mention these things here. It is just a game with people. One cannot understand the thinking behind athiests without first understanding the story of transgression against God. The very first one was from Lucifer, who rejected his God given role and determined to take on the very role of God himself. This is the ultimate test of those who have free will. God gives grace to the humble and resists the proud. One cannot usually explain these things to a non believer, but in my observation many who use science to justify thier non belief are in a state of self confident intelligence, that is, intelligence that exalts itself against God and the knowledge of God, whether deliberately, subconsciously, or by default. I have seen comments on Facebook over and over from many athiests who think religious people are stupid. These are the ones who dont have enough sense and integrity to refrain from saying what most of them are really thinking....which is that if one is smart enough he will conclude there is no god. This is a matter of self exaltation, and we know that God resists the proud. The truth from the Spirit is not figured out by intelligence. It is revealed.

You are also playing into their hands if you think you can convince athiest scientists that God exists. The reason I say this is that they are biased. Science has checks and balances in place to prevent personal bias from interfering with the interpretation of data. But once the interpretation is made and the conclusion drawn, bias can easily enter in. As well, many have made a philosophical decision that there is no God, from their observation of the state of mankind and the world, as you have pointed out from your example of harmful insects and bacteria, etc. This is an interpretation of data that is ignorant of the state of a fallen world. It does not acknowledge the subject of free will and the current worldwide fruit of using it to reject God.

I would guess that most athiests have already made up thier mind before and apart from the use of science. Therefore I say that using science to persuade them likely misses the mark. With a few exceptions I suppose, they don't want God to exist. They are not open to having thier mind changed. This is a set up from the start. Your attempt may also be found to be playing into their hands. We all have our own version of proof of God. You have yours. I have revealed some of mine (notwithstanding my personal testimony). By and large, they are not actually asking for or looking for proof, but are up for the challenge of proving how smart they are. Unless you can find one who is genuinely open, you will find disappointment. Just a fair warning. We are dealing for the most part with spiritual blindness.

williemac said:

Thank you River Jordan for stating the obvious. This is precisely why I mention these things here. It is just a game with people. One cannot understand the thinking behind athiests without first understanding the story of transgression against God. The very first one was from Lucifer, who rejected his God given role and determined to take on the very role of God himself. This is the ultimate test of those who have free will. God gives grace to the humble and resists the proud. One cannot usually explain these things to a non believer, but in my observation many who use science to justify thier non belief are in a state of self confident intelligence, that is, intelligence that exalts itself against God and the knowledge of God, whether deliberately, subconsciously, or by default. I have seen comments on Facebook over and over from many athiests who think religious people are stupid. These are the ones who dont have enough sense and integrity to refrain from saying what most of them are really thinking....which is that if one is smart enough he will conclude there is no god. This is a matter of self exaltation, and we know that God resists the proud. The truth from the Spirit is not figured out by intelligence. It is revealed.

Click to expand...

You're welcome, and I think one of the reasons "Christians are stupid" is such a common theme among atheists is because the public face of Christianity is oftentimes things like the "Creation Museum", Ken Ham getting shredded by Bill Nye, Westboro Baptist Church, gay-haters, etc. Regular Christians just don't make the press I guess.

You are also playing into their hands if you think you can convince athiest scientists that God exists.

Click to expand...

Nope, don't think that. God is to be experienced, not proved like some math equation.

The reason I say this is that they are biased. Science has checks and balances in place to prevent personal bias from interfering with the interpretation of data. But once the interpretation is made and the conclusion drawn, bias can easily enter in. As well, many have made a philosophical decision that there is no God, from their observation of the state of mankind and the world, as you have pointed out from your example of harmful insects and bacteria, etc. This is an interpretation of data that is ignorant of the state of a fallen world. It does not acknowledge the subject of free will and the current worldwide fruit of using it to reject God.

Click to expand...

Don't forget that there are many theist and Christian scientists. The last thing we want is to play into stereotypes and end up ceding science to atheism. And the part about harmful pathogens is more about mechanisms. Simply put, if creationists are right and evolutionary mechanisms can't generate complex biological systems, and only God can do it, then logically God must have intentionally created the malaria parasite to kill millions of people. I don't think that's an argument we want to put forward.

I would guess that most athiests have already made up thier mind before and apart from the use of science. Therefore I say that using science to persuade them likely misses the mark. With a few exceptions I suppose, they don't want God to exist. They are not open to having thier mind changed. This is a set up from the start. Your attempt may also be found to be playing into their hands. We all have our own version of proof of God. You have yours. I have revealed some of mine (notwithstanding my personal testimony). By and large, they are not actually asking for or looking for proof, but are up for the challenge of proving how smart they are. Unless you can find one who is genuinely open, you will find disappointment. Just a fair warning. We are dealing for the most part with spiritual blindness.

Click to expand...

Thanks, but I really don't spend a lot of time trying to convince atheists of the existence of God. I don't have any sort of "proof" either.

River Jordan said:

You're welcome, and I think one of the reasons "Christians are stupid" is such a common theme among atheists is because the public face of Christianity is oftentimes things like the "Creation Museum", Ken Ham getting shredded by Bill Nye, Westboro Baptist Church, gay-haters, etc. Regular Christians just don't make the press I guess.


Nope, don't think that. God is to be experienced, not proved like some math equation.


Don't forget that there are many theist and Christian scientists. The last thing we want is to play into stereotypes and end up ceding science to atheism. And the part about harmful pathogens is more about mechanisms. Simply put, if creationists are right and evolutionary mechanisms can't generate complex biological systems, and only God can do it, then logically God must have intentionally created the malaria parasite to kill millions of people. I don't think that's an argument we want to put forward.


Thanks, but I really don't spend a lot of time trying to convince atheists of the existence of God. I don't have any sort of "proof" either.

Click to expand...

Sorry, on that last part, as I had you confused withthe author of the OP. As for God being the olny one who can generate complex biological systems, I addressed this in my mention of the fall of mankind. We are told that in the resurrection, the lion will lay down with the lamb. From this we can understand the likely original purposes in creation if we accept that this is language that signifies all living things arriving to a symbiosis where no harm is being done from one against another. As well, many creationists, especially in the scientific realm, believe in micro evolution. Simply put, there may well be programming in the dna of many organisism that allow for adaptation. And there is also evidence of mutation, albeit I doubt any mutation can be proven to be an improvement rather than something destructive. These can all be connected to the fallen state whereby the tree of life was removed from access. I believe what happened during that event was that the physical became seperated from what we call the spiritual realm, and the eventual resurrection is the time when the two realms will be reunited as one. In other words, things temporarily changed for the worse for a reason. Coupling this with the major changes brought about in the flood, there is a strong case that all forms of death and harm between and among life on earth are a result of opposition to God by His creation.

Can someone help me wrap my head around what is going on? What "trash" supposedly written by Richard Dawkins are we referring to? Some of Dawkin's work is beautiful as far as scientific research is concerned. However, I am aware of his religious prejudice and am curious what your work is all about. So if you can get that information to me somehow that is legal on this website it would be much appreciated. Thank you.

williemac said:

Sorry, on that last part, as I had you confused withthe author of the OP.

Click to expand...

No worries.

Simply put, there may well be programming in the dna of many organisism that allow for adaptation. And there is also evidence of mutation, albeit I doubt any mutation can be proven to be an improvement rather than something destructive.

Click to expand...

Actually, we know for a fact that mutations can improve fitness (because we've seen it happen, a lot).

These can all be connected to the fallen state whereby the tree of life was removed from access. I believe what happened during that event was that the physical became seperated from what we call the spiritual realm, and the eventual resurrection is the time when the two realms will be reunited as one. In other words, things temporarily changed for the worse for a reason. Coupling this with the major changes brought about in the flood, there is a strong case that all forms of death and harm between and among life on earth are a result of opposition to God by His creation.

Click to expand...

That's all a theological response to the question, which is fine, but I was focused on the specific scientific arguments made by some creationists. Namely, I was referring to the creationists who argue that evolutionary mechanisms (mutation and natural selection) just can't create complex biological systems. If that's true, then it leads to the obvious question....what does create complex biological systems? The same creationists tell us that a creator/intelligence is the only thing that could have, and they believe it to be God.

That's all fine and dandy when it comes to pretty and nice things like flower blooms and puppy dog tails, but what about things like the malaria parasite? The biological systems it utilizes to cause malaria are just as complex. So if only God can create biological complexity, that means God deliberately created the malaria parasite to kill people.

IMO, that's a very ugly and dangerous argument for Christians to make.

River Jordan said:

Actually, we know for a fact that mutations can improve fitness (because we've seen it happen, a lot).

Click to expand...

OK, so how many of these improvements can be ascribed exclusively to mutations, and thereby ruling out the possibility of inherant adaptation?

That's all fine and dandy when it comes to pretty and nice things like flower blooms and puppy dog tails, but what about things like the malaria parasite? The biological systems it utilizes to cause malaria are just as complex. So if only God can create biological complexity, that means God deliberately created the malaria parasite to kill people.

IMO, that's a very ugly and dangerous argument for Christians to make.

Click to expand...

Really? How many creationists are making the "dangerous argument" that malaria was specifically created by God in order to kill people.

You got any statistics you would like to share with us? Or are you just trying to defame creationists... as usual?

River Jordan said:

Actually, we know for a fact that mutations can improve fitness (because we've seen it happen, a lot).

Click to expand...

Maybe you might answer this: if science is based upon principles by which the universe is governed and regulated, which are simple truth that neither vary nor change over time but remain constant, then what principle can be establish from random mutations since random neither allows one to define the past or predict the future with any certainty since anything can happen, because it's random.

But I guess it goes to how one defines mutation. So the fact that children born near a chemical plant are born with genetic mutations, or rather genetic birth defects, that wouldn't implicate the chemical plant right of any possible culpability? Of course not since genetic mutation is a naturally occurring process ofgenetics as science has proven.

River Jordan said:

So if only God can create biological complexity, that means God deliberately created the malaria parasite to kill people.

IMO, that's a very ugly and dangerous argument for Christians to make.

Click to expand...

If biological complexity is the result of random events, and not the result of cause and effect, then that's a very ugly and dangerous precept for all humanity.

Proof of God said:

Hi guys
I hope I’m not out of line here with this. I’ve written a book called 'A Proof
of God' and two days ago fired it up on Kickstarter.

Click to expand...

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:44 yet in John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Heb 11:6

Then who is the Holy Ghost since it is written in Matthew 1:20
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David,
fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

And thus in John 8:42, it is written
Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

So in John 4:24, if God is a Spirit, then would not the Father would be Spirit?

And in 1 John 5:7 it is written;
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

There is no fight against atheism, as there really is no such thing as atheism. It is man's attempt to discredit God, and he CAN'T. Especially Dawkins and his followers. All they have is condescension and bigotry.
If God doesn't draw a man to Jesus or the man doesn't respond to God, then no manner of dialog will effect the outcome.

I have been sharing Abraham's faith with a few atheists.

Abraham did not have faith in God's existence. Abraham had faith in God. He had faith that this mighty and good God must have a real valid reason for asking him to do such a mad / evil action. There was a valid expectation of God's intervention.

Arguments atheists raise on the goodness of our God are worthwhile discussions as God wants us to know that He is good Eph 3:19, Psalm 136:1. But discussions on God's existence / burden of proof is on the theist is really just 100% ignorant / dumb. They stated that using their amazing mind. The amazing mind is kept alive by an amazing heart. The amazing heart is kept alive by a miracle of life. Complexity and life = Creator not limited by laws of physics = dead obvious.

I like Isaac Newton's quotes “He who thinks half-heartedly will not believe in God; but he who really thinks has to believe in God.”

UppsalaDragby said:

OK, so how many of these improvements can be ascribed exclusively to mutations, and thereby ruling out the possibility of inherant adaptation?

Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't have a number for you.

Really? How many creationists are making the "dangerous argument" that malaria was specifically created by God in order to kill people.

Click to expand...

The one I immediately think of is ID creationist Michael Behe, who argued in his book The Edge of Evolution (pg. 237), "Here’s something to ponder long and hard: Malaria was intentionally designed. The molecular machinery with which the parasite invades red blood cells is an exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts. C-Eve’s children died in her arms partly because an intelligent agent deliberately made malaria, or at least something very similar to it."

That was the source for a lot of mocking and howling from the scientific community (at least among those who pay attention to creationism).

Forsakenone said:

Maybe you might answer this: if science is based upon principles by which the universe is governed and regulated, which are simple truth that neither vary nor change over time but remain constant, then what principle can be establish from random mutations since random neither allows one to define the past or predict the future with any certainty since anything can happen, because it's random.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I really don't understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that you believe God directs all mutations?

But I guess it goes to how one defines mutation.

Click to expand...

A mutation is just a permanent change in DNA.

So the fact that children born near a chemical plant are born with genetic mutations, or rather genetic birth defects, that wouldn't implicate the chemical plant right of any possible culpability? Of course not since genetic mutation is a naturally occurring process ofgenetics as science has proven.

Click to expand...

No, that doesn't make any sense. That's like saying since rocks fall off cliffs at random times, me knowingly pushing a rock onto a person and killing them therefore isn't murder, since rocks falling on people is a natural occurrence.

If biological complexity is the result of random events, and not the result of cause and effect, then that's a very ugly and dangerous precept for all humanity.

Click to expand...

Random and cause and effect are not mutually exclusive.

Look, we know for a fact that mutations happen (you, me, and everyone else here has 100-200 of 'em). We know for a fact that most of them have little to no effect. We know for a fact that some have negative effects to fitness, and some have positive effects to fitness. And as far as we can tell, these mutations occur randomly. Now, "randomly" doesn't mean "has no cause"; rather, it just means "can't be predicted". So really there's no need to debate things that we know are true because we see them happen with our own eyes.

River Jordan said:

Sorry, I don't have a number for you.

Click to expand...

Do you have a number for anyone? A rough estimate? .... Anything?

I think we are getting away from the OP. Lets bring it back around

Born_Again said:

I think we are getting away from the OP. Lets bring it back around

Click to expand...

I went to a popular bookstore looking for a book on chemistry. I was shocked to see around 30% of the books in the science section were on atheism. The God delusion was sitting next to Einstein . So I guess the course of this thread is excusable.

UppsalaDragby said:

Do you have a number for anyone? A rough estimate? .... Anything?

Click to expand...

Nope.

River Jordan said:

Nope.

Click to expand...

Thought so..