Signs on buses glorifying a good man by the name of Charles Darwin have shown up recently in the UK. And recently, some billboards have show up in the US also glorifying Charlie. Even though he was wrong 150 years ago in his assessment of the Origin Of The Species, who’s proper title is “On The Origin Of Species”. There are many around the world who look on his works as flawless, which is incorrect and even some modern scientists say so!
In their comments on my articles, many have complained about my Evangelical assessment of Darwin’s book. Many have ridiculed God as nothing more than a fantasy of the socially sick and demented. Many (and I believe them to be Atheists) have told me that my belief in God, Jesus Christ and the Holy spirit is just plain childish. Regarding this issue, I have also been called a Bible thumping redneck, an idiot, jerk and other similarly beloved names.
The problem as I see it is that Atheists seem to have a great deal of passion about …ah…ah…um……nothing. You got it, they have a passion for nothing. They don’t believe in God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, Heaven or Hell! So what do they believe in………nothing, that’s what.
Their passion for promoting their beloved Atheism is misplaced, and actually it’s a false passion. How do I come by this conclusion you ask? All one has to do is to read Atheist literature, listen to one speak, or simply have a discussion with an Atheist and you will soon find out that on the subject of Christianity, they defend their beloved Atheism so passionately that they actually make Christianity sound great because Christianity has a real foundation, Atheism has no foundation other than “they don’t believe”, and oh yeah, Darwin!
There is nothing to defend in Atheism. Why? Because there is nothing to believe in! It’s very difficult to defend something that has no real roots except the roots of denial. Recently in another article, I made a joke about Atheists worshiping the ACLU; some who commented on the article were incensed because they failed to pick up on the joke. But in actuality, groups like the “Freedom From Religion Foundation” and other similar groups look upon the ACLU as their legal messiah (small m). The ACLU will defend the Atheist’s rights to the hilt, but only in a few dozen cases over the decades have they ever defended Christian rights, and I believe that it's only been done for appearances.
Now there was a time that I did believe in Santa Clause, but as I grew older, I realized that Santa had no foundation; so I gave up on that “lost Clause”. But Christianity has a foundation. The foundation is called the Bible, or the Good Book, the divinely inspired infallible Word of God! In the Bible there are many ‘seemingly’ extraordinary events and occurrences. So many in fact, that one who’s faith is not strong, or has never researched Christianity may be swayed to believe the Atheist viewpoint. However, Archeology has over the last few decades proved many of the events, cities, churches, and people that are mentioned in the Bible. Now that’s a ‘Solid Rock’ foundation I'll stand on, all other ground is ‘sinking sand’.
Comments
RE: ALEX;
Please re-read your comment then you will understand why some comments get deleted.
Let the other commentators to come be the judge of that... ok the below restated for the thick who can not understand metaphore: Atheism describes absense of belief in transcendant undefeatable authority. This is a lack of belief and thus is itself a belief in nothing. However individual atheists, like myself DO have beliefs, in my case 1) the inherently emergent nature of the universe that leads to exponentially increasing beauty with further study 2) the limitless potential of human progress battling against the active force of ignorance. One thing you miss is that us atheists can have our own night language as well.
"...and even some modern scientists say so."
But the fact that MOST modern scientists think those scientists are completely out of their minds means nothing to you, huh?
Also, you have a very peculiar standard of what makes a rock solid foundation. You would think that description would be reserved for something that was actually historical (it takes more than the use of real names & places to qualify for that title) or remotely plausible, or even non-contradictory.
Let the other commentators to come be the judge of that... ok the below restated for the thick who can not understand metaphore: Atheism describes absense of belief in transcendant undefeatable authority. This is a lack of belief and thus is itself a belief in nothing. However individual atheists, like myself DO have beliefs, in my case 1) the inherently emergent nature of the universe that leads to exponentially increasing beauty with further study 2) the limitless potential of human progress battling against the active force of ignorance. One thing you miss is that us atheists can have our own night language as well.
Jackey Clown seems to believe in Nothing as well.
Nothing to support his claims.
Nothing to substantiate his misquided views.
Nothing worth reading except the mindless regurgitation of a FOX News, World Net Daily, Michelle Malkin, National Review online, TownHall Daily.
Nothing but a old punch & judy evangelical trying to hold on to what little mind he has left.
Nothing but fairy tales, fantasy, and romantic spiritualism.
Nothing that any atheist couldn't tear apart in 2 seconds.
If you're going to waste our time reading your BS you might as well at least try to back up every claim you make no matter how juvenile, or silly they may be.
I saw inherit the wind Jackey Clown, and you're no William Jennings Bryan.
<i>The foundation is called the Bible, or the Good Book, the divinely inspired infallible Word of God! </i>
Wrong. The foundation is an increasingly convoluted theology that evolved about the Christ phenomenon, after Jesus' death and the split from Judaism after the fall of Jerusalem in AD70.
But don't let a bit of real history get in the way of your bibliolatry.
Please understand that Darwin's work was published 150 years ago and science has moved forward in huge leaps since then. Biologists who say that evolution is real do not hold to Darwin's original ideas. They have revised and in many cases even replaced his ideas with newer findings in evolutionary science. Darwin is viewed as having laid the original framework -- in the same way that relativity has replaced much of Newton's original work, Newton is still widely respected in the world of physics.
Jeff Mark
Also, archeology and history has verified the secular parts of the Bible (e.g. who was in power when, etc.) but has not verified the supernatural aspects of the Bible. Show me the research and I'll say I'm wrong.
Jeff Mark
I imagine the reaction is because many people insult atheists without truly understanding their viewpoint or opinions. It's a little offensive to be called amoral, especially when there is already a good discussion on morality, and I would even say many atheists are more moral than Christians.
Atheists are denigrated in society--they are not respected, so it should not be surprising they find the need to stand up for themselves lest they be swept away. I don't believe you can have a frame of reference, Jake, because Christianity has held such a privileged position in this country for centuries. You might think you're being persecuted now, but it's honestly laughable compared to the actions done by the Church in the past.
And believe in nothing? Come on. Talk to an atheist (Try Trina Hoaks, Atheist Examiner if you wish) and actually see what they believe. I find that statement far from the truth...you just can't see how there might be something without God.
It might not be the most cheerful rendition, but we long ago gave up on the ideas of Santa Claus because of how they made us feel.
Dear Jake: It might interest you to know that my legal name is Santa Claus. I'm a Christian Monk and full-time advocate for the 2 million children in our great nation annually who are abused, neglected, exploited, abandoned, homeless, and institutionalized through no fault of their own. I believe that Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Christ, not the crass, commercial, secular spectacle it has become in many places, and that that greatest gift one can give is love, not presents. I do not appreciate your gratuitous reference to me as a "Lost" Claus. In the seminary I graduated from, it was made very clear that God tells us we are to love God and one another and are not to judge one another. Amen. Blessings to all, Santa Claus (www.TheSantaClausFoundation dot org)
What a pathetic rant, coming from someone who by his own admission doesn't even believe in Santa Claus, EVEN THOUGH biological evidence confirms the existence of reindeer. If you don't believe in elves, flying sleighs and fat men squeezing down chimneys, what do you believe in... nothing, that's what! And without a belief in Santa, that benevolent being who knows if you've been bad or good, there can be no basis for morality. Condemned out of your own mouth, you asantaist monster!
Lumping Atheists together in one group is like lumping all Christians together. There are Christians who are so full of hate that they bear little resemblance to the simple, loving grace for all people that was Jesus' core message. There are Atheists who show their love for all and feed the hungry and care for those whom the world has beaten down. Some Atheists do so much good in the world that they are like living saints.
Look at the parable of the good Samaritan. Just replace Samaritan with the name of any group you happen to think is evil. The Samaritans were universally reviled by the people of Jesus' time and his point was that there are good and bad in any group and that none should be condemned simply for their beliefs or heritage.
AC - Actually, lumping all atheists together is more like lumping all theists together. Christians are enough of a mixed bag as it is, but for it to be a truly fair comparison we would also have to include all varieties of Muslims, Shintoists, cargo cults, etc.
If you are going to correct the masses on the title of Darwin's book you should get it right. It is titled "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". That being said, of course Darwin was "wrong". He was wrong from the standpoint that he did not get it all right. Imagine that, the first guy to put pen to paper on the most important discovery of all time and he did not get everything right. Creationists will always hold tight to the fact that Darwin did not get everything right, but science is about consensus and consensus is that Darwin pretty much got it right. Biological and anthropological discoveries over the last 150 years have done nothing but confirm that evolution has occurred and is occurring. Scientist may argue over the finer points but evolution is not in dispute. Let me repeat "evolution is not in dispute". Denial of this just makes you look silly.
The only sentence in this whole rant that is accurate is "There are many around the world who look on his works as flawless, which is incorrect and even some modern scientists say so!" Show me a book that is flawless. We understand more about evolution now then we did when Darwin first wrote about the process and for such a important idea it was surprisingly lacking in flaws.
Compared to most brands of christianity, the evangelical movement in the US is still a toddler suffering from "terrible two's" syndrome. The Catholic Church, one of the oldest christian belief systems, who has in its time been responsible for more attempts to discredit any scientific revelation that threatened their stranglehold on humanity, has over time become resigned to accepting the facts science presents to them. This year, the Catholic Church is celebrating Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday and has officially endorsed evolution as a theory that is scientifically sound. I hope we don't have to wait centuries for the evangelists to grow up.
For more on the Catholic church & Darwin;
h**p://daily.swarthmore.edu/2009/2/19/gilbert-vatican/
h**p://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Subverse/Oh_God_its_Darwin/articleshow/4145143.cms
h**p://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4588289/The-Vatican-claims-Darwins-theory-of-evolution-is-compatible-with-Christianity.html
Since your posts have been coming up in my Google alerts on atheism, I have seen four articles from you that do nothing but insult, demean, or caricature atheists. You wonder why some atheists call you names and call your beliefs childish?
You say that archaeology is proving the Bible, but when I did my research on the Bible that led to my atheism, I searched for extrabiblical evidence to support the testable portions, and came up empty--and even found contradictions. Nazareth, for example, did not exist when Jesus allegedly lived. It was a necropolis until about three hundred years after Jesus allegedly existed.
It wouldn't even concern me if some of the historical events occurred; the supernatural events could not be verified, so they would remain myth.
Atheists aren't typically promoting atheism; they are defending themselves or retailiating against the constant barrage of attacks on nonbelievers by Christians and other theists. The only thing we have in common is our rejection of theist claims; we have our own individual philsophies aside from this one tiny aspect of our lives. Some are humanists, objectivists, rationalists, ethical culturalists, naturalists, or materialists. Some just live life.
It seems that Christians are always citing the work of the "New Atheists" as evidence that atheists are out to attack Christians, but if you actually read the books, you'll find that they attack religious ideas, not people. I also want to point out that not a single one of them speaks for all atheists. No atheist speaks for all atheists, just as no Christian speaks for all Christians.
I'd love to see some of this archaeological evidence you're citing for biblibal events.
"There are many around the world who look on his works as flawless, which is incorrect and even some modern scientists say so!"
Some? Every modern evolutionary biologist sees plenty of errors in Darwin's work. What is your point?
Apparently you believe that the only things that people can ever be passionate about have something to do with religion. Passion isn't exclusive to faith. One can be passionate about an emotion, a social or political cause, and even a trade. Your argument is completely ludicrous.
Well you're right, there's nothing to believe in atheism. Nope. Foundation? Dogma? Nope and nope. Anything to defend in atheism? Nope. It's a pretty straight forward, self evident position, and that's it.
But then somehow you went from nothing in atheism to believe in to atheists having nothing to be passionate about. That's quite silly, isn't it? An atheist can be passionate about anything. Sunny days, dark chocolate, education, great art, football, you name it. Are you suggesting that you have no passion except for your faith? My, my, I pity poor Mrs. Jones. How sad for her.
All I hear time and time again from Christians is how atheists' lives must be meaningless, purposeless, passionless, empty, and so forth because we don't believe in your god. What that tells me is your lives are so small and narrowly defined that all there's room for and all you seem have is your belief. How very sad for you.
One has to ask oneself what is it about atheists that provoke such bilious ranting from Christians such as Jake here.
I think that it has to do with epistemic validation. Since gods have not a shred of evidence, believers take comfort in the fact that a lot of others believe it as well. If I believed and was emotionally invested in something that was not demonstrable and based purely on supposition, say that there is a teapot orbiting Alpha Centari, I might take comfort in the fact that many others believed it as well. If there were any doubters or people that say there is no teapot, then that would make me less secure about my beliefs. That is why, I think, people like Jake here get so worked up about atheists and denigrate us – we don’t validate their beliefs. This is also more evidence (in case more was needed) that gods are social constructions.
I think what you'll find atheists are passionate about is LOGIC & REASON, and the pursuit of truth via those means alone.
If you actually listened to atheists instead of claiming you do, you would realise that most of what you said is wrong.
You claim that evolution is wrong just because a few scientists say so, scientists who have not researched evolution at all and thus know as much about it as you.
I bet you don't even realise that christian "evolutionists" exist. They are christians who have actually done their research and understand evolution
i am passionate about hockey, beer, sex, video games, and evidence to support logical statements and theories.
If u believe in a invisible talking person telling you what to do, chances are your either schizophrenic or religious. I dont see how religious people can believe in god and not santa
RE: PhillyChief;
Hey, my wife is a multi millionaire. How do you think I got this great Cowboy Hat?
"I think what you'll find atheists are passionate about is LOGIC & REASON, and the pursuit of truth via those means alone."
While some atheists are materialists, many atheists are deeply religious. Many atheists believe in an afterlife, in an absolute moral code, and/or in a soul. They just don't believe in an immanent and transcendent god.
I would just like to point some holes in your logic. You claim atheist is based on a book-the origin of species, and is wrong, but christianity is based on a book-the bible, but is right.
The origin of species was written 150 yrs ago, and introduced a new idea. This idea has had parts of it proven wrong, and, as such, while the book hasn't been revised, the theory of evolution has changed to match evidence for it.
On the other hand, the bible was written many, many years before, and the ideas expressed haven't changed. We have verified some locations and events. These locations and events are real, thusly, the divine intervention attributed to it must be real aslo.
So, following this logic, the greek myths depict real phenomenea, and how they came about. Now, since these phenomenea is real, the origins of such must be real. Now, I'm thinking that proves zues and friends were real.
I see you've trotted out the idea that archeological verification of some portions of the bible must make the whole thing true. Imagine I wrote a book about Elvis Presley and his various friends and relatives. In it detail historical events of Elvis' life, but I also make up a bunch of wild stories, like that he could heal the sick, turn water into wine. I wrap it up with him coming back to life three days after he died on a bathroom floor and then going to heaven to live with his father, the creator of the universe. You can establish that Elvis existed, as did the Colonel and Presilla, and that Elvis died on the floor of a bathroom and lots of other things. Does the whole book suddenly become true?
I'm sad that you conflate atheism with Darwin. Darwin's theory may be flawed, but what we have learned about how species adapt and change to the wondrous and ever-changing in God's creation is remarkable. Nothing about it dethrones God's role in creation because even Darwin can't explain why humans are they way they are even if he says we evolved from chimpanzees. Nothing takes away from the mystery of why God created or why he sustains his creation. That is forever a wondrous mystery.
There is actually little or no historical evidence for most of the bible. Sometimes they get town names right, but at the time they are said to be a major city, important to the happenings in the bible, they didn't even exist. There is no proof that Jesus ever existed either. Historians of that time fail to mention any of the many widespread and miraculous things that supposedly happened because of Jesus. As biblical scholars will tell you, the bible was written some 4-6 thousand years ago, and the new testament was gathered together some 70-300 years after Jesus supposedly existed, and the council of Aramathea decided what writings were to be considered holy and true and which were not. Then given the fact that we can't even say we have the correct versions of what we do have in the bible, since translating and copying the bible (or any book) back before the printing press was prone to a lot of mistakes or even deliberate editing.
Any true biblical scholar freely admits this because it is provable.
Then we take a book that is historically dis-proven and severely misinterpreted and edited, and add the fact that none of its spiritual claims can be proven, except that the bible claims that christians should have the same powers as written in the bible, but none do (not proven anyway, lots of claimants). This means in the end we are supposed to believe a book full of errors and unprovable magic and accept it just because some people say so?
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!