How To Outlaw Christianity (Steps 2&3) (Chuck Norris On Atheism Militant Rising In US Alert)

C.S. Lewis, the former atheist and famous Oxford scholar, once said "Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning...."

There are a myriad of eminent scholars (like Lewis) who understand the folly of atheism. I will list a few others in this second part of my treatise to expose atheists' agenda to ban Christianity from the courts of culture. In my last article I discussed "step 1" of their plan. In this discourse I will address steps 2 & 3.

Atheists are making a concerted effort to win the youth of America and the world. Hundreds of web sites and blogs on the Internet seek to convince and convert adolescents, endeavoring to remove any residue of theism from their minds and hearts by packaging atheism as the choice of a new generation. While you think your kids are innocently surfing the Web, secular progressives are intentionally preying on their innocence and naïveté.

What's preposterous is that atheists are now advertising and soliciting on websites particularly created for teens. The London Telegraph noted that, "Groups including Atheists for Human Rights and Atheist Alliance International – ‘Call 1-866-HERETIC' - are setting up summer camps and an internet recruiting campaign."

YouTube, the most popular video site on the Net for young people, is one of their primary avenues for passing off their secularist propaganda. Another antagonistic and self-proclaimed "blasphemous" site even beckons youth to record their anti-Christian beliefs on it.

Even Oxford scientist Richard Dawkins is on personal campaign and militant quest to spread his name, books, and atheism all over the Internet by hoping young people will post his graphics on their MySpace page. Rather than question or critique his methods as slick marketing, young atheists are proud to post his links, follow and defend him like a religious sage, and cite his texts as infallible truth.

Presenting atheism as scientific fact might be secularists' greatest plan and others point of greatest gullibility, in hope of winning the battle for the ultimate view of reality. And hailed as their chief advocates are men like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, Oxford University's ethologist and evolutionary biologist, with his book, "The God Delusion," atheists' newest "bible" or authoritative text.

So what credentials does a man like Dawkins have to discuss the presence or absence of God? Answer: He's "a scientist." And the fact is anyone in our age who is a naturalist professor or wears a white lab coat can virtually speak upon any issue (even God) and their words are received as gospel – unless of course they are a theist!

What's interesting is that atheists like Dawkins fall into the same snare they accuse of theists. While he might condemn Christians like me for not being educated enough to speak about theism or creation, his own expertise remains outside the realm of antagonism that defines his world crusade. To make dogmatic assertions about the absence of God and not possess expertise in cosmology, astrophysics, or even theology gives him no more of a credible platform than you and me, except to his devoted followers of course. He is an ethologist and evolutionary biologist – since when does that make one an expert on God? (Similarly, Sam Harris has a bachelor's in philosophy – since when does that make one an expert on the universe?)

Dawkins condemns Christians for being narrow minded and non-adaptive to other cultures which believed in Thor or Zeus, yet he is unwavering in disrespecting any other creation authority except Western science. What about the wisdom of African, Middle-Eastern or Far-Eastern sages, shamans, or religious figures? Just because science can explain many things in the natural realm, does that mean it owns the corner market on metaphysics and God?

Is it possible that the scientific worldview is inferior to reveal the truths behind the curtain of creation?

Even Paul Davies, the renown British-born physicist, agnostic, professor of cosmology, quantum field theory, and astrobiology, said to Time, "Science, God, and Man," that no one can rightfully say there is no God. "Agnosticism – reserving judgment about divine purpose – remains as defensible as ever, but atheism – the confident denial of divine purpose – becomes trickier. If you admit that we can't peer behind a curtain, how can you be sure there's nothing there?"

John Horgan, a former senior staff writer for Scientific American and the Director of the Center for Science Writings at the Stevens Institute of Technology, wrote a book titled, "The End of Science." In it he discusses the futility of men like Oxford's Dawkins, Cambridge's Hawking, and others pursuit to discover a "theory of everything." He agrees with Paul Davies in purporting that we must face the limits of science in the twilight of the scientific age, opting that the discovery of ultimate answers about the universe will not rely in rationale and empirical examination but possibly a metaphysical practice. (A striking similarity to the words in the Bible, "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command...")

Of course for men like Harris, Dawkins, and other atheists, the thought that science cannot provide these ultimate answers must be a horrifying reality to face, as their whole lives depend upon the western-scientific paradigm of reality. Their predicament reminds me of the words of Robert Jastrow, American astronomer, physicist, and cosmologist, from his work, "God and the Astronomers"

The universe has a beginning….This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: In the beginning God created heaven and earth….For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.

Once again the Bible is proven correct, "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no god.'"

He cannot be honest, do his job and still make a choice.

Sure he can. He can look at the ID and decide whether it looks real to him or not. That's a choice. He can also decide if the person standing in front of him looks like the photo on the ID despite changes in appearance.

Either the ID meets the requirements according to his knowledge, or it does not.

That's my point, he's making a decision, and that decision is based on a belief regarding the ID.

You would have to say the machine has faith and "believes" the ID is real.

Human beings are not machines.

For the rest of this, you are still using the word "faith" to cover many other terms.

I'm sure you have faith that statement is true. ;)

Do you realize the difference between a choice and a decision based on facts?

That's my point, he's making a decision, and that decision is based on a belief regarding the ID.

Yes, it is a decision, not a choice. Choice is will, decisions like this are based on the facts. He doesn't have to believe it has the hologram, he sees the hologram or the absence of one. The only choice he can make is to ignore the facts, as in the earlier bribe example.

I'm sure you have faith that statement is true.

None at all, zero, zip, nada, nichts. I'm going by the evidence of your use of the word in place of other, more appropriate terms.

Do you realize the difference between a choice and a decision based on facts?

A decision includes interpretation of the facts, and that interpretation is colored by the individual's beliefs, which means there is faith involved in decison making.

Yes, it is a decision, not a choice.

A decision and a choice are basically the same thing. The bartender makes a decision that the ID is real or fake. That means he is making a choice to believe it is real or fake.

The only choice he can make is to ignore the facts, as in the earlier bribe example.

Providing there is a hologram on the ID, and providing he has faith that no one has found a way to duplicate the hologram, and providing that he believes the person holding the ID is the same person pictured on it.

I'm going by the evidence of your use of the word in place of other, more appropriate terms.

You are going by your interpretations of what I've posted, and those interpretations are colored by your beliefs.

A decision includes interpretation of the facts, and that interpretation is colored by the individual's beliefs

If you let it. The bartender has no beliefs involved though. He doesn't have to "believe" an ID is fake. He has specific criteria that tell him it is.

That means he is making a choice to believe it is real or fake.

No belief. It is or it isn't according to the criteria.

LOL It's obvious from the circles we keep going in that you and I are not going to agree on this as we have differing beliefs. It's okay though - it'll all get sorted out in the end, although according to those who do not believe in God, we won't know that it got sorted out, because we will all have ceased to exist. ;)

Have a great day.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.