Today’s “atheists” are tomorrow’s bloody fascist butchers of humanity.
Meet the new atheists...
...same as the old atheists.
Then who gets to decide? A Hitler? A Stalin? An Aztec?
“These are not your father’s atheists either. They are articulate, impassioned, and effective at the use of the media, and the internet.”
Nevertheless... Though you grind a fool in a mortar, grinding them like grain with a pestle, you will not remove their folly from them.
Dangerous folks, these.
Take away morals and meaning, and all that’s left is who has the power.
A humble bunch of jerks, aren't they?
This is not a new notion. About the time of the first Great Awakening, this was a sort of college fad. Guys would get themselves into all sorts of bondage by muttering some such formula as this under their breath, thinking it was better to have all the doubt over with than wonder if they would ever "make it" into heaven.
Only it doesn't work that way.
One of the biggest mistakes we make is handing our kids over to our ideological opponents and letting them educate our kids all throughout their youth.
Not only do they largely fail in the basic task of educating them, they also have free reign to undercut everything we believe. Its amazing that any of our kids come through it with their souls intact. Many that do, it takes years of living to find their way back to the faith of their youth and the faith of their fathers.
The most important thing churches can do is take the lead in educating their kids. Sending missionaries to the third world is great, its necessary, but its also pointless if at the same time you lose your own kids.
If churches will get involved in education, their reach goes farther than just their own, as non-members also enroll their kids, looking for something better than the disastrous public schools, and in so doing the door opens for you to reach people you otherwise would not reach.
More churches are doing this, and its good, and more need to.
It seems that with this challenge to “damn yourself to Hell”, the atheists are in a way admitting there is something beyond this life...
Every generation going back to the start of the 17th century has had it’s “Brights” who believed that they alone understood reality, and that the rest of humanity were benighted superstitious idiots.
Nothing changes.
Perhaps. But I would suggest that one needs a God in order to be happy.
How does an Athiest even know what is moral beyond their own personal preferences?
So who decides what's "good"?
Last Summer,I had a discussion with a 73 year old liberal who is also an atheist.
He was kicked out of a local atheist group for actually defending religion. He believe organized religion was very good in helping many people with it’s emphasis on food distribution,homeless programs and counseling services.
Although not a believer in religion and not anti-religious at all,he recognized the positive aspects of organized religion.
he claimed The group that kicked him out was more interested in bashing religion, especially Christianity then discussing ‘philosophy of life’.
The only sin that cannot be forgiven is not wishing to be forgiven.
You almost have to believe in evolution to be an atheist, and everybody who’s been following the discussion over the last few decades knows by now that evolution is a bunch of bullshit. The biggest group of people proportionally who don’t believe in evolution is probably mathematicians and not Christians; the doctrine is not compatible with modern mathematics and probability theory.
I’m sure that prenatal infanticide (abortion), euthanasia, sexual perversion, and pornography are perfectly moral to these atheistic mavens of morality.
“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” 1 Corninthains 1:18
> INSTRUCTIONS:You may damn yourself to Hell however you
> would like, but somewhere in your video you must say this
> phrase: “I deny the Holy Spirit.”
Whether these self-acclaimed “brights” are wittingly or unwittingly satanic, they are satanic nonetheless.
There is an opposite (and positive) side to the new atheism and that is its potential adherents have to exercise a significant degree of introspection and critical thinking to accept fundamental arguments of the movement. That in itself will lead to much rejection and commitment to the alternative of belief. Even Hitchens recognizes there is another argument of some merit and in doing so, sounds sometimes more agnostic than atheist. The real problem is not so much the aggressiveness of the new atheism, but the lukewarm resolve of the millions who call themselves Christians.