Doc110 Loc: York PA

MOSCOW: A Russian atheist social networking page was blocked Monday on the back of a court ruling that it insulted the feelings of religious believers.

The group called "There is no God" on the VKontakte networking site - which had over 26,000 followers - went offline for users across the whole country.

A moderator's message on the blocked webpage said that the move was due to a ruling by a court in the mainly Muslim North Caucasus region of Chechnya in May 2015.

"The community has been blocked due to the possible violation of the site's rules," it said.

VKontakte, Russia's largest social networking site, did not respond to a request for comment.

A scan of the court decision published by Russian media accused the page of publishing materials that can "insult the feelings of Orthodox Christians", based on an inspection of the page by prosecutors on April 6.

A cached version of the group's website showed posts with pictures making fun of religion, mostly focusing on the Russian Orthodox Chuch.

One is a cartoon drawing of Jesus telling a surgeon during an operation: "I created this cancer, how dare you remove it?," with the surgeon replying "Shut up Jesus."

It was not clear which exact posts were deemed insulting and administrators of the page could not be reached for comment.

A spokeswoman at Roskomnadzor, the Russian media regulator which compiles a register of blocked websites, told AFP that they were merely carrying out the court ruling by ordering VKontakte to block the page

The prosecutor's office in Chechnya, a conservative Muslim republic that is ruled with an iron fist by Ramzan Kadyrov, said on its website in early May that it "uncovered materials during monitoring of the Internet which insult the feelings of the faithful."

Kadyrov has overseen increasingly conservative policies in the region and called together a massive rally of hundreds of thousands in January against French magazine Charlie Hebdo, which published cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed.

The influence of Russia's Orthodox Church in official circles has grown dramatically under the leadership of ex-KGB agent President Vladimir Putin.

sissymary

Good for them. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. This offensive crap has to end. Whats next, a muslim says he finds dogs offensive, so all dogs are out lawed across the country/world.

Doc110 Loc: York PA

Like many atheist's on the OPP forum. They cannot answer any of my four questions on Christianity, and that their is a God. Three recorded events have happened in the last 150 years. So I asked the Atheist to a debate of Ideas and facts.

We started with a prayer and ended with a prayer for the discussion which the prayer was not commented on by the atheist.

The atheist provide no answers or facts to counter any of their affirmation and or his atheistic supposition arguments. Only their blind-faith in atheism, that their is no God, and no facts to support their claim that God ever existed.

When they provide facts, the atheist provided me with a book title or atheist website and then tell me, to do their home work for them. I called them, a lazy-atheists and poor conversationalists in an argument. It's a clever trap though.


1. The atheist denied, that Jesus Christ never existed historically. The atheist denied the Western World, recorded written perspective and Historical records. So then I showed the Jewish perspective, from the documented historical perspective, from the Sanhedrin talmud, and Midrash Torah, historical records. They the atheist denied the Jewish historical record information also. With no facts to support their claim.


2. The Stigmata, Italian Padre Pio who died in 1978, was scientifically examined by doctors for years and was observed on a daily basis 24 hours a day. Padre Pio bore Christ's crucifixion marks, the Stigmata for over 50 years, and lost almost a cup of blood a day.

The attest in question could not explain the wounds of the stigmata on Saint Padre Pio. He was also reported that he preformed many accounts of mysticism which are also verifiable.

Once again they denied and countered the stigmata with no facts to support their claim.



3. The Incorruptible, why these humans bodies have not undergone human putrefaction and become decomposing bodies, and yet we have these holy souls, that are preserved from rotting and decomposing.

Once again they denied and countered the Incorruptible with no facts to support their claim.



4. The "Dance of the Sun" in Fatima, Portugal where 70,000 Thousand people watched the Sun move in the sky from it's fixed location in the sky. It was a reported world wide newspapers event and telegraph reports. Prior to the "dance of the sun" it had been raining heavily for two days, 70,000 people were completely soaked, their clothes were drenches with water. After the "dance of the sun," their clothes were completely dry.

Once again they denied and countered the "Dance of the Sun" with no facts to support their claim.

So with the one standard reply, which was the one finger salute, they told me where I could go.

And my final reply was "God Bless You Too", Marcus

Incredible as this sounds, They the atheist's can only deny with baseless fact's and blind supposition arguments. They the atheist provided no facts or scientific theories to counter my for religious claims that their is a God. . .

I just don't understand the vial h**e and contempt for Christians and their anti-religious beliefs. No christian are persecuting atheist's, they the atheist are doing the persecuting against Christians.

What a strange world we live in.

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

Clarify something for me:

Are you approving the shutting down of discussions with which one disagrees?

Alicia Loc: NYC

*******************
Atheists carry no contempt for christians. The annoyance with christians is that those with faith insist that every person follow their beliefs. To simplify, to be an atheist is defined by the word. "theist (believer in god or gods) preceded by "a" which simply means against. An atheist is against a belief in god(s). The person you conversed with was a fool as the definition of the word "atheist" does not need explanation.

ghostgotcha Loc: The Florida swamps

Why do atheist h**e what they say does not exist?

Answer anyone?

Doc110 Loc: York PA

Good Morning, Alicia

I h**e to break it to you very gently, The culture In America and in Europe is demographically loosing their belief in God. But the peculiar fallout is a increase hostility against christians. e.g., Spitting on a RC Priest when the SCOTUS ruling was issued. In Europe atheist were throwing feces at Christians. The latest was the tearing down of the Ten Commandments.

And I'm sorry to tell you this that their many on this OPP website that have total contempt for Christians.

The Atheist voice is becoming louder and louder and their is no place outside a home or church service that Christians are looked down upon.

Because my freedom of speech and worship is being infringed more and more by atheists and Agnostics.

When Im in a restaurant and I say a prayer, After blessing my self. I've noticed people starring at me in disbelief.

2. It is more than annoyance's They are trying to stop Church bells that have been ringing for 40 and 70 years in the area that i live at . So it is more than annoyance's.

Thanks for the definition, other than that what are you trying to say ?


QUESTION: What is an Atheist?


Richard Watson states in his 1831 book, A Biblical and Theological Dictionary: “Atheist, in the strict and proper sense of the word, is one who does not believe in the existence of a god, or who owns no being superior to nature.”

Robert Flint, in his 1885 book Anti-Theistic Theories states: “Every man is an atheist who does not believe that there is a God.”

Strong Atheism

The strong atheist, also known as an explicit atheist or a positive atheist, denies the existence of God or any other deities. This person’s views are based solely on what can be found to be true using the scientific method. Since the existence of God cannot be proven using science, the strong atheist concludes that God doesn’t exist.

Weak Atheism

The second type of atheist is the weak atheist, also known as an implicit atheist or a negative atheist. This person does not deny the existence of God outright, but rather claims a religious relativism. That is, she would claim that anyone’s belief can be true for that person, but she doesn’t believe in God herself.

An Atheistic Worldview What are the implications for a religious atheist? Without God, he arrives at the necessary philosophies of moral relativism and naturalism. But does his view line up with objective reality? And is there any evidence for a God?



Atheism - Defining the Terms

There are two basic forms of atheism: "strong" atheism and "weak" atheism. Strong atheism is the doctrine that there is no God or gods. Weak atheism is the disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

Weak atheism is often confused with agnosticism, the lack of belief or disbelief in God or gods, and skepticism, the doctrine that the absolute knowledge of God's existence is unobtainable by mere man. Many agnostics and skeptics are "practical atheists" in that they actively pursue an atheistic lifestyle. The exclusion of God necessitates moral relativism.

Atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) declared, and philosophers generally agree, without God there is no absolute t***h and thus no universal moral standard of conduct. Humanist John Dewey (1859-1952), co-author and signer of the Humanist Manifesto I (1933), declared, "There is no God and there is no soul. Hence, there are no needs for the props of traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded, then immutable t***h is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed, natural law or moral absolutes."

Atheism - Strong Atheism

Does "strong" atheism correspond with or contradict objective reality? Let's look at this question objectively. Suppose someone asks you, "Does God exist?" You could answer in one of three ways: "I know for certain that God exists" (assured theism), "I don't know whether or not God exists" (insecure theism, agnosticism, "weak" atheism and/or skepticism), or "I know for certain that God doesn't exist" ("strong" atheism).

To know for certain that God exists, you don't have to know everything but you do have to know something - you must either know God personally or you must be aware of some evidence establishing His existence.

To be unsure whether or not God exists, you don't have to know everything. In fact, by your own admission you don't know everything. However, to claim to know for certain that God doesn't exist - to positively assert a universal negative - you would have to know everything. To be absolutely certain that God doesn't exist outside the limits of your knowledge, you would have to possess all knowledge.

Let's make this practical. Do you know everything? Do you know half of everything? Do you know 1% of everything? Let's be incredibly gracious and suppose that you know 1% of everything there is to know. Thomas Edison confidently declared, "We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything."

Nevertheless, given the supposition that you know 1% of everything, is it possible that evidence proving God's existence exists in the 99% of everything you don't know? If you're honest, you'll have to admit that it's a real possibility. The fact is, since you don't possess all knowledge, you don't know if such evidence exists or not. Thus, you cannot be a "strong" atheist - you don't know that God doesn't exist.

Atheism vs. Theism

Strong atheism is a logically flawed position. Weak atheism, agnosticism and skepticism are all "I don't know" theological positions, with weak atheists subscribing to atheistic presuppositions, true agnostics "sitting on the fence," and skeptics capitulating to ignorance. Assured theists are the only ones who claim to know anything. What do they know? In the end it doesn't matter what you believe. What matters is what's actually true. You might not believe in gravity.

Nevertheless, if you step off a tall building you are going to splat on the ground below. The existence of God has enormous implications for you and me, and prudence would have us make a full investigation of all the available data before putting our eternity in the care of any one belief-system. Ask yourself these types of questions: "How do I know something's true?" "What is the source of my information?" "Is my source absolutely reliable?" "What if I'm wrong?"


New Atheists – A New Breed of Atheism

They’ve been labeled, the New Atheists. If you’re like me, you’ve noticed this not wholly pleasant, anti-God movement everywhere. Whereas atheists of yore were noted for rational argument through civil discourse, today’s atheists draw on emotionalism and alarmism with a “take no prisoners” appeal. Judging from their rhetoric, the new atheists appear to be angling for an all-out jihad against God and religion.

To awaken the masses from their slumber, Christopher Hitchens asks, “How can we ever know how many children had their psychological and physical lives irreparably maimed by the compulsory inculcation of faith?”

Convinced that religion is a virulent v***s that results in child abuse, Richard Dawkins concludes: “I think there’s something very evil about faith.” And any reasonable person paying attention knows that something’s got to be done.

For Sam Harris, whose books have been published in 10 languages, it’s for scientists to destroy religion. More on that in a moment.

The sudden resurgence of anti-God sentiment has caused some to wonder why religious belief is generating such strong hostilities these days. Recently, I was reminded of the answer.

New Atheists – Passionate Dialogue

A few weeks ago, I was engaged in an online dialogue with some religious skeptics. Under discussion were the usual: the existence of God, the divinity of Jesus, evidence for the resurrection, and so on. For the most part, the participants were civil, without the animus characterized by the new atheist celebs.

After one of the forums was gaveled, a reader remarked on the intensity of the discussion. It suggested something of real importance; maybe something of utmost importance. Just what, he couldn’t say.

I responded that it was the outrageous claims of a carpenter’s son. For a first century Jew, claiming e******y with God and forgiving sins were grounds for blasphemy punishable by death. Even in our enlightened day, such behavior would be grounds for committal to a mental institution or dismissal as a megalomaniac or outright fraud. But with Jesus, there is the confounding issue of his teachings.

As C.S. Lewis observed in Mere Christianity, even among critics, the teachings of Jesus reflect the highest standard of morality known to man. Because of their supreme quality, Jesus’ imperatives are best explained not as products of a deluded or duplicitous mind, but of an intellectually competent person who actually believed what he claimed to be true.


And there lies the rub.


New Atheists – A Problem of Cosmic Authority

If Jesus was right about his divinity, then man is not a morally autonomous happenstance, he’s a special creation, a being that will one day stand before his Creator. It is what Thomas Nagel, NYU law professor and self-described new atheist, coined the “cosmic authority problem”:

It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God...I hope there is no God...I don’t want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and is responsible for...the overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind.

Note that Nagel’s disbelief is not grounded in a rational examination of how the world is, but by the non-rational sensibility of how he feels the world should be. In this regard, Thomas Nagel is not alone.

Folks like Nagel take p***e in being members of the “smart set”—the intellectual caste trusting in the omniscience of human reason. But press them ever so slightly and beneath the patina of intellectualism, you will find the non-cognitive: feelings, sentiments and personal preferences. “Dave” (not his real name) is a case in point.

In an online exchange, I was surprised that Dave shamelessly accepted features of naturalism that lacked validation, or even a means of validation, while rejecting theism for those very reasons. When this inconsistency was pointed out, Dave responded, quite unapologetically, that at least his belief system didn’t require him to go to church, worship, pay tithes, or obey a rigid set of rules. When push came to shove, it was personal sentiments, not rational merit, that decided the question of God for Dave.

New Atheists – The Naturalist’s Fallacy

Typical of the new atheists, Dave criticized the morality of the Bible for promoting things like s***ery, r****m, the subjugation of women, and condemning children to hell who have never heard of Jesus (never mind some seriously flawed hermeneutics here). He went on to contrast biblical morality—as has Richard Dawkins and other noted skeptics—against the golden rule.

Without realizing it, Dave fell headlong into the naturalistic fallacy: In a world created by colliding particles and shaped by natural se******n, there is no right or wrong, only existence. If everything is a product of matter in motion, the “Will to Power,” not the golden rule, is the only life principle. It’s the natural conclusion of Darwinism that the totalitarian leaders of the last century pursued with a vengeance.

That’s not to deny that religion has been a source of violence. But the casualties caused by Christians over 20 centuries dissolve in the shadow of those caused, in just one century, by atheistic regimes. So despite what the new firebrands of atheism suggest, the real danger of religion is not that it promotes violence, but that it takes away hope. Let me explain.


New Atheists – Pop Psychology Meets Madison Avenue


In 1945, Abraham Maslow published his famed hierarchy of human needs. According to Maslow’s ranking, physiological, safety and social needs were on the bottom rung, with self-actualization or, as it was more commonly referred to, “finding oneself,” at the top.

Despite the lack of evidence for Maslow’s theory, self-actualization became the Holy Grail, and “free expression” and “choice” the seductive marketing hooks, for a navel-gazing public. It didn’t take long for Madison Avenue to pick up pop psychology and promise self-discovery to all who affirmed self, followed their instincts and carried American Express.

But Jesus said that our deepest need is not in finding self, but in knowing God—by denying self, following Christ, and carrying one’s cross. He went on to insist that salvation—whether from existential ennui or righteous judgment—is not attainable by human effort, but only by a divine gift. What a blow to our personal autonomy! What an affront to our self esteem!

For those convinced that happiness is found in the sacred quest of self-discovery, nothing could be more threatening. To those trusting in the perfectibility of man and his environment, Jesus is the supreme bogeyman.

New Atheists – Salvation through Science

As the new atheists like to remind us, we inhabit a planet scarred by poverty, disease, crime, pollution, and violence. Without God, these problems are left to man and his ingenuity to solve.

Over the last 200 years, man has been phenomenally successful in harnessing nature through the application of materialistic science. This has led to unbridled confidence that man, through science, will one day overcome the health, social, and environmental obstacles to a utopian existence.

But as new atheist Sam Harris warns in his Huffington Post article, “Science Must Destroy Religion,” “the maintenance of religious dogma always comes at the expense of science.” Harris’s warning is clear. If science is our savior, then anything that impedes it is a threat to our future hope.

For instance, religious doctrines about the sanctity of human life are hindrances to the scientist who seeks cures through research on embryonic stem cells, the mentally incapacitated, the terminally ill, or prisoners. The same goes for the social researcher who believes that population control is essential for socio-economic health. Revealed religion is also at odds with the investigator who believes that the gnawing questions of our existence will be answered in the quest for extraterrestrial life.

To those whose ultimate hope is in the limitless potential of man through science, religion is a danger more menacing than the Black Plague or runaway g****l w*****g. Consequently, Harris frets that “Iron Age beliefs—about God, the soul, sin, free will, etc.—continue to impede medical research and distort public policy.”

To meet the threat, Harris urges the scientific community to blast “the hideous fantasies of a prior age with all the facts at their disposal.” Once religion and faith are vanquished by reason and science, Sam Harris envisions that
the practice of raising our children to believe that they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu [will] be broadly recognized as the ludicrous obscenity that it is.

And only then will we stand a chance of healing the deepest and most dangerous fractures in our world.

Mr. Harris and the other new atheists would be wise not to bet the farm on this hope. According to an Authority I trust, the church will not only prevail over all who would rout it; it will advance . . . even against the gates of Hell.

Atheism - Defining the Terms
There are two basic forms of atheism: "strong" atheism and "weak" atheism.

Strong atheism is the doctrine that there is no God or gods. Weak atheism is the disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

Weak atheism is often confused with agnosticism, the lack of belief or disbelief in God or gods, and skepticism, the doctrine that the absolute knowledge of God's existence is unobtainable by mere man. Many agnostics and skeptics are "practical atheists" in that they actively pursue an atheistic lifestyle. The exclusion of God necessitates moral relativism.

Atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) declared, and philosophers generally agree, without God there is no absolute t***h and thus no universal moral standard of conduct. Humanist John Dewey (1859-1952), co-author and signer of the Humanist Manifesto I (1933), declared, "There is no God and there is no soul. Hence, there are no needs for the props of traditional religion.

With dogma and creed excluded, then immutable t***h is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed, natural law or moral absolutes."

Atheism - Strong Atheism

Does "strong" atheism correspond with or contradict objective reality? Let's look at this question objectively. Suppose someone asks you, "Does God exist?"

You could answer in one of three ways: "I know for certain that God exists" (assured theism), "I don't know whether or not God exists" (insecure theism, agnosticism, "weak" atheism and/or skepticism), or "I know for certain that

God doesn't exist" ("strong" atheism).

To know for certain that God exists, you don't have to know everything but you do have to know something - you must either know God personally or you must be aware of some evidence establishing His existence. To be unsure whether or not God exists, you don't have to know everything. In fact, by your own admission you don't know everything. However, to claim to know for certain that God doesn't exist - to positively assert a universal negative - you would have to know everything. To be absolutely certain that God doesn't exist outside the limits of your knowledge, you would have to possess all knowledge.

Let's make this practical. Do you know everything? Do you know half of everything? Do you know 1% of everything? Let's be incredibly gracious and suppose that you know 1% of everything there is to know. Thomas Edison confidently declared, "We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything." Nevertheless, given the supposition that you know 1% of everything, is it possible that evidence proving God's existence exists in the 99% of everything you don't know? If you're honest, you'll have to admit that it's a real possibility. The fact is, since you don't possess all knowledge, you don't know if such evidence exists or not. Thus, you cannot be a "strong" atheist - you don't know that God doesn't exist.

Atheism vs. Theism

Strong atheism is a logically flawed position. Weak atheism, agnosticism and skepticism are all "I don't know" theological positions, with weak atheists subscribing to atheistic presuppositions, true agnostics "sitting on the fence," and skeptics capitulating to ignorance. Assured theists are the only ones who claim to know anything. What do they know?

In the end it doesn't matter what you believe. What matters is what's actually true. You might not believe in gravity. Nevertheless, if you step off a tall building you are going to splat on the ground below. T

he existence of God has enormous implications for you and me, and prudence would have us make a full investigation of all the available data before putting our eternity in the care of any one belief-system. Ask yourself these types of questions:

"How do I know something's true?" "What is the source of my information?" "Is my source absolutely reliable?" "What if I'm wrong?"



Atheism vs. Theism Debate – The Basics

The “Atheism vs. Theism” debate has been a fixture in Western culture for the last few hundred years. Remarkably, the same issues repeat themselves over and over again. Although certain “double PhD’s” would like us to think otherwise, the core controversies aren’t really “rocket science” at all. In a nutshell, the Atheism vs. Theism debate comes down to the following:

The Atheist’s Response to the Theist:

God doesn’t exist because science explains the cosmos without him.
Even if a finely-tuned cosmos and/or complex life suggest a first cause/designer, there’s too much pain and suffering in the world to believe in the Judeo-Christian God.

The Judeo-Christian Bible is myth and legend.
A moral life doesn’t require God, anyway.

The Theist’s Response to the Atheist:

Science affirms that the finely-tuned cosmos was created out of nothing.
Life’s order, design, and complexity require an Intelligent Designer, and our response to pain and suffering is relative to our knowledge of right and wrong/good and evil in a fallen world.

The Bible is trustworthy based on history, science, archaeology, manuscripts, and prophecy.

True morality requires a transcendent standard -- God.

Atheism vs. Theism Debate – The Essence

This is the essence of the Atheism vs. Theism debate. Although the theological, philosophical, and scientific controversies might appear vast and intimidating at first, they really boil down to these four foundational arguments.

Once you feel comfortable with these key areas in the Atheism vs. Theism debate, there’s not much that will surprise you. Have fun and engage the discussion.

Doc110 Loc: York PA

Good Morning, Alicia

I h**e to break it to you very gently, The culture In America and in Europe is demographically loosing their belief in God. But the peculiar fallout is a increase hostility against christians. e.g., Spitting on a RC Priest when the SCOTUS ruling was issued. In Europe atheist were throwing feces at Christians. The latest was the tearing down of the Ten Commandments.

And I'm sorry to tell you this that their many on this OPP website that have total contempt for Christians.

The Atheist voice is becoming louder and louder and their is no place outside a home or church service that Christians are looked down upon.

Because my freedom of speech and worship is being infringed more and more by atheists and Agnostics.

When Im in a restaurant and I say a prayer, After blessing my self. I've noticed people starring at me in disbelief.

2. It is more than annoyance's They are trying to stop Church bells that have been ringing for 40 and 70 years in the area that i live at . So it is more than annoyance's.

Thanks for the definition, other than that what are you trying to say ?


QUESTION: What is an Atheist?


Richard Watson states in his 1831 book, A Biblical and Theological Dictionary: “Atheist, in the strict and proper sense of the word, is one who does not believe in the existence of a god, or who owns no being superior to nature.”

Robert Flint, in his 1885 book Anti-Theistic Theories states: “Every man is an atheist who does not believe that there is a God.”

Strong Atheism

The strong atheist, also known as an explicit atheist or a positive atheist, denies the existence of God or any other deities. This person’s views are based solely on what can be found to be true using the scientific method. Since the existence of God cannot be proven using science, the strong atheist concludes that God doesn’t exist.

Weak Atheism

The second type of atheist is the weak atheist, also known as an implicit atheist or a negative atheist. This person does not deny the existence of God outright, but rather claims a religious relativism. That is, she would claim that anyone’s belief can be true for that person, but she doesn’t believe in God herself.

An Atheistic Worldview What are the implications for a religious atheist? Without God, he arrives at the necessary philosophies of moral relativism and naturalism. But does his view line up with objective reality? And is there any evidence for a God?



Atheism - Defining the Terms

There are two basic forms of atheism: "strong" atheism and "weak" atheism. Strong atheism is the doctrine that there is no God or gods. Weak atheism is the disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

Weak atheism is often confused with agnosticism, the lack of belief or disbelief in God or gods, and skepticism, the doctrine that the absolute knowledge of God's existence is unobtainable by mere man. Many agnostics and skeptics are "practical atheists" in that they actively pursue an atheistic lifestyle. The exclusion of God necessitates moral relativism.

Atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) declared, and philosophers generally agree, without God there is no absolute t***h and thus no universal moral standard of conduct. Humanist John Dewey (1859-1952), co-author and signer of the Humanist Manifesto I (1933), declared, "There is no God and there is no soul. Hence, there are no needs for the props of traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded, then immutable t***h is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed, natural law or moral absolutes."

Atheism - Strong Atheism

Does "strong" atheism correspond with or contradict objective reality? Let's look at this question objectively. Suppose someone asks you, "Does God exist?" You could answer in one of three ways: "I know for certain that God exists" (assured theism), "I don't know whether or not God exists" (insecure theism, agnosticism, "weak" atheism and/or skepticism), or "I know for certain that God doesn't exist" ("strong" atheism).

To know for certain that God exists, you don't have to know everything but you do have to know something - you must either know God personally or you must be aware of some evidence establishing His existence.

To be unsure whether or not God exists, you don't have to know everything. In fact, by your own admission you don't know everything. However, to claim to know for certain that God doesn't exist - to positively assert a universal negative - you would have to know everything. To be absolutely certain that God doesn't exist outside the limits of your knowledge, you would have to possess all knowledge.

Let's make this practical. Do you know everything? Do you know half of everything? Do you know 1% of everything? Let's be incredibly gracious and suppose that you know 1% of everything there is to know. Thomas Edison confidently declared, "We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything."

Nevertheless, given the supposition that you know 1% of everything, is it possible that evidence proving God's existence exists in the 99% of everything you don't know? If you're honest, you'll have to admit that it's a real possibility. The fact is, since you don't possess all knowledge, you don't know if such evidence exists or not. Thus, you cannot be a "strong" atheist - you don't know that God doesn't exist.

Atheism vs. Theism

Strong atheism is a logically flawed position. Weak atheism, agnosticism and skepticism are all "I don't know" theological positions, with weak atheists subscribing to atheistic presuppositions, true agnostics "sitting on the fence," and skeptics capitulating to ignorance. Assured theists are the only ones who claim to know anything. What do they know? In the end it doesn't matter what you believe. What matters is what's actually true. You might not believe in gravity.

Nevertheless, if you step off a tall building you are going to splat on the ground below. The existence of God has enormous implications for you and me, and prudence would have us make a full investigation of all the available data before putting our eternity in the care of any one belief-system. Ask yourself these types of questions: "How do I know something's true?" "What is the source of my information?" "Is my source absolutely reliable?" "What if I'm wrong?"


New Atheists – A New Breed of Atheism

They’ve been labeled, the New Atheists. If you’re like me, you’ve noticed this not wholly pleasant, anti-God movement everywhere. Whereas atheists of yore were noted for rational argument through civil discourse, today’s atheists draw on emotionalism and alarmism with a “take no prisoners” appeal. Judging from their rhetoric, the new atheists appear to be angling for an all-out jihad against God and religion.

To awaken the masses from their slumber, Christopher Hitchens asks, “How can we ever know how many children had their psychological and physical lives irreparably maimed by the compulsory inculcation of faith?”

Convinced that religion is a virulent v***s that results in child abuse, Richard Dawkins concludes: “I think there’s something very evil about faith.” And any reasonable person paying attention knows that something’s got to be done.

For Sam Harris, whose books have been published in 10 languages, it’s for scientists to destroy religion. More on that in a moment.

The sudden resurgence of anti-God sentiment has caused some to wonder why religious belief is generating such strong hostilities these days. Recently, I was reminded of the answer.

New Atheists – Passionate Dialogue

A few weeks ago, I was engaged in an online dialogue with some religious skeptics. Under discussion were the usual: the existence of God, the divinity of Jesus, evidence for the resurrection, and so on. For the most part, the participants were civil, without the animus characterized by the new atheist celebs.

After one of the forums was gaveled, a reader remarked on the intensity of the discussion. It suggested something of real importance; maybe something of utmost importance. Just what, he couldn’t say.

I responded that it was the outrageous claims of a carpenter’s son. For a first century Jew, claiming e******y with God and forgiving sins were grounds for blasphemy punishable by death. Even in our enlightened day, such behavior would be grounds for committal to a mental institution or dismissal as a megalomaniac or outright fraud. But with Jesus, there is the confounding issue of his teachings.

As C.S. Lewis observed in Mere Christianity, even among critics, the teachings of Jesus reflect the highest standard of morality known to man. Because of their supreme quality, Jesus’ imperatives are best explained not as products of a deluded or duplicitous mind, but of an intellectually competent person who actually believed what he claimed to be true.


And there lies the rub.


New Atheists – A Problem of Cosmic Authority

If Jesus was right about his divinity, then man is not a morally autonomous happenstance, he’s a special creation, a being that will one day stand before his Creator. It is what Thomas Nagel, NYU law professor and self-described new atheist, coined the “cosmic authority problem”:

It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God...I hope there is no God...I don’t want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and is responsible for...the overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind.

Note that Nagel’s disbelief is not grounded in a rational examination of how the world is, but by the non-rational sensibility of how he feels the world should be. In this regard, Thomas Nagel is not alone.

Folks like Nagel take p***e in being members of the “smart set”—the intellectual caste trusting in the omniscience of human reason. But press them ever so slightly and beneath the patina of intellectualism, you will find the non-cognitive: feelings, sentiments and personal preferences. “Dave” (not his real name) is a case in point.

In an online exchange, I was surprised that Dave shamelessly accepted features of naturalism that lacked validation, or even a means of validation, while rejecting theism for those very reasons. When this inconsistency was pointed out, Dave responded, quite unapologetically, that at least his belief system didn’t require him to go to church, worship, pay tithes, or obey a rigid set of rules. When push came to shove, it was personal sentiments, not rational merit, that decided the question of God for Dave.

New Atheists – The Naturalist’s Fallacy

Typical of the new atheists, Dave criticized the morality of the Bible for promoting things like s***ery, r****m, the subjugation of women, and condemning children to hell who have never heard of Jesus (never mind some seriously flawed hermeneutics here). He went on to contrast biblical morality—as has Richard Dawkins and other noted skeptics—against the golden rule.

Without realizing it, Dave fell headlong into the naturalistic fallacy: In a world created by colliding particles and shaped by natural se******n, there is no right or wrong, only existence. If everything is a product of matter in motion, the “Will to Power,” not the golden rule, is the only life principle. It’s the natural conclusion of Darwinism that the totalitarian leaders of the last century pursued with a vengeance.

That’s not to deny that religion has been a source of violence. But the casualties caused by Christians over 20 centuries dissolve in the shadow of those caused, in just one century, by atheistic regimes. So despite what the new firebrands of atheism suggest, the real danger of religion is not that it promotes violence, but that it takes away hope. Let me explain.


New Atheists – Pop Psychology Meets Madison Avenue


In 1945, Abraham Maslow published his famed hierarchy of human needs. According to Maslow’s ranking, physiological, safety and social needs were on the bottom rung, with self-actualization or, as it was more commonly referred to, “finding oneself,” at the top.

Despite the lack of evidence for Maslow’s theory, self-actualization became the Holy Grail, and “free expression” and “choice” the seductive marketing hooks, for a navel-gazing public. It didn’t take long for Madison Avenue to pick up pop psychology and promise self-discovery to all who affirmed self, followed their instincts and carried American Express.

But Jesus said that our deepest need is not in finding self, but in knowing God—by denying self, following Christ, and carrying one’s cross. He went on to insist that salvation—whether from existential ennui or righteous judgment—is not attainable by human effort, but only by a divine gift. What a blow to our personal autonomy! What an affront to our self esteem!

For those convinced that happiness is found in the sacred quest of self-discovery, nothing could be more threatening. To those trusting in the perfectibility of man and his environment, Jesus is the supreme bogeyman.

New Atheists – Salvation through Science

As the new atheists like to remind us, we inhabit a planet scarred by poverty, disease, crime, pollution, and violence. Without God, these problems are left to man and his ingenuity to solve.

Over the last 200 years, man has been phenomenally successful in harnessing nature through the application of materialistic science. This has led to unbridled confidence that man, through science, will one day overcome the health, social, and environmental obstacles to a utopian existence.

But as new atheist Sam Harris warns in his Huffington Post article, “Science Must Destroy Religion,” “the maintenance of religious dogma always comes at the expense of science.” Harris’s warning is clear. If science is our savior, then anything that impedes it is a threat to our future hope.

For instance, religious doctrines about the sanctity of human life are hindrances to the scientist who seeks cures through research on embryonic stem cells, the mentally incapacitated, the terminally ill, or prisoners. The same goes for the social researcher who believes that population control is essential for socio-economic health. Revealed religion is also at odds with the investigator who believes that the gnawing questions of our existence will be answered in the quest for extraterrestrial life.

To those whose ultimate hope is in the limitless potential of man through science, religion is a danger more menacing than the Black Plague or runaway g****l w*****g. Consequently, Harris frets that “Iron Age beliefs—about God, the soul, sin, free will, etc.—continue to impede medical research and distort public policy.”

To meet the threat, Harris urges the scientific community to blast “the hideous fantasies of a prior age with all the facts at their disposal.” Once religion and faith are vanquished by reason and science, Sam Harris envisions that
the practice of raising our children to believe that they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu [will] be broadly recognized as the ludicrous obscenity that it is.

And only then will we stand a chance of healing the deepest and most dangerous fractures in our world.

Mr. Harris and the other new atheists would be wise not to bet the farm on this hope. According to an Authority I trust, the church will not only prevail over all who would rout it; it will advance . . . even against the gates of Hell.

Atheism - Defining the Terms
There are two basic forms of atheism: "strong" atheism and "weak" atheism.

Strong atheism is the doctrine that there is no God or gods. Weak atheism is the disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

Weak atheism is often confused with agnosticism, the lack of belief or disbelief in God or gods, and skepticism, the doctrine that the absolute knowledge of God's existence is unobtainable by mere man. Many agnostics and skeptics are "practical atheists" in that they actively pursue an atheistic lifestyle. The exclusion of God necessitates moral relativism.

Atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) declared, and philosophers generally agree, without God there is no absolute t***h and thus no universal moral standard of conduct. Humanist John Dewey (1859-1952), co-author and signer of the Humanist Manifesto I (1933), declared, "There is no God and there is no soul. Hence, there are no needs for the props of traditional religion.

With dogma and creed excluded, then immutable t***h is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed, natural law or moral absolutes."

Atheism - Strong Atheism

Does "strong" atheism correspond with or contradict objective reality? Let's look at this question objectively. Suppose someone asks you, "Does God exist?"

You could answer in one of three ways: "I know for certain that God exists" (assured theism), "I don't know whether or not God exists" (insecure theism, agnosticism, "weak" atheism and/or skepticism), or "I know for certain that

God doesn't exist" ("strong" atheism).

To know for certain that God exists, you don't have to know everything but you do have to know something - you must either know God personally or you must be aware of some evidence establishing His existence. To be unsure whether or not God exists, you don't have to know everything. In fact, by your own admission you don't know everything. However, to claim to know for certain that God doesn't exist - to positively assert a universal negative - you would have to know everything. To be absolutely certain that God doesn't exist outside the limits of your knowledge, you would have to possess all knowledge.

Let's make this practical. Do you know everything? Do you know half of everything? Do you know 1% of everything? Let's be incredibly gracious and suppose that you know 1% of everything there is to know. Thomas Edison confidently declared, "We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything." Nevertheless, given the supposition that you know 1% of everything, is it possible that evidence proving God's existence exists in the 99% of everything you don't know? If you're honest, you'll have to admit that it's a real possibility. The fact is, since you don't possess all knowledge, you don't know if such evidence exists or not. Thus, you cannot be a "strong" atheist - you don't know that God doesn't exist.

Atheism vs. Theism

Strong atheism is a logically flawed position. Weak atheism, agnosticism and skepticism are all "I don't know" theological positions, with weak atheists subscribing to atheistic presuppositions, true agnostics "sitting on the fence," and skeptics capitulating to ignorance. Assured theists are the only ones who claim to know anything. What do they know?

In the end it doesn't matter what you believe. What matters is what's actually true. You might not believe in gravity. Nevertheless, if you step off a tall building you are going to splat on the ground below. T

he existence of God has enormous implications for you and me, and prudence would have us make a full investigation of all the available data before putting our eternity in the care of any one belief-system. Ask yourself these types of questions:

"How do I know something's true?" "What is the source of my information?" "Is my source absolutely reliable?" "What if I'm wrong?"



Atheism vs. Theism Debate – The Basics

The “Atheism vs. Theism” debate has been a fixture in Western culture for the last few hundred years. Remarkably, the same issues repeat themselves over and over again. Although certain “double PhD’s” would like us to think otherwise, the core controversies aren’t really “rocket science” at all. In a nutshell, the Atheism vs. Theism debate comes down to the following:

The Atheist’s Response to the Theist:

God doesn’t exist because science explains the cosmos without him.
Even if a finely-tuned cosmos and/or complex life suggest a first cause/designer, there’s too much pain and suffering in the world to believe in the Judeo-Christian God.

The Judeo-Christian Bible is myth and legend.
A moral life doesn’t require God, anyway.

The Theist’s Response to the Atheist:

Science affirms that the finely-tuned cosmos was created out of nothing.
Life’s order, design, and complexity require an Intelligent Designer, and our response to pain and suffering is relative to our knowledge of right and wrong/good and evil in a fallen world.

The Bible is trustworthy based on history, science, archaeology, manuscripts, and prophecy.

True morality requires a transcendent standard -- God.

Atheism vs. Theism Debate – The Essence

This is the essence of the Atheism vs. Theism debate. Although the theological, philosophical, and scientific controversies might appear vast and intimidating at first, they really boil down to these four foundational arguments.

Once you feel comfortable with these key areas in the Atheism vs. Theism debate, there’s not much that will surprise you. Have fun and engage the discussion.

Doc110 Loc: York PA

Good Morning, Alicia

I h**e to break it to you very gently, The culture In America and in Europe is demographically loosing their belief in God. But the peculiar fallout is a increase hostility against christians. e.g., Spitting on a RC Priest when the SCOTUS ruling was issued. In Europe atheist were throwing feces at Christians. The latest was the tearing down of the Ten Commandments.

And I'm sorry to tell you this that their many on this OPP website that have total contempt for Christians.

The Atheist voice is becoming louder and louder and their is no place outside a home or church service that Christians are looked down upon.

Because my freedom of speech and worship is being infringed more and more by atheists and Agnostics.

When Im in a restaurant and I say a prayer, After blessing my self. I've noticed people starring at me in disbelief.

2. It is more than annoyance's They are trying to stop Church bells that have been ringing for 40 and 70 years in the area that i live at . So it is more than annoyance's.

Thanks for the definition, other than that what are you trying to say ?


QUESTION: What is an Atheist?


Richard Watson states in his 1831 book, A Biblical and Theological Dictionary: “Atheist, in the strict and proper sense of the word, is one who does not believe in the existence of a god, or who owns no being superior to nature.”

Robert Flint, in his 1885 book Anti-Theistic Theories states: “Every man is an atheist who does not believe that there is a God.”

Strong Atheism

The strong atheist, also known as an explicit atheist or a positive atheist, denies the existence of God or any other deities. This person’s views are based solely on what can be found to be true using the scientific method. Since the existence of God cannot be proven using science, the strong atheist concludes that God doesn’t exist.

Weak Atheism

The second type of atheist is the weak atheist, also known as an implicit atheist or a negative atheist. This person does not deny the existence of God outright, but rather claims a religious relativism. That is, she would claim that anyone’s belief can be true for that person, but she doesn’t believe in God herself.

An Atheistic Worldview What are the implications for a religious atheist? Without God, he arrives at the necessary philosophies of moral relativism and naturalism. But does his view line up with objective reality? And is there any evidence for a God?



Atheism - Defining the Terms

There are two basic forms of atheism: "strong" atheism and "weak" atheism. Strong atheism is the doctrine that there is no God or gods. Weak atheism is the disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

Weak atheism is often confused with agnosticism, the lack of belief or disbelief in God or gods, and skepticism, the doctrine that the absolute knowledge of God's existence is unobtainable by mere man. Many agnostics and skeptics are "practical atheists" in that they actively pursue an atheistic lifestyle. The exclusion of God necessitates moral relativism.

Atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) declared, and philosophers generally agree, without God there is no absolute t***h and thus no universal moral standard of conduct. Humanist John Dewey (1859-1952), co-author and signer of the Humanist Manifesto I (1933), declared, "There is no God and there is no soul. Hence, there are no needs for the props of traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded, then immutable t***h is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed, natural law or moral absolutes."

Atheism - Strong Atheism

Does "strong" atheism correspond with or contradict objective reality? Let's look at this question objectively. Suppose someone asks you, "Does God exist?" You could answer in one of three ways: "I know for certain that God exists" (assured theism), "I don't know whether or not God exists" (insecure theism, agnosticism, "weak" atheism and/or skepticism), or "I know for certain that God doesn't exist" ("strong" atheism).

To know for certain that God exists, you don't have to know everything but you do have to know something - you must either know God personally or you must be aware of some evidence establishing His existence.

To be unsure whether or not God exists, you don't have to know everything. In fact, by your own admission you don't know everything. However, to claim to know for certain that God doesn't exist - to positively assert a universal negative - you would have to know everything. To be absolutely certain that God doesn't exist outside the limits of your knowledge, you would have to possess all knowledge.

Let's make this practical. Do you know everything? Do you know half of everything? Do you know 1% of everything? Let's be incredibly gracious and suppose that you know 1% of everything there is to know. Thomas Edison confidently declared, "We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything."

Nevertheless, given the supposition that you know 1% of everything, is it possible that evidence proving God's existence exists in the 99% of everything you don't know? If you're honest, you'll have to admit that it's a real possibility. The fact is, since you don't possess all knowledge, you don't know if such evidence exists or not. Thus, you cannot be a "strong" atheist - you don't know that God doesn't exist.

Atheism vs. Theism

Strong atheism is a logically flawed position. Weak atheism, agnosticism and skepticism are all "I don't know" theological positions, with weak atheists subscribing to atheistic presuppositions, true agnostics "sitting on the fence," and skeptics capitulating to ignorance. Assured theists are the only ones who claim to know anything. What do they know? In the end it doesn't matter what you believe. What matters is what's actually true. You might not believe in gravity.

Nevertheless, if you step off a tall building you are going to splat on the ground below. The existence of God has enormous implications for you and me, and prudence would have us make a full investigation of all the available data before putting our eternity in the care of any one belief-system. Ask yourself these types of questions: "How do I know something's true?" "What is the source of my information?" "Is my source absolutely reliable?" "What if I'm wrong?"


New Atheists – A New Breed of Atheism

They’ve been labeled, the New Atheists. If you’re like me, you’ve noticed this not wholly pleasant, anti-God movement everywhere. Whereas atheists of yore were noted for rational argument through civil discourse, today’s atheists draw on emotionalism and alarmism with a “take no prisoners” appeal. Judging from their rhetoric, the new atheists appear to be angling for an all-out jihad against God and religion.

To awaken the masses from their slumber, Christopher Hitchens asks, “How can we ever know how many children had their psychological and physical lives irreparably maimed by the compulsory inculcation of faith?”

Convinced that religion is a virulent v***s that results in child abuse, Richard Dawkins concludes: “I think there’s something very evil about faith.” And any reasonable person paying attention knows that something’s got to be done.

For Sam Harris, whose books have been published in 10 languages, it’s for scientists to destroy religion. More on that in a moment.

The sudden resurgence of anti-God sentiment has caused some to wonder why religious belief is generating such strong hostilities these days. Recently, I was reminded of the answer.

New Atheists – Passionate Dialogue

A few weeks ago, I was engaged in an online dialogue with some religious skeptics. Under discussion were the usual: the existence of God, the divinity of Jesus, evidence for the resurrection, and so on. For the most part, the participants were civil, without the animus characterized by the new atheist celebs.

After one of the forums was gaveled, a reader remarked on the intensity of the discussion. It suggested something of real importance; maybe something of utmost importance. Just what, he couldn’t say.

I responded that it was the outrageous claims of a carpenter’s son. For a first century Jew, claiming e******y with God and forgiving sins were grounds for blasphemy punishable by death. Even in our enlightened day, such behavior would be grounds for committal to a mental institution or dismissal as a megalomaniac or outright fraud. But with Jesus, there is the confounding issue of his teachings.

As C.S. Lewis observed in Mere Christianity, even among critics, the teachings of Jesus reflect the highest standard of morality known to man. Because of their supreme quality, Jesus’ imperatives are best explained not as products of a deluded or duplicitous mind, but of an intellectually competent person who actually believed what he claimed to be true.


And there lies the rub.


New Atheists – A Problem of Cosmic Authority

If Jesus was right about his divinity, then man is not a morally autonomous happenstance, he’s a special creation, a being that will one day stand before his Creator. It is what Thomas Nagel, NYU law professor and self-described new atheist, coined the “cosmic authority problem”:

It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God...I hope there is no God...I don’t want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and is responsible for...the overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind.

Note that Nagel’s disbelief is not grounded in a rational examination of how the world is, but by the non-rational sensibility of how he feels the world should be. In this regard, Thomas Nagel is not alone.

Folks like Nagel take p***e in being members of the “smart set”—the intellectual caste trusting in the omniscience of human reason. But press them ever so slightly and beneath the patina of intellectualism, you will find the non-cognitive: feelings, sentiments and personal preferences. “Dave” (not his real name) is a case in point.

In an online exchange, I was surprised that Dave shamelessly accepted features of naturalism that lacked validation, or even a means of validation, while rejecting theism for those very reasons. When this inconsistency was pointed out, Dave responded, quite unapologetically, that at least his belief system didn’t require him to go to church, worship, pay tithes, or obey a rigid set of rules. When push came to shove, it was personal sentiments, not rational merit, that decided the question of God for Dave.

New Atheists – The Naturalist’s Fallacy

Typical of the new atheists, Dave criticized the morality of the Bible for promoting things like s***ery, r****m, the subjugation of women, and condemning children to hell who have never heard of Jesus (never mind some seriously flawed hermeneutics here). He went on to contrast biblical morality—as has Richard Dawkins and other noted skeptics—against the golden rule.

Without realizing it, Dave fell headlong into the naturalistic fallacy: In a world created by colliding particles and shaped by natural se******n, there is no right or wrong, only existence. If everything is a product of matter in motion, the “Will to Power,” not the golden rule, is the only life principle. It’s the natural conclusion of Darwinism that the totalitarian leaders of the last century pursued with a vengeance.

That’s not to deny that religion has been a source of violence. But the casualties caused by Christians over 20 centuries dissolve in the shadow of those caused, in just one century, by atheistic regimes. So despite what the new firebrands of atheism suggest, the real danger of religion is not that it promotes violence, but that it takes away hope. Let me explain.


New Atheists – Pop Psychology Meets Madison Avenue


In 1945, Abraham Maslow published his famed hierarchy of human needs. According to Maslow’s ranking, physiological, safety and social needs were on the bottom rung, with self-actualization or, as it was more commonly referred to, “finding oneself,” at the top.

Despite the lack of evidence for Maslow’s theory, self-actualization became the Holy Grail, and “free expression” and “choice” the seductive marketing hooks, for a navel-gazing public. It didn’t take long for Madison Avenue to pick up pop psychology and promise self-discovery to all who affirmed self, followed their instincts and carried American Express.

But Jesus said that our deepest need is not in finding self, but in knowing God—by denying self, following Christ, and carrying one’s cross. He went on to insist that salvation—whether from existential ennui or righteous judgment—is not attainable by human effort, but only by a divine gift. What a blow to our personal autonomy! What an affront to our self esteem!

For those convinced that happiness is found in the sacred quest of self-discovery, nothing could be more threatening. To those trusting in the perfectibility of man and his environment, Jesus is the supreme bogeyman.

New Atheists – Salvation through Science

As the new atheists like to remind us, we inhabit a planet scarred by poverty, disease, crime, pollution, and violence. Without God, these problems are left to man and his ingenuity to solve.

Over the last 200 years, man has been phenomenally successful in harnessing nature through the application of materialistic science. This has led to unbridled confidence that man, through science, will one day overcome the health, social, and environmental obstacles to a utopian existence.

But as new atheist Sam Harris warns in his Huffington Post article, “Science Must Destroy Religion,” “the maintenance of religious dogma always comes at the expense of science.” Harris’s warning is clear. If science is our savior, then anything that impedes it is a threat to our future hope.

For instance, religious doctrines about the sanctity of human life are hindrances to the scientist who seeks cures through research on embryonic stem cells, the mentally incapacitated, the terminally ill, or prisoners. The same goes for the social researcher who believes that population control is essential for socio-economic health. Revealed religion is also at odds with the investigator who believes that the gnawing questions of our existence will be answered in the quest for extraterrestrial life.

To those whose ultimate hope is in the limitless potential of man through science, religion is a danger more menacing than the Black Plague or runaway g****l w*****g. Consequently, Harris frets that “Iron Age beliefs—about God, the soul, sin, free will, etc.—continue to impede medical research and distort public policy.”

To meet the threat, Harris urges the scientific community to blast “the hideous fantasies of a prior age with all the facts at their disposal.” Once religion and faith are vanquished by reason and science, Sam Harris envisions that
the practice of raising our children to believe that they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu [will] be broadly recognized as the ludicrous obscenity that it is.

And only then will we stand a chance of healing the deepest and most dangerous fractures in our world.

Mr. Harris and the other new atheists would be wise not to bet the farm on this hope. According to an Authority I trust, the church will not only prevail over all who would rout it; it will advance . . . even against the gates of Hell.

Atheism - Defining the Terms
There are two basic forms of atheism: "strong" atheism and "weak" atheism.

Strong atheism is the doctrine that there is no God or gods. Weak atheism is the disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

Weak atheism is often confused with agnosticism, the lack of belief or disbelief in God or gods, and skepticism, the doctrine that the absolute knowledge of God's existence is unobtainable by mere man. Many agnostics and skeptics are "practical atheists" in that they actively pursue an atheistic lifestyle. The exclusion of God necessitates moral relativism.

Atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) declared, and philosophers generally agree, without God there is no absolute t***h and thus no universal moral standard of conduct. Humanist John Dewey (1859-1952), co-author and signer of the Humanist Manifesto I (1933), declared, "There is no God and there is no soul. Hence, there are no needs for the props of traditional religion.

With dogma and creed excluded, then immutable t***h is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed, natural law or moral absolutes."

Atheism - Strong Atheism

Does "strong" atheism correspond with or contradict objective reality? Let's look at this question objectively. Suppose someone asks you, "Does God exist?"

You could answer in one of three ways: "I know for certain that God exists" (assured theism), "I don't know whether or not God exists" (insecure theism, agnosticism, "weak" atheism and/or skepticism), or "I know for certain that

God doesn't exist" ("strong" atheism).

To know for certain that God exists, you don't have to know everything but you do have to know something - you must either know God personally or you must be aware of some evidence establishing His existence. To be unsure whether or not God exists, you don't have to know everything. In fact, by your own admission you don't know everything. However, to claim to know for certain that God doesn't exist - to positively assert a universal negative - you would have to know everything. To be absolutely certain that God doesn't exist outside the limits of your knowledge, you would have to possess all knowledge.

Let's make this practical. Do you know everything? Do you know half of everything? Do you know 1% of everything? Let's be incredibly gracious and suppose that you know 1% of everything there is to know. Thomas Edison confidently declared, "We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything." Nevertheless, given the supposition that you know 1% of everything, is it possible that evidence proving God's existence exists in the 99% of everything you don't know? If you're honest, you'll have to admit that it's a real possibility. The fact is, since you don't possess all knowledge, you don't know if such evidence exists or not. Thus, you cannot be a "strong" atheist - you don't know that God doesn't exist.

Atheism vs. Theism

Strong atheism is a logically flawed position. Weak atheism, agnosticism and skepticism are all "I don't know" theological positions, with weak atheists subscribing to atheistic presuppositions, true agnostics "sitting on the fence," and skeptics capitulating to ignorance. Assured theists are the only ones who claim to know anything. What do they know?

In the end it doesn't matter what you believe. What matters is what's actually true. You might not believe in gravity. Nevertheless, if you step off a tall building you are going to splat on the ground below. T

he existence of God has enormous implications for you and me, and prudence would have us make a full investigation of all the available data before putting our eternity in the care of any one belief-system. Ask yourself these types of questions:

"How do I know something's true?" "What is the source of my information?" "Is my source absolutely reliable?" "What if I'm wrong?"



Atheism vs. Theism Debate – The Basics

The “Atheism vs. Theism” debate has been a fixture in Western culture for the last few hundred years. Remarkably, the same issues repeat themselves over and over again. Although certain “double PhD’s” would like us to think otherwise, the core controversies aren’t really “rocket science” at all. In a nutshell, the Atheism vs. Theism debate comes down to the following:

The Atheist’s Response to the Theist:

God doesn’t exist because science explains the cosmos without him.
Even if a finely-tuned cosmos and/or complex life suggest a first cause/designer, there’s too much pain and suffering in the world to believe in the Judeo-Christian God.

The Judeo-Christian Bible is myth and legend.
A moral life doesn’t require God, anyway.

The Theist’s Response to the Atheist:

Science affirms that the finely-tuned cosmos was created out of nothing.
Life’s order, design, and complexity require an Intelligent Designer, and our response to pain and suffering is relative to our knowledge of right and wrong/good and evil in a fallen world.

The Bible is trustworthy based on history, science, archaeology, manuscripts, and prophecy.

True morality requires a transcendent standard -- God.

Atheism vs. Theism Debate – The Essence

This is the essence of the Atheism vs. Theism debate. Although the theological, philosophical, and scientific controversies might appear vast and intimidating at first, they really boil down to these four foundational arguments.

Once you feel comfortable with these key areas in the Atheism vs. Theism debate, there’s not much that will surprise you. Have fun and engage the discussion.

Alicia Loc: NYC

******************
I thank you for your response. As you can see, I deleted a large portion of this post because you, no doubt by accident, repeated it twice more.

I often view the debates of Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss and Sam Harris and, for the most part agree with them. I definitely see Dawkins' accusations of the teaching of church dogma being mentally abusive when the recipients are children. Childhood, as well as the balance of life, should be enjoyed in discovery and not lived with a dread of the afterlife. I firmly believe that many attempt to live "good" lives because of their fear. Christianity advises that we should all attempt to follow in Jesus' teachings. I believe very few Christians do and are, therefore, hypocrites and will all end up in the place they're trying to avoid. For proof, just read some of the comments on OPP - definitely not Christlike.

A few years ago I met a family the parents of which were studying to be missionaries. We truly loved each other. We often got together to discuss the bible and naturally, I played devil's advocate. The purpose of this was to prepare them for their missionary work in that they were bound to come across questions such as I raised. I was quite honored when one evening, the husband, saying he understood I didn't attend church, but he found me to be the Most Christian of all his acquaintances because I lived Jesus' philosophy.

My own life consisted of being raised as a Roman Catholic whose parents, fortunately, left religious teaching to catechism classes on Sundays and Wednesdays. They did believe in a god but not necessarily in the church. I began to question the teachings but, of course, not in religious classes. I saw the bread and wine as reeking of cannibalism. Still am unable to understand some - even grown ministers who believe this to be an actuality. Eeuuu!

I read into other religions and, for a while, considered myself as spiritual. I then graduated to agnostic and finally, got off the fence and announced as a practicing atheist. I am friendly with a group of women at a church and, when asked what I thought would happen to me after death, replied, "I don't know but it should be an adventure!"

I did mention having attended a UU Church in Phoenix primarily because I so respected the minister who had walked with MLK in Selma. I was reminded by the same ladies that UU was not considered a Christian church. I shrugged my shoulders. I was saddened because I had no young children in my family to introduce them to this church. They would have learned about other religions and customs. We even celebrated the birthday of the baby Buddha. When that minister retired, I continued to attend for two more meetings and then also retired. I believe he retired to Japan because he was interested in Shintu.

I have entered into the 80s and have not the slightest fear of death. I consider it part of life as everything eventually dies in Nature. Why should I have any more value in life than a carrot?

ghostgotcha Loc: The Florida swamps

Apparently you do not. Enjoy your carrot.