After reading the notes, I had a certain appreciation for Tatarize because many atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, don’t take the time to address specific points in a rational manner, but digress directly into sarcasm and ridicule. That being said, I could not overlook the instances where Tatarize seemed a bit hypocritical. I believe Orwellian “new-speak” is a conscious trait of some atheists, such as Dawkins. But in the case of Tatarize, it was not clear if this was simply a result of years of living within the parameters of atheistic relativism. In any event, as I considered the responses by Tatarize, many parallels between atheists and jellyfish came to mind, and this article was the result.
Fish Leave – Jellyfish Takeover
According to scientists, jellyfish have been slowly but surely taking over the Earth's waters as fish populations decrease. And some of the larger varieties, such as the box jellyfish, can be quite dangerous. Where I live, a whopping 90 percent of the fauna in the Black Sea consists of jellyfish. Thankfully, I haven't noticed any killer varieties. Anyway, when you consider that a symbol of Christianity since the beginning has been a fish and an appropriate symbol for atheists may be a jellyfish, it’s kind of interesting how it plays out. As society has become “post-Christian,” government and education have largely been taken over by blooms of atheists. And the rights and freedoms that came along with a theistic based form of government are gradually being choked off by a sea of authoritarian atheistic relativism.
The Amorphous Jellyfish
There are about 200 distinct species of jellyfish but they all fall within one phylum. As invertebrates, they change their shape constantly as they propel themselves through the water. Similarly, atheistic relativists come in many different varieties, for example, secular humanists, naturalists, new atheists, militant atheists, non-theists, etc. but, nevertheless, there are certain common characteristics and behavior patterns which may be observed by reviewing history. Many atheists deny there is any cohesiveness and like to mix and match definitions, depending upon what is advantageous at the moment. This is intellectually not a problem because, for atheistic relativists, there is no belief in an absolute standard of truth. This relativist influence also spills over into the morality department.
Atheists often assume that Christianity is juvenile and/or illogical because there is belief in a God which cannot be seen. But, paradoxically, it is belief in the eternal, specific and personal God which gives higher meaning and a basis point for logic and reasoning. Atheists do not have this basis point and so the atheistic position is actually much weaker. See the "relativist fallacy" for one such example. These are reasons why the Bible encourages reasoning and logic with regard to purpose and meaning. Because of its weak position, institutionalized atheism must rely on censorship, authoritarianism and disinformation in order to maintain its power base. After years of indoctrination, false assumptions have become accepted as fact. In challenging some of the sacred cows at the atheist blog, some people became very angry. In my opinion, this anger is a good sign that a person is not consciously and knowingly deceived and just drifting along with the flow. Please show me specifically, if you believe the facts, history and reasoning of my rebuttal to a rebuttal are not correct in the following notes:
1) “There's nothing new about new atheism.”
Really? What I’ve gleaned from their website and leaders, is that New Atheism encompasses a new nonprofit organization, as well as a philosophical and political movement. Richard Dawkins, a key promoter, seems to suggest that New Atheism really is “new," as per a "Transcript for Richard Dawkins on militant atheism" he says “What I want to urge upon you is militant atheism.” But, in keeping with his relativism, he proposes the more palatable name “non-theist” to “be embraced by teapot or tooth fairy agnostics.”
2) “It's old atheism that people actually talk about. There's absolutely nothing violent about it.”
No, I was not referring to “old atheism.” But if you want to go more into history though, I can. Contrary to what you wrote, atheism has been associated with extreme violence repeatedly, historically and up to the present day. It wasn't just Marxists such as Lenin and Stalin, but Hitler, a fascist, justified his horrific actions based on the atheistic philosophy of German Nietzsche. Present day eugenicist scientists, with their genocidal dreams, are no different. Atheism is the lowest common denominator of the philosophies and belief systems used to justify these phenomena. The abuses of the inquisition and counterfeit religious/political leaders, however, were not justified, in any way, by the teachings of Jesus Christ and Christianity's moral absolutes. Dawkins’ claim that religion is more harmful than atheism is simply unjustified, historically and philosophically.
“...which outlined the goal of controlling all the institutions of the world with the philosophy of atheistic humanism.”
3) “I think you misread the Manifesto.”
No, I don't so — Let me quote it for you (Human Manifesto I, as linked in my previous article): “Thirteenth: Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the modern world.”
OK, so this not only calls for the control of governments and schools but “ecclesiastical methods” as well. This is an agenda for the total control of society. - Maybe it was you who did not read the Manifesto?
“They want to take away whatever rights and freedoms Christians and theists have left.”
4) “No. We want to take away any and all special privileges of any an all religious groups. Because it's not fair that a religious group gets a special privilege that another group is denied.”
Actually, historically, any acts of any religious affiliation or hints of the religious history of the US were removed from the US public school system a long time ago (any biblical textbook references in the 1960's). Presently, however, it is the atheist establishment which enjoys special privileges. Any scientific evidence which contradicts the theory of evolution is censored. Teachers who desire to present such scientific facts are frequently fired from their jobs and lose tenure. Students who present such facts receive failing grades. There is a high probability you did not view the documentary film I suggested as a source of verification “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” If this present totalitarian control of schools and universities is not enough for the atheist establishment, then the call for militant atheism can only mean that more rights will be taken from people until there are no more right left to take. This is simple logic. Presently, there is “a California case in which a man who talked to two willing strangers in a shopping mall was arrested because the subject of the conversation was God.” It seems, these types of civil rights injustices, including laws against "God talk," will only get worse.
5) “The way we know if ideas are true or not is by engaging with them and seeing whether or not they stand up to scrutiny.”
I agree entirely and wholeheartedly. Why is it then that the theory of evolution must be accepted without scrutiny in public schools and in higher education? Why is it that scientific facts must be repressed? It may be the same reason why Richard Dawkins and other top atheist scientists are afraid to debate the leading Intelligent Design scientists. Documentary film “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” presents case after case of censorship against valid scientific knowledge. Skepticism, it seems, is promoted by atheists with regard to theism only, not their own beliefs. In a free and democratic society skepticism is encouraged. But, interestingly, once atheism has been established institutionally, skepticism and free speech are not permitted in education or in society in general. Lenin was a member of the “intelligentsia,” but after the Bolshevik revolution, intellectuals had one of three choices: be killed, be exiled or be conformed. The same is true to this day in strictly controlled atheist based countries.
6) “There's no institutionalization of atheism because there's nothing to institutionalize.”
There is a high probability, judging from your answers, you did not read line thirteen of Humanist Manifesto I and did not read the book referenced, authored by John Dewey, regarding the Soviet Russian school system, specifically designed to erase any notions of God from the collective consciousness of the students. State atheism, or institutionalized atheism, has been defined by David Kowalewski as the official "promotion of atheism" by a government, typically by active suppression of religious freedom and practice. This practice is not limited to Marxist based governments and occurs presently in the good old US of A.
Many countries have seen the negative impact of atheistic relativistic education and are interested in improving religious illiteracy. Norway has offered “Christian knowledge and religious and ethical education.” In 2009, Russia began offering religious literacy courses. Ghana is another country interested in religious literacy. Where I live today in Ukraine, there are textbooks approved for use in public schools which promote the study of various world-views. This is not to say they are used very much, but there is a drop of hope they will be. Students and teachers are shocked here when I tell them a student is not allowed to say he or she believes in God or intelligent design in a classroom. And that a teacher may not propose that there is a possibility that the atheistic world-view is not the only explanation for the universe.
7) “The atheist movement doesn't have a history because generally atheists aren't a coherent group.”
It is interesting that atheists have no problem grouping all spiritual faith under the label “religion” and defining it in historical terms with historical characteristics. But when it comes to atheism, many atheists want to deny any cohesiveness or historicity. This smacks of hypocrisy. You acted as a representative of atheism writing “we” five times in your reply. I wouldn't write “we” as a representative of religion because I believe the differences are quite deep, much deeper than the differences between atheistic groups. Relativism and new-speak again seem to be part and parcel with the atheist mindset.
“...and that it was the Judeo-Christian idea of God that had to be expelled from the education system.”
8) “The entire premise of this statement was that somebody had shoved God into the public education system.”
No, that was not the premise at all. But let me address what you wrote, concerning a common atheist myth. On this theme it is hard to cast any blame on students because the US Department of Education has been quite successful in eradicating the true history of the United States. This subject would require several books in order to give adequate space for the true history of a highly unique form of government based on Judeo-Christian principles. These principles were not “shoved in” but formed the essence of the government since the beginning. In the history of civilization there has never been a government which has been more closely connected with the teachings of Jesus Christ and the principles of theism than the United States of America.
Though Europe had close ties between church and state, ultimately, it was a class-based system and the political equality originally promoted in the US is closer to the Christian ideal Jesus taught (The neo-cons and neo-libs, however, are radically altering this equity). Before the American Revolution occurred, there was an incredible spiritual revival in the country, known historically as the “Great Awakening.” Most of the signers of the Constitution were dedicated Christians and believed that each individual had dignity and value being created in the image of God. Thus, each person was entitled to “inalienable rights.” God talk is one of those rights found in scripture. Countries established based upon anti-theistic principles, by contrast, such as the Soviet Union, present day China and North Korea, have a great disrespect for human dignity and human rights such as free speech. Many US Founding Fathers realized that true freedom and democracy are not even possible if the people do not have a moral compass.
The three part structure of the US government itself coincides with a biblical concept of three unique government roles (Isaiah 33.22). The fact is that both the structure and operations of the US government and its education system were based on biblical principles. For 150 years Bible verses were used in Colonial and early American public schools to teach the alphabet in a textbook entitled the New England Primer. These are just a few points out of many regarding these early connections.
9) “...And there's is no unbiased scientific evidence that contradicts atheism because there is no scientific evidence that suggests that God exists..”
Evidence, in and of itself, is not biased. This is a red herring argument. However, in his book "Darwin's Black Box" Michael Behe stated he was not a believer in God. While Dawkins enjoyed railing on Behe and slandering him, he refuses Behe’s open invitation to debate face to face. Doctor Stephen Meyer has written an unbiased scientific book on DNA with no appeals to God or the Bible whatsoever, and again, it is Dawkins who refuses his open invitations to debate. There are hundreds of scientists and authors who have presented great amounts of research refuting the idea that suggests the universe and life occurred by chance. The main problem is that the information is censored and rejected ipso-facto because it contrasts with the theory of evolution.
“After the mass murder of thousands of innocent intellectuals and people of faith, how anyone can speak of such a movement in glowing terms is truly hard to Imagine - sorry John Lennon!”
10) “This was largely before that. The great purge wasn't until 37-38 ten years later.”
No, I was referring to the Bolshevik Revolution which occurred before John Dewey's visit to the schools of the USSR. I admit I was not clear enough in my wording in the original article and changed the text. In the Bolshevik Revolution at least 2,000 were killed. But if you want to count later figures, the total death toll for the main Purge period was just under ten million people. New Atheism is setting the stage for more inhumanity on a greater scale than this.
“At this stage, institutionalized atheism in Western Society is advancing mainly through the indoctrination of a whole new generation of students.”
11) “Indoctrination is clearly forbidden by the first amendment as is religious proselytizing.”
This subject could be a book in itself dealing with the First Amendment. But in a nutshell, it is undeniably documented that an atheistic humanistic world view is being forced on all students unequivocally in public schools. The attached link shows the true meaning of Jefferson’s “separation of church and state” which is not even written in the Constitution.
“The main agent is the theory of macro-evolution, which, technically, cannot even be considered a true scientific theory for a number of reasons.”
12) “No. It is not only a true scientific one and but one that is widely accepted throughout science and explains a very large set of diverse facts.”
Is evolution actually a theory or a hypothesis? This is the definition of a hypothesis: “It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved.” How does a hypothesis become a theory? “In time, and if experiments continue to support your hypothesis, it becomes a Theory.”
It seems as though the theory of evolution has missed some important steps, the first of which is the main assumption upon which evolution hinges. Life has never been observed to have occurred spontaneously. Life has never been generated in a laboratory. The theory of evolution, in reality, is based on an unproven philosophical assumption that life occurred by chance. The scientific evidence today increasingly contradicts the hypothesis of evolution and thus must be repressed by the atheistic establishment. The link here outlines the Stanley Miller Experiment where he attempted to demonstrate abiogenesis or “chemical evolution,” the primordial soup that supposedly spawned life.
Miller did not create life nor the building blocks of life in context. The experiment was so manipulated that Miller himself ceased to defend it as a viable experiment, as described in this documentary film. Before Copernicus, science also had a theory that the sun revolved around the earth. But the theory was proven wrong, wasn't it. About.com lists eight requirements for a true scientific theory. Only three of the eight criteria seem to match the theory of evolution.
By contrast, the theory of intelligent design is rationally and logically defensible on all levels. It requires one thing, a suspension of disbelief in the supernatural. This quote by scientist Nina Fedoroff seems to sum up the atheist’s dilemma: “For me science is not different from art, except in the one small, crucial detail that experiments speak their own truths, not ours.”
The Forecast Calls for Pain
According to reports, many tourists visit resorts in places such as Thailand hoping for sunshine and chance to enjoy the ocean. But the big resorts, not wanting to scare away customers, sometimes fail to warn clients of the increasing poisonous killer jellyfish in the waters. The naive tourists plunge in and are sometimes so severely stung that they go into cardiac arrest and die on the spot in paradise. Likewise, public schools and institutions, in offering that the atheistic a-moral view of life is the only acceptable view, are essentially suggesting that a life without truth and moral boundaries is a sunny paradise when, in reality, it is a world-view that ultimately promotes pain and death.
Not only is there a misinterpretation of science, there is a reversal of values. By calling righteousness evil and unrighteousness good, people like Dawkins are fulfilling the prophecies of the last days: "Sin will be rampant everywhere, and the love of many will grow cold." Yes, the world is becoming colder as the atheistic world-view increases. Isaiah stated "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil." Woe is an ancient term for sorrow and pain. Paul said people in the last days would believe “a lie” and receive “strong delusion.” Was he predicting the hypothesis of evolution? It seems so.
In going back to the original question, “Are atheist jellyfish taking over the world?” It does seem that way and this scenario of a God-less world system is backed up by scriptural prophecy. Nevertheless, when there is persecution, as Jesus predicted there would be, the true Church becomes purified and stronger. The gospel continues to spread and the Church is triumphant, though it is being pruned and purified. And while many atheists such as Dawkins seem to have a deep seeded hatred for the idea of a loving and righteous God, other atheists seem to be more open-minded towards investigating what the Bible has to say.
Immortality and New Life
Actually, this may be a time when many who have been indoctrinated into atheism in public schools come to challenge the basis of their beliefs. Consider the jellyfish metaphor in a final example. Most jellyfish live for a few hours up to a few months. But there is a certain species of jellyfish, Turritopsis Nutricula, which seems to have a kind of "biological immortality." It is able to prolong its life indefinitely by returning to its polyps stage repeatedly. Immortality may be a concept worth considering, not biological, but spiritual. Jellyfish have no mind, no heart, no ears, and no lungs and are a perfect metaphor for a person who is spiritually lost.
According to scripture, we are all born in this spiritual jellyfish-like condition. Of course, a jellyfish does not know there is any other reality than the jellyfish reality and so a serious step of faith is required to even believe a new and different life is possible. I know - I’ve been there. All I can tell you is that I never want to go back. By God's grace I was given an unction of faith, I was given revelation so as to hear and understand God’s truth, I was given a new heart so as to sense and know God’s love and I was given the breath of God’s spirit into my spiritually lung-less frame so as to be spiritually born again as a new creature. And most importantly, the poison of my guilt and sin was replaced with the cleansing and healing blood of Jesus Christ. 2 Corinthians 5.17 shows how we become "new creatures" in Christ and this dramatic change effects individuals in unique ways with unique testimonies. Back in 1982, an atheist Kiwi surfer/diver, Ian McCormack, was stung five times by deadly box jellyfish and was given a glimpse of eternity as he was pronounced clinically dead for about 15 minutes. Upon his recovery, he became a believer and a new creature. Now he is an outspoken pastor, evangelist and church planter. You can see his story in detail at this link.
At the center of atheism is a lie, which blinds one to the true meaning of life, and removes the locus point by which the world may be rationally and correctly evaluated. The center of Christianity is the absolute truth of an eternal God with a heart of love. Why not look into Jesus?
I did another point by point reply on A/A.
ReplyDeleteIf it is truth that you desire to arrive at or to demonstrate, It may be more sensible to take more quality time to focus on a few key points. If you weigh your answers more carefully it may lead to more fruitful results. But I'm not sure if you are really interested in truth. Actually, as an atheist, you probably do not believe truth exists, am I correct? In this case, I have a question, If there is no truth and meaning, Why bother making comments at all?
ReplyDeletePerhaps, to some extent, you believe there is real meaning and truth, otherwise why bother writing about ideas at all?
The fact that you write shows you assume words have some kind of meaning to you. But are you interested in the possibility that there is also truth? And are you interested in knowing truth if it exists?
Aldous Huxley, an atheist, made an observation: "I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning;consequently (I) assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption...For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political."
You just don't get it, do you?
ReplyDeletethis isn't a new form of atheism, its the newest reaction to fundamentalism, the baqstion of EVIL, all fundies whether jewish, christian or muslim are but two steps from becoming terrorists, being a fundie you have proven you can be brainwashed, and as those that run these terroerist groups use your books of worship to prove the need for terrorism, your all very close to the edge.
and again , before you open your mouth and prove my point, as you invariably will, remember the tim mcvey( the bomber of the Oklahoma federal building) was raised fundie, just like his partner in the crime
and as I have asked EVERY fundie I've come across, name the atheist that that commited genocide, enslaved peoples or desired to rule the world, lotsa luck!!
David - You wrote: "I have asked EVERY fundie I've come across, name the atheist that that commited genocide, enslaved peoples or desired to rule the world, lotsa luck!!"
ReplyDeleteJospeh Stalin was an atheist who, according world history books outside of Russia, committed genocide on a massive scale.
Interesting that Stalin, who claimed publicly to disbelieve God's existance, apparently died with extreme hatred towards God. According to his daughter Svetlana, on his deathbed, Stalin suddenly sat up and clenched his fist toward the heavens before falling back dead. This is described in a book by Ravi Zacharias, in an excellent book "Can Man Live without God?"
In terms of fundamentalism, what is your definition? Would you consider Jesus to have been a fundamentalist radical? He did not advocate violence and is the only true absolute measure of the ideal of what Christianity is all about.
You may find the principles of Jesus Christ dangerous, but compared to some New Agers and atheists, I find his ideas incredibly good, both as examples for personal life and principles for society.
ReplyDeleteJames Lovelock, however, is someone to fear. Recently, the Father of the Gaia Hypothesis told the London Guardian that he believes “It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while,” in order to save humanity. He says “We need a more authoritative world.” See Prisonplanet.com for details: "Top Eco-Fascist Calls For End Of Freedom To Fight Global Warming."
Rick, I have no idea about the ideas of the person you're responding to in this post, but it doesn't really matter.
ReplyDeleteYour own points are a jumble of ignorance, misunderstanding and misrepresentation.
For a very brief example, you conflate the theory of evolution with hypothesis regarding abiogenesis, and then, since abiogenesis does not have a single well established theory think that this is a point against the theory of evolution. This shows gross ignorance of science in general and evolutionary theory in particular, whose validity only extends to things which reproduce imperfectly.
Rick: You may find the principles of Jesus Christ dangerous, but compared to some New Agers and atheists, I find his ideas incredibly good, both as examples for personal life and principles for society.
ReplyDeleteYour subjective opinion about some moral principles is not even remotely a reliable guide to the truth or otherwise of those principles, or the belief system surrounding them.