The “New Atheism” movement is coming out of the closet with all the “reasoning” of the Godfather with a baseball bat. “Business is business” would be a most appropriate slogan for it. Even secular publications, from the beginning, have been critical of the movement, as noted at this link. 
A Brief History of Institutionalized Atheism in the West
The Atheist Movement has a history of abusing the system for its own aims. Humanist Manifesto I defined in no uncertain terms, that Secular Humanism is a “religion”: “First: Religious humanists regard the world as self existing and not created.”(2) - A “self existing” world? This contradicts the universe as we know it with regard to the laws of physics. And accordingly, in 1961, the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that Secular Humanism was a religion, a belief system based on faith. This was legally defined in a court of law. After these events, however, they quickly changed their tactics by claiming their beliefs were not religious but scientific and that it was the Judeo-Christian idea of God that had to be expelled from the education system. They used an interpretation of the Constitution, which is questionable at best, to abuse the weakness of the democratic system, through the Supreme Court, against the consensus will of the people. And so, presently, unbiased presentations of the origins of the universe, the true details of religious history, and any scientific evidence that contradicts atheistic presuppositions are censored from the school classroom while any mention of God is censored from government institutions in general.
One of the signers of Humanist Manifesto 1, John Dewey, is known as the “Father of Modern Education.” In the summer of 1928, he visited Russia, and his book “Impressions of Soviet Russia and the Revolutionary World,” at this link, reveals he was well impressed by the tour of the “Great Experiment” of atheistic education and society in general.(3) After the mass murder of thousands of innocent intellectuals and people of faith, including 2,000 or so during the Bolshevik Revolution and then the 10 million or so during the Great Purges - how anyone can speak of such a movement in glowing terms is truly hard to imagine – sorry John Lennon! It’s obvious that both Lennon and Dewey were wearing rose colored glasses as their considered their atheistic utopia, glasses which completely blocked out the UV, ultra-violent atheistic tendencies.
In any event, the Soviet model was the one Dewey and his peers would adopt in their quest to alter Western Education towards what it has become today. At this stage, institutionalized atheism in Western Society is advancing mainly through the indoctrination of a whole new generation of students. The main agent is the theory of macro-evolution, which, technically, cannot even be considered a true scientific theory for a number of reasons. One of the reasons New Atheism is becoming more aggressive, it seems, is because the theory of macro-evolution, more and more, is being revealed as “the emperor with no clothes.” Hopefully, those caught in the middle of the debate will see that the philosophy is a house of cards, when considering the fresh excuses and abuses of New Atheism:
“Belief in God is Idiotic” - Richard Dawkins, the leading proponent of New Atheism has admitted “Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God.”(4) One who is not certain of God's existence is called an agnostic. But his decision to call himself an atheist, one who disbelieves in God's existence, and his decision to promote hatred, show that he is not only nonobjective in his approach to the subject, but his mind is essentially switched off to the possibility of God's existence. He is unwittingly supporting the biblical view and what Jesus proposed: “And this is the condemnation, that light has come into the world and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.”(5) Far from rational and reasonable objectivity, Mr. Dawkins vilifies people who dare question atheism and the theory of macro-evolution with ridicule and personal attacks. November 24, 2009, live in a CNN interview, Dawkins referred to Pastor Ray Comfort an “idiot” because he questions evolution and is an advocate of an alternative world-view, linked here.(6) Dawkins’ favorite device is to compare the idea of God with fairy tales. The appeal to personal insults and ridicule, as opposed to debating the evidence, is a tactic that wouldn't pass in a junior high school debate class, but that is his favorite tactic in books, interviews and speeches, etc. Dawkins is unwittingly confirming the biblical premise that the proud are obstructed from knowing God(7) and his inner bitterness and inability to defend his beliefs publicly help to underline his spiritual and intellectual bankruptcy.
“I don't do debates” - It is a well known fact (in academic spheres) that the best scientists the theory of macro-evolution has to offer refuse to debate Intelligent Design scientists publicly because they are soundly defeated in almost all encounters. Dr. Stephen Meyer, an Intelligence Design scientist, challenged Dawkins to a debate, noticing their speaking tours crossed paths in the fall of 2009 in Seattle and New York, but Dawkins declined through his publicists. Meyer, author of the well received recently published book Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, at this link, is one of many highly qualified professionals challenging Dawkins with an open-ended invitation to debate wherever and whenever he chooses. Dawkins, however, refuses the challenges, per link.(8) The following revealing quote shows the fear of exposure that atheist scientist activists generally have: “Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.”(9) Scientists who debate on the side of Intelligent Design make no appeal to the Bible whatsoever and rely solely upon scientific evidence, but there is prejudice due to the implications of the facts, as they speak for themselves.
True authority, in any subject, is not based on arrogance and bravado, a paper diploma or a book publishing contract, or even an academic consensus. True authority is based, first and foremost, on having true premises. And the glaring lack of true authority academic atheists enjoy today is displayed in their inability to defend their positions in live debates. It’s truly a case of the emperor with no clothes. This lack of freedom is exemplified at Dawkins' forum at his website. When I checked it out recently I found there were pre-screening registration questions and not one person with an alternative world-view was found in the so-called forum.
“Belief in God is unscientific” - This is a classic cop-out showing a misunderstanding of the role of science - mixing apples and oranges. Science, from the Latin root “scientia,” simply means knowledge. Science is a branch of knowledge for the analysis of the physical world and physical laws. It is not a philosophical disposition, as much as many people would like to make it so. The academic institutions of our day, embedded with the naturalist philosophy, have tried to make a branch of knowledge the root system and it just doesn't fly, either logically or academically, and so censorship is enforced against much of the new scientific data. This twentieth Century power grab and academic cout de tat is described in the thirteenth line of Humanist Manifesto 1, line thirteen. (10) This totalitarian attitude in academia is well documented in film “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” The tendency towards bias and abuse was underscored by the late atheist scientist Stephen Jay Gould: “Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective “scientific method”, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology.”(11)
The myth of macro-evolution, still being used in the education system to indoctrinate students into atheism, has been discredited by both atheistic and theistic scientists. Objective atheist scientist Michael J. Behe, author of “Darwin's Black Box,” is one such example (whom Dawkins also refused to debate, see link). History records many scientists who have believed in God, such as Sir Isaac Newton, perhaps the greatest scientist in history, who also wrote commentaries on the books of Daniel and Revelation, books of prophecy. He actually wrote more about scripture than he did about science. Other notable scientists with similar beliefs include Boyle, Pascal, Faraday, Pasteur, Maxwell and Joule. Though not a theist, Einstein believed the universe cannot be explained without the existence of a higher power of some kind.
New Atheism and the New Age: A Double Standard and a Clue
On the surface, Dawkins and New Atheism claim to be against all religions and gods but this is really not the case. The term itself, “a – theism,” hints at its main thrust. And you don't see hatred directed at New Age spiritualism, for example, such as the worship of Gaia. Dawkins compares theism with belief in the Spaghetti Monster, but I don’t see him directing anger towards the Spaghetti Monster. I don’t see him beginning a worldwide movement against the Spaghetti Monster. If Christianity is indeed a harmless fairy tale, and is already expelled from every school and government institution, why is there a need to continue attacking it? What thinkest thou Sherlock?
The Bible predicted that there would be a rising Antichrist spirit and that there would be great persecution in the last days, not directed at all religions, but specifically at Christians.(12) In addition to this, an increase of false teachers was predicted. A 2009 Barna poll showed that spirituality, in general, is on the increase in the US, but belief in Christianity is on the decrease.(13) From an atheistic perspective, this doesn't makes any sense. Why is belief in the supernatural increasing? Atheists have been indoctrinating students for generations. But according to the biblical perspective, however, this makes perfect sense. There really is a supernatural world with both darkness and light. And, contrary to the ecumenical claims, all of the various faiths of the world cannot be correct. If Jesus’ words are true, then New Age beliefs really are deceptions.
New Atheism and Globalism: More Hypocrisy and More Clues
In 2004, the United Nations appointed Matt Cherry, an atheist humanist, to head the UN Religion Committee, as per link. According to Humanist Manifesto I, however, the main goal of Secular Humanism is to quash all religions. When interviewed about this strange appointment he replied: “Article 18 of the U.N.’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights works in much the same way as separation of church and state in America.”(14) For all practical purposes, his statement is a bit of a joke. During the United Nation’s Rio Earth Summit, Maurice Strong, instrumental in the formation of UN Agenda 21, presided over the events while outside his wife Hanne and 300 followers called the Wisdom-Keepers, continuously beat drums, chanted prayers to Gaia, and tended sacred flames in order to “establish and hold the energy field” for the duration of the summit. See this link for live video footage of these ceremonies on YouTube. The United Nation’s Earth Charter calls for a universal New Age “spiritual education.”(15) And more specifically, the “Bahá'í faith proudly proclaims “Bahá'í representatives were present in 1945 in San Francisco at the founding of the United Nations.” And “Relationships with these and other UN bodies and agencies have deepened over the years.” They claim a spiritual being, Bahá'u'lláh, is directing the course of this spiritual and political union: “More than a century ago, Bahá'u'lláh called for the creation of a system of international governance.”(16) This blog, linked here, has more references to globalism and Gaia, if you are interested.
The main thrust of the UN's Globalist Movement is the protection of the environment. In reviewing Agenga 21 and the Carbon Tax Movement, environmentalism is basically revealed as an excuse for world government control. Recent scandals show that the greenhouse threat has been hyped up with false data. Gaia worshippers, such as Al Gore and those pulling the strings in the UN, portray Christianity as an enemy of the Earth,(17) as shown at this link, and will likely have no problem with the increased persecution of Christians. This all feeds into the big picture of what the Bible predicted would happen. The homogenized world religion joining together with the political world government, will prepare the way for the leadership of the Antichrist for a season. When the Antichrist is revealed, this is the time when the Great Tribulation will begin.
Conclusion
Atheism has come by way of revolution in the East and by evolution in the West, by aggression in the first case and by deception in the second. This new version, New Atheism, seems to be an answer to the increasing scientific evidence disproving the theory of evolution. In refusing to debate and by promoting aggression and hatred, its leaders are showing the true colors of the atheist philosophy and the dark spiritual influence behind it. What is the main difference between Richard Dawkins and Mao Tse-Tung? Richard Dawkins has extra revenues from book deals and trendy T-shirts.
Since January 1, 2010, ten churches have been burned in Texas by arsonists, one of whom is a fan of Frederick Nietzsche (18). The two suspects used to attend a church but became enemies of churches. In addition to Nietzsche, other contributing factors seem to have been a lack of family love and deep bitterness. Because New Atheism promotes hostility, we can expect to see more people taking aim at religion as an outlet for their aggression. Ironically, New Atheism is helping to fulfill biblical prophecy by promoting intolerance, hostility and the persecution of Christians.
Most of the cheerleaders for New Atheism will probably not want to live in the world they are helping to create. The “Great Experiment” John Dewey was conned into supporting makes for a profitable slave system, but you don't see a lot of people lining up to voluntarily live in China where there is zero freedom. And you don't see people lining up to live in post-Soviet Ukraine, where I presently live, where corruption is rampant. The globalists are running the free democratic world into the ground and cashing out at the same time. If you have not yet been completely indoctrinated into atheism, consider the evidence that the spiritual world is real and consider looking into the exclusive claims of Jesus Christ.(19) If you are already a follower of Jesus Christ, this article may seem somewhat, or altogether, depressing. But there is reason for great hope and joy today in simply knowing and abiding in Jesus Christ.(20) And while it's true that deception and hatred are gaining the upper hand, and it will get even worse according to scripture, you can read the end of the book and see how it all ends. Ah, the beauty of true prophecy! Revelation shows that truth and love eventually win out and this is the side you definitely want to be on, even in spite of the persecution. And Jesus’ words are as true today as when they were recorded by the Apostle John: “the Spirit who lives in you is greater than the spirit who lives in the world.”(21)
References
1 Humanist Manifesto I, The New Humanist (May-June 1933) p. 58-61. http://www.scribd.com/doc/24618012/1933-Humanist-Manifesto-I-John-Dewey-Et-Al
2 Ibid.
3 Dewey, John, Impressions of Soviet Russia and the Revolutionary World, (NY - Soviet Russia, New Republic, Inc. 1928) http://ariwatch.com/VS/JD/ImpressionsOfSovietRussia.htm
4 Dawkins, Richard, Science and Christian Belief (vol. 7, 1994), p. 47. http://www.icr.org/article/455/ (Morris cites Dawkins)
5 John, apostle of Jesus, Gospel of John 3.19 NIV
6 Dawkins, Richard, Live TV interview, CNN Tech, (Nov 25, 2009),http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/11/25/darwin.dawkins.evolution/
7 James, apostle of Jesus (James 4.6 NIV) “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”
8 Atheism is Dead, Internet, Blogspot, (Nov 11, 2009), http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/10/will-richard-dawkins-debate-stephen_31.html
9 Scott, Eugenie, Fighting Talk, New Scientist (vol. 166, April 22, 2000), p.47.
10 Humanist Manifesto I, 1933, http://www.scribd.com/doc/24618012/1933-Humanist-Manifesto-I-John-Dewey-Et-Al
11 Gould, S. J., In the Mind of the Beholder. Natural History. 103 (2): 14. 1994.
12 Matthew, apostle of Jesus, Gospel of Matthew, 24.9 (persecution), John, Apostle of Jesus, I John, 4.3 (Antichrist spirit)
13 Barna Studies the Research, Offers a Year-in-Review Perspective, 2009 - http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/325-barna-studies-the-research-offers-a-year-in-review-perspective
14 Crary, Duncan, Atheist Heads UN Religion Committee, (Vol 12, No 2, April 1, 2008) http://www.atheistalliance.org/Secular-Nation-Archive-Vol.-12-No.-2/Atheist-Heads-UN-Religion-Committee.html
15 Earth Charter, IV Democracy, Nonviolence, and Peace, 14,d, (Official release June 29, 2000)
16 The Bahá'í International Community and the United Nations, Bahá'í Topics, Bahá'í Org. Website. http://info.bahai.org/article-1-6-0-6.html
17 Gore, Al, Earth in the Balance, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA, 1992 pg. 60 http://www.green-agenda.com/gaians.html
18 Church Arson Suspect Likes Nietszche and Bonfires, 02/22/10, http://watchdogblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/02/church-arson-suspect-likes-nie.html
19 John, apostle of Jesus, Gospel of John, 10.7-10, 14.6,
20 John, apostle of Jesus, Gospel of John, 15.1-11
21 John, apostle of Jesus, 1 John, 4.4 (NLT)
Tags: intolerance of religion, personal attacks by atheist apologists, weakness of atheist belief, New Atheism is intellectually bankrupt
The following is a follow-up article:
Your article is full of crap.
ReplyDeleteDude, I'm sorry you hate atheists so much that you have to lie. tsk. tsk.
ReplyDeleteAussie Rob and Indy Colts Fan: Thanks for taking the time to comment. Did you read the entire article? I assume you are both atheists and I'm aware that not many atheists are willing to read such an article. By virtue of the fact that you commented, however, shows you are more open-minded than many atheists who would not bother to do so.
ReplyDeleteIt would be interesting to know which specific points you disagree with, Aussie Rob. And ICF, I do not hate atheists, I have atheist friends. Where do you believe there is a "lie?"
Yes, I read your whole "article" and all that's here is your own benighted opinion of atheists. OK, you don't "hate" atheists... you "hate" the "sin" of atheism.... am I right? Thought so.
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to point out all the inaccuracies, because nothing I say is going to change your mind. However, I'm going to provide a link for all kinds of responses to this screed. Do you remember starting a thread on the atheism/agnosticism forum on about.com? Well, there were more responses after you chose to leave, including "Tatarize" who left a very long, in-depth response to your article... just so you know, it's so in-depth that it encompasses 4-5 separate replies.
If you are a good, honest Christian who really wants to understand us, I would recommend that you go back and respond like the good Christian you are. You just might learn something.
Here's the first page on which you will find "Tatarize's" first reply:
http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=57&nav=messages&webtag=ab-atheism&tid=44108
And after you do, I expect you will make the appropriate changes to your article. Right? Didn't think so.
My article "Are Atheist Jellyfish Taking Over the World?" is a reply to your note and Tatarize's comments.
ReplyDeleteSince January 1, 2010, seven churches have been burned by arson in Texas,(18) and we can only but expect more of this type of news, thanks to movements like New Atheism.
ReplyDeleteIt topped out at 10 churches, and they caught the Christians who were doing it.
Tatarize - If you had read the details you would have noted the boy described himself as "Christian - other" at one point in a web-profile. The "other" he may have been referring to was perhaps Nietzche, whom he quoted and was apparrently a fan of:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/022310dntexchurchfires.142b10fe6.html
The arsons' actions were not justified by the teachings of Jesus Christ but can easily be justified by the writings of Nietzche. They were and are, it seems, very confused individuals, true products of the atheistic US contemporary public education system. Nietzche had declared war on God, as you may know already. Buring churches would be in line with that motive.
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/nihilism.html
I have to agree with AussieRob.
ReplyDeleteyour reasoning leaves a great deal to be desired, to begin with, your idea that atheism is something new is wrong!
ever heard of buddhism, the religion based on what you call atheism, also the religion that pushed the concept of evolution, the religion that existed before your JESUS was supposed to be born.
I take it personaly when an ignorant christian tells me how I should think>
I may be atheist, but at least I'm not a follower of a Roman Pagan Religion that lies and calls it self a part of the Abrahamic tradition, jesus never preached about a heaven in the sky, he preached about heaven on earth like every jew has preached, the heaven you believe in is part of the pagan animistic religion of Rome from the time of Constantine.
and as to your comment on evolution being disproven or a lack of proof thereof is totaly in your mind, delusional as it may be
A second comeent: I checked out the NEW ATHEIST site.
ReplyDeletethe main problem you seem to have wi8th their vieww is that fundies don't have a right to feel their right, reality check: they don't have a right to feel right unless they can prove their point, which of course is unprovable !!!
It really is time for the fundies to grow up and realize being inbred and retarded isn't some thing to shoot for, and before you open your mouth and prove me right, realize thatthese same fundies are the ones that push inbreeding as a way to keep the races clean and seperate, this technique was used by slavers to keep the slaves retartded for more than a millenia what do you think the idea of a caste system is about, and don't just look at india, the romans had a caste system that the holy roman empire adopted and passed on to spain and mexico to name a couple of nations that held those BELIEFS!!!
ignorance does not beget bliss, as your confusion proves!
David - You wrote: "Your idea that atheism is something new is wrong!" - That was not my idea at all. I was referring to "New Atheism" as something new, not based on my own ideas but based on the proponents of those advocating this hostile militant movement.
ReplyDeleteI was not referring to all atheists and to Buddhism but would point out that the Japanese were not exactly Boy Scouts during WWII. Check out film "To End all Wars."
As far as Jesus' words regarding the kingdom of God, I addressed that in comments for the previous article "An Open Challenge to Bible Critics." You may want to read that one.
"It really is time for the fundies to grow up and realize being inbred and retarded isn't some thing to shoot for."
- Interesting you mentioned that... Darwin chose inbreeding for his family only with the Huxleys and Galtons, the father of modern eugenics (scientific birth control and mass murder). After a few generations the infant mortality rate was too high to continue. See documentary Endgame by Alex Jones if you can stomach it.
"Darwin chose inbreeding for his family only with the Huxleys and Galtons" And so what? That does not disprove evolution. Darwin didn't make evolution. I think people like you are just afraid that your life doesn't really matter, aka when you die you die. End of story. And why worry so much about this loving "thing" you have been told is there. Really? If this thing loved you so much, why do you have to worry about obeying it? Why would it care? Or is this thing that created the universe so egocentric that it needs its rules to be followed and its every whim satisfied? So trivial. So obviously man made. If you can not see that your minds eye should not be driving. Stop believing because you feel you have too.
ReplyDelete"'Darwin chose inbreeding for his family only with the Huxleys and Galtons' And so what? That does not disprove evolution."
ReplyDelete- Timothy, I was responding to David, who wrote "being inbred and retarded isn't some thing to shoot for."- Well, ironically, that was what these famous, lauded evolutionists were shooting for, Darwin and Galton. I guess you may have missed the irony.
"I think people like you are just afraid that your life doesn't really matter, aka when you die you die. End of story." - In a sense, yes, I do want my life to matter, especially in the eternal picture. But that does not mean I am afraid. I have found meaning in knowing Jesus Christ, I agree.
"If this thing loved you so much, why do you have to worry about obeying it? Why would it care?" - I don't have to worry about obeying God, my heart's desire is to please God. If and when I stumble in error, God still loves me because His love is unconditional. There is no fear in God's love. Quite the opposite, His perfect love casts out all fear:
"There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment." (1 John 4.18)
Jesus paid the price for all sin, yours, mine, everyone's. There is no more judgment for anyone who receives the atonement Jesus offers, no punishment at all for sin will ever come. This is a difficult concept to grasp. Actually, it's a truth even the vast majority of cultural Christians, who don't know the Bible, do not understand.
"Stop believing because you feel you have too." - Have you read my article "An Open Challenge to Bible Critics?"
The evidence is all in favor of a divine creator. That is why atheist scientists such as Dawkins refuse to debate ID scientists such as Myer. If you want to really know why the existence of intelligence disproves atheism, read Myer's book Signature in the Cell.
Categorically, intelligent design better explains the nature of the universe. This is true astronomically, biologically and philosophically. Video "A Question of Origins" documents these first two points:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1587753392475373375#
While, philosophically, I can ask you one question, evoking the "relativist fallacy," to try and help you understand the fragility of your position, which you seem to proudly adhere to: "Do you believe in absolute truth? - Why or why not?"