First, if 90-odd percent of Americans say they believe in God, it's unhelpful to dismiss them as silly. Second, when they check that "believe in God" box, a great many people are not talking about the God the atheists rail against—a supernatural being who intervenes in human affairs, who lays down inexplicable laws about sex and diet, punishes violators with the stinking fires of hell and raises the fleshly bodies of the dead.

When over fifty percent of Americans believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, what are we atheists supposed to think? If we include all Christians worldwide, particularly the ones in poorer Catholic and Eastern Orthodox nations, the percentage is probably much higher. This doesn't take into account the non-democratic Islamic nations, where Western ideas are spat upon, and where basic education is limited to males, and where people are threatened into believing in the all-powerful Allah. So, the actual number of believers in an angry, vengeful, and intervening god is probably much much higher than even Lisa Miller cares to imagine.

Apologetics is a form of faith; it's faith in faith. Miller finishes her paper-thin argument by hauling in the invisible sacred cow.

Submitting faith to proof is absurd. Reason defines one kind of reality (what we know); faith defines another (what we don't know). Reasonable believers can live with both at once.

Reasonable believers? Can reason and faith coexist? And how can faith define the unknown? Isn't the unknown, by its very definition, indefinable? Here, Miller's mental gymnastics are Olympic quality. And most believers would likely take great offense to her reducing their unshakable faith to an algebraic X. Personally, I prefer to think of all faith simply as a Y.

Think of Afghanistan under the Taliban and you have a clear picture of Sharia.  Women's Rights are non-existent.  The domination and subjugation of women is the norm.  You don't need to worry about envy, every woman wears the same black clothing form head to foot.  No need to worry about makeup, all the people outdoors will see is your eyes.

If you are a homosexual and are reading this say goodbye to all your friends.  You will no longer exist because under Sharia, you must be put to death.  If you are a moderate Muslim, bad news for you.  Under Sharia you are worthy of death.  Try to publish a liberal or reformed version of  Quran in Iran and you will no longer be alive.

Robbers and thieves beware.  Under Sharia your hand will be chopped off.  Atheists beware.  Under Sharia you either pay a heavy tax to your Islamic masters, or you convert to Islam.  Attack Islam like you do Christianity,  and it will be the last time you attack anything.

Any person who does not submit to Islam has to pay a heavy tax or convert to Islam.  You will have no other choice.

Contrast all the above with the verses of Love spoken in the New Testament [Brit Chadasha] in Hebrew.  1 Corinthians 13: Love is patient, love is kind.  It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered , it keeps no record of wrongs.  Love does not rejoice in evil but rejoices with the truth.  It always protects,  always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.  NIV

If you know you are not right with God, repent [t'shuvah in Hebrew].   Repent  means to turn from doing things your way and turning to God's ways.  Trust in Jesus [Yeshua], not yourself.  Ask Him to fill you with the Holy Spirit [Ruach HaKodesh]   Attend a Church that believes that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.  Get baptized.  Read your Bible daily and follow the teachings of Jesus [Yeshua]  Walk in His Love to all you come in contact with.

                        "Top ten reasons why sharia is bad for all societies"
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/08/top_ten_reasons_why_sharia_is.html

“The pre-history of our species is hag-ridden with episodes of nightmarish ignorance and calamity, for which religion used to identify, not just the wrong explanation but the wrong culprit.”

These words by Christopher Hitchens in the Introduction to his book The Portable Atheist – Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever (De Capo Press, 2007) summarises the problem religion still causes in society.

Hitchens’s book is absolute essential reading for anyone who claims to have a critical mind and who wants to counter the preposterous arguments so often used by believers who see no conflict between the findings of science and the tenets of religious beliefs. He introduces the development and growth of the island of nonbelievership and science amidst a sea of ignorance and religious beliefs through the words of atheists: essays and questions on religion and rational thinking by Lucretius, Omar Khayyám, Thomas Hobbes, Benedict de Spinoza, David Hume, James Boswell, Percy Bysshe Shelley, John Stuart Mill, Karl Marx, George Eliot, Charles Darwin, Leslie Stephen, Anatole France, Mark Twain, Joseph Conrad, Thomas Hardy, Emma Goldman, H.L. Mencken, Sigmund Freud, Albert Einstein, George Orwell, Bertrand Russell, Carl Sagan, John Updike, Michael Shermer, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Victor Stenger, Elizabeth Anderson, Steven Weinberg, Salman Rushdie, Sam Harris, A.C. Grayling, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and others.

Hitchens quotes from Albert Camus’s La Peste (The Plague) when Dr. Rieux thinks about the reaction of the town of Oran, “celebrating its recovery from – its survival of – a terrible visitation of disease.” The analogy is clear, that a biological pestilence mowing down vulnerable people is very similar to the way religion casts it spell over the minds of a “plague-stricken people”, destroying their ability to think rationally and to deal with the challenges the real world puts in their daily lives.

Hitchens writes human “sacrifices were made preeminently in times of epidemics, useless prayers were uttered, bogus ‘miracles’ attested to, and scapegoats – such as Jews or heretics or witches – hunted down or burned. The few men of science and reason and medicine had all they could to keep their libraries and laboratories intact, or their very lives from harm. Of course, when the evil had ‘passed over,’ there were equally idiotic ceremonies of hysterical thanksgiving, propitiating whatever local deities there may be...”

The severe criticism I have experienced as an atheist journalist writing about science for newspapers in the Media24 group and as former science editor of Die Burger – and now again because I cast a sceptic blanket over the hysteria of the Angus Buchan phenomenon – reminds me of the excellent novel by the Oxford author Iain Pears, The Dream of Scipio.

In it the stern religious dogmatist Caius Valerius complains when his friend Lucontius jests about the way the discoveries of science were making inroads into the beliefs of Christians in 5th century Roman Gaul near Avignon. “Surely I speak only the truth? Surely we see the Revelations of our Lord solely through Greek eyes? Even Saint Paul was a Platonist,” Lucontius jokes.

“I do not know what you mean,” Caius replies. “The truth is told to me in the Bible. I need no Greek words to tell me what I see there.”

Pears describes Caius Valerius as a coarse man “who wrapped himself in piety like a suffocating blanket.” And: “Caius was one of those who gloried in his ignorance, called his lack of letters purity, scorned any subtlety of thought or expression. A man for his time, indeed. Once, and not so long ago, he would have fallen silent in embarrassment at his lack of knowledge; now it was the knowledgeable who had to mind their tongues” (my italics).

Angus Buchan, pastor Fred May of Shofar, the religious fundamentalists running (and ruining) the minds of the United States of America, these are all modern day Caius Valeriuses.  When one reads the letters of support for Buchan in the Afrikaans media, criticising poor Lina Spies for daring to point out the superficiality of his message in an excellent column in the weekly supplement By, the need for science to make its voice heard loudly and clearly becomes so much more urgent.

As Pears points out through the character of Julien Barneuve, “saintliness was hysteria, miracles naturally occurring phenomena misunderstood by the simple, belief mere self-delusion. A rigorous education in science was the antidote to all such afflictions” (my italics).

The “tentacles of superstition” ensnaring the minds of believers through the preachings of Angus Buchan, Fred May, Benny Hinn, TD Jakes, Pope Benedictus XVI, and thousands other misleaders of vulnerable, gullible minds can only be decimated by taking up the sharp scissors of science.

Hitchens’s analogy between the plague bacillus in Camus’s novel and the religious virus is very apt. He writes, quoting Camus’s character Dr. Rieux:

“No the fact is that the bacilli are always lurking in the old texts and are latent in the theory and practice of religion. This anthology (The Portable Atheist) hopes to identify and isolate the bacilli more precisely, and also to vindicate Dr. Rieux by giving prominence to those who, then and now, have always counterposed enlightenment to the bane:

The record of what had to be done, and what assuredly would have to be done again in the never-ending fight against terror and its relentless onslaughts, despite their personal afflictions, by all who, while unable to be saints but refusing to bow down to pestilences, strive their utmost to be healers.

May the healing of ensnared religious minds begin with this excellent anthology compiled by Hitchens.

The best method of grabbing people's attention - and selling more advertising - is dramatically covering daily events in a simplistic manner, which is what the news media does every day. People don't like having things explained to them in detail. Example, I never hear reporters actually mention more than one poll at a time. They typically shove the most dramatic poll in our faces, the one with the largest spread. And they ignore the mass of polls - the bigger picture - which would give us the most accurate measurement of what's actually going on.

Check out the electoral map of the presidential election at RealClearPolitics. Some media people give the map a superficial glance and claim McCain has the advantage or that Obama and McCain are tied. But if we look at the list of polls for each state, and count how many polls Obama and McCain actually won we see a different picture emerge. (Averaging can be deceptive; a modal analysis is often better).

In the above video, the commentator asks what if McCain were to win Michigan. But he doesn't delve into the details of the Michigan polls. Out of 30 polls McCain barely wins 7. So, is it even a realistic scenario to begin with? I don't even see why the media keeps defining Michigan as a battleground state. Michigan is going to Obama.

From the mode of the state polls Obama is also likely to win Colorado and New Mexico. If the solid blue states stay blue, then Obama has the advantage and will win the election with 273 electoral votes. At least this is my prediction. Don't forget to vote.

Can rational-minded, intelligent scientists explore the intersection of science and spirit with the same patience and respect, or do we have to endure endless battles of words on bookstore shelves? Does science disprove mysticism? Let's take a look.

In defense of the mystics' data

Growing up Catholic and later converting to Lutheranism I didn't learn about mysticism at church—it simply was not discussed. Unlike native cultures that put great faith in the wisdom of their mystics—those who have had a direct experience of God—mainline faith traditions here in the United States do not. A combination of uncertainty about the quality of information mystics are receiving from their encounters with Divinity, church politics and the frequently confusing nature of their teachings means mystics play second fiddle to established church theology.

In my spiritual journey over the past seven years, I have spent a great deal of time reading mystical accounts of God. Every faith tradition has their mystics. Jewish mystics study Kabbalah. Islamic mystics are known as Sufi's, of which Rumi is perhaps the best known. Native American mystics are known as Shaman or healers. There are Christian mystics like St. Augustine and Meiser Eckhart. There are contemporary mystics like Dr. David Hawkins, Eckhart Tolle and Ken Wilber.

I'd like to point out that contemporary atheist authors like Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), Sam Harris (The End of Faith) and Daniel Dennett (Breaking the Spell) give mysticism almost no coverage. Dawkins and Dennett don't even list "mystic" or "mysticism" in their indexes. Harris does, but only with the cross-reference "see spirituality."

It seems odd to make an argument that God doesn't exist by discounting the global, mystical tradition—the one group of folks who say they've had direct encounters with the absolute! In my mind, that's like writing a definitive history of music, yet discounting great composers that could write music in their heads without the aid of a piano—like Mozart. (For an excellent summary of the global, mystical worldview, see Aldous Huxley's The Perennial Philosophy.)

Despite the obvious lack of respect shown the mystical worldview by the Church and these authors' recent books, several Nobel-level physicists have found great worth in mystical accounts of God. Nobelist and physicist Erwin Schrödinger says these accounts are in "miraculous agreement," despite being separated by centuries of time and thousands of miles of geography.

Physicists provide the big picture of our universe

Since physicists are the ones who explore the universe from its absolute far reaches—all the way across space back to the Big Bang—and down to its tiniest, sub-atomic particles, I see their discipline as more comprehensive than biology, neuroscience, philosophy or evolution (disciplines from which recent authors have argued against the existence of God.)

These are earthly disciplines; I want a more universal view in my exploration of God-questions. I find physics provides the breadth and scope.

If our universe is indeed a prison of suffering, then physicists are the ones with the most comprehensive blueprints; the ones I would turn to to plan my escape. Every field is sacred and can be used to help free our minds from the confines of time and space, but from my research, physicists appear to be the most open-minded about questions of spirituality. And, if spacetime is structured like our mind, as we've explored, then physicists are going to have the most detailed information about that structure.

The A-Team of 20th-century physics supports a mystical worldview:
That's a lot of Nobel Prize bling to argue with

Ken Wilber notes in Quantum Questions that top pioneers in 20th century physics—Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger, Albert Einstein, Louis De Broglie, Max Planck, Wolfgang Pauli, Sir Arthur Eddington and Sir James Jeans—were all mystics. 

I count six Nobel laureates and two knights among their ranks. Einstein was selected as the Person of the Century by Time magazine. Parades were thrown in his honor here in the United States.

I'd put up this team against any of the scientists now writing about God not existing. Not because these scientists believed in the God of the Bible, necessarily, but because their open-minded, scientific-mystical approach to reality points science in the right direction. Certainly their interest and experiences in mysticism should give us all pause about dismissing mystical data about God. (For an exploration of their views, see Wilber's Quantum Questions.)

I'm not making the case here that physics, or these Nobel-level physicists who happen to be mystics, can prove God exists. They can't for all the reasons we've explored in this blog. God is love; love has no numbers. Physics is all about the numbers.

What I am saying is that to discount the validity of mystical data when some of the most brilliant men to have ever walked the earth found it be personally and professionally valid is arrogant beyond belief. It's like a golf club pro saying whatever Tiger Woods thinks about golf is worthless. 

Again, Einstein said, "All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree." Go high enough up the mountain, and knowledge merges; it's that simple. To discount the data from any field simply means you haven't gone far enough up the mountain.

(Admittedly, I've done just that with evolution in this blog, but only to help those stuck in its "infallible" canon see beyond its confining blinders. In reality, it's every bit as sacred as any other discipline; but only when it is contextualized by the love of the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, it's a dead end, like any discipline that places itself beyond love.)

Separating the true mystic from the poseur in the white robe 

By turning to mystical writers and their discussions about God, my spiritual lane-swerving lessened immediately. Growing up in a faith tradition rife with contradiction and dissociation, it was amazingly refreshing to find mystical writers from around the world offering surprisingly similar accounts of God.

Good data is a pleasure to experience.

But how did I separate the true mystics from the fly-by-night "gurus" populating New Age conferences, palm-reading houses and Web sites around the world? For me the answer is simple; focus on the ones that impress real scientists. Why? Because scientists are trained observers and evaluators of ideas. They see holes in logic. They want evidence. They demand peer review. They critique every word of their peers' documents before they are published.

In short, they question everything.

In my own personal journey of faith, the Holy Spirit inspired me to hold only one absolute about God—that He was love and nothing else—and question everything else I had been taught to the core. I found scientists to have the most rigorously questioning minds. So when these professional investigators of our physical universe found mystics they could relate with—or had mystical experiences themselves—I took notice.

While science can't ultimately prove the existence of God, there is a tremendous amount we can learn from the scientific method. Questioning everything. Rigor. Data. Peer-tested results. While Spirit is beyond all of these things, the fruits of a spiritual orientation are measurable and should be quantifiable in the physical universe, as we'll explore later.

As we'll see, Einstein's exploration of an absolute—the constant velocity of light—may give us the very method to take our understanding of God to a whole new level.

There are many paths to the ocean of God's love; mine was the path of science-informed mysticism.

* * *

The brain is the mind is the brain. One hundred billion nerve cells, give or take, none of which individually has the capacity to feel or to reason, yet together generating consciousness. For about 400 years, following the ideas of French philosopher René Descartes, those who thought about its nature considered the mind related to the body, but separate from it. In this model—often called "dualism" or the mind-body problem—the mind was "immaterial," not anchored in anything physical. Today neuroscientists are finding abundant evidence . . . that separating mind from brain makes no sense. Nobel Prize-winning psychiatrist-neuroscientist Eric Kandel stated it directly in a watershed paper published in 1998: "All mental processes, even the most complex psychological processes, derive from operations of the brain."

Dinesh D'Souza is a professional apologist. To him Christianity is the source of all good in the world, and evolution is nasty atheistic propaganda. Here's an excerpt from a piece he wrote on evolution and intelligent design:

The problem with evolution is not that it is unscientific but that it is routinely taught in textbooks and in the classroom in an atheist way. Textbooks frequently go beyond the scientific evidence to make metaphysical claims about how evolution renders the idea of a Creator superfluous.

Chemistry and physics are also taught in an "atheistic way", as are computer science and mathematics. Science, by its very nature, is secular because the supernatural is not open to any form of investigation. When teaching evolution a teacher ought not to even mention god, because god is not a source of viable data.

D'Souza accuses science of making "metaphysical claims", but it is Christians like himself who are guilty of this sin. They presuppose the existence of a higher being, and they whine when their presupposition is contradicted in a science classroom. It is perfectly reasonable, considering the evidence, for a biologist to conclude that life on Earth evolved and was not designed. This claim is about the physical world, not the metaphysical one. To proclaim the existence of a grand designer is a "metaphysical claim", one that is wholly untestable within our Earthly realm. In essence, what D'Souza is upset over is biologists not including a dash of the supernatural in the mix.

Most Christians don't care whether the eye evolved by natural selection or whether Darwin's theories can account for macroevolution or only microevolution. What they care about is that evolution is being used to deny God as the creator.

First D'Souza denounces science for making a "metaphysical claim", then he squawks that science is not including the metaphysical. Way to go on the blaring contradiction there, Dinesh. Now I'm positive you're a Christian and a creationist. Only an Olympic grade rationalizer would do a one-eighty within the span of a few paragraphs.

Yesterday, in another article, D'Souza offered his pity for biologist and atheist PZ Myers.

Asked whether Christianity deserves credit for founding the first Western hospitals, universities and even scientific breakthroughs, Myers said, "No. People made those contributions to Western civilization"... Christianity was a powerful motivating force in why people did those things. You can find all this out by opening up a history book.

[Emphasis added to distinguish the wheat from the chaff]

Apparently, D'Souza has no grap of science methodology or religion and its lack of methodology. Indeed, Christianity founded many great universities. But the fact remains that one cannot successfully investigate the natural world while limiting one's answers to within a religious framework. European universities were scientifically unproductive places until the Enlightenment. In the 18th century, almost half of the pupils of Oxford and Cambridge studied for the clergy; emphasis was on the classics and the Bible. Natural philosophy, as science was known then, was looked upon with suspicion, as it meddled with the belief in creation. It was only when researchers were free to contradict scripture that any real work got done. Dinesh would find all this out by opening up a history book.

So, I dub Dinesh D'Souza creationist of the month for September, 2008. Congratulations, Dinesh, on a job well done.

                   Evolution Professor                           Atheist Professor

No matter how much you try to reason with or explain evidence to apes, they just don't get it.  They can only respond back with noise.

No matter how much you try to reason with or explain evidence to Evolutionists and Atheists, they just don't get it. They can only respond back with noise.

Don't get upset at my poking fun at you.  I am simply displaying the silliness of your belief system.

15. Intelligent Design video game didn’t count toward college credit as promised

14. Line for Richard Dawkins piñata too long

13. Kirk Cameron wouldn’t stop hugging me, even after my wife complained

12. Social-Darwinism lecture hit too close to home

11. Animatronic Einstein sounded identical to animatronic Fred Flintstone. Or was it the other way round?

10. Snack bar ran out of the Ken Ham & Cheese Sub. Had to order the Duane Gish Knish. It was stale.

9. Ray Comfort’s banana demonstration was inappropriate for children

8. Gift shop charged extra for framing creation science degree. Signed, Chuck Norris, PhD.

7. Price of admission didn’t include ride on “Skippy: The Friendly Dinosaur”

6. Sciency DNA exhibit made my brain hurt

5. Sciency Noah’s Ark exhibit made my brain hurt

4. Kent Hovind was seen standing between Adam & Eve statues

3. My child didn’t receive free “God Hates Evilutionists” t-shirt

2. Charles Darwin look-alike complained when I hit him

1. Jesus-shaped bathroom soap gave me a Jesus-shaped rash

Jesus [Yeshua in Hebrew] used natural things to point out spiritual truths.  The darkness you see in North Korea is a spiritual picture of the darkness of Atheistic Communism.  This also applied to East Germany and the  Soviet Union during the Cold  War.

Followers of Jesus [Yeshua] are sons of light  1Thessalonians 5:5  You are all sons of the light and sons of the day.  We do not belong to the night or to the darkness.(NIV) and  followers of Atheistic Communism are sons of darkness.  

America was founded as a  Judeo-Christian Nation.  It became the most prosperous Nation in the World because it was founded on Biblical principles. Sinful people all over the world have been transformed through Jesus [Yeshua].  1Corinthians 6:9-11  Do you not know that wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God[HASHEM in Hebrew].  Do not be deceived.  Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male  prostitutes nor homosexual offenders  nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.  And that is what some of you were.  But you were washed , you were sanctified, you were justified  in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ[Yeshua HaMashiach in Hebrew] and by the Spirit[Ruach in Hebrew] of our God[Hashem]

I do not hate anyone. Love compels me to warn people of the path they have chosen without Jesus [Yeshua].  I do not want to see anyone end up in hell.

                                                  Shalom in Jesus [Yeshua]

Remember the Alamo... I mean the 2007 Republican Debate.

McCain states in the video that he believes in evolution, but then adds that the "hand of god" can be seen in the Grand Canyon at sunset. In essence he gives a non-answer; he sits his ass on the fence. It's almost as if he had rehearsed his response, but for a moment forgot the second half of the answer, the part that appeases the creationists. (Line, line. Where's the director? Where's my bottled water? The teleprompter isn't working and neither is my ear-piece. Someone get me a moist towelette. I'm John McCain, a freaking war hero.)

I'm convinced that McCain actually does "believe" in evolution. But I also think he desperately wants to be president, and will say anything, or do almost anything, to attain and keep that position. If he has to be indirectly responsible for damaging science education, so be it. If he does win the election, he'll most likely fuel a new creationist fire, for the very reason that he needs the approval of the Christian-right. He'll be their enabler. Earlier this year, he courted the Intelligent Design vote. And Intelligent Design is just creationism with an easier-to-swallow coating. (But it's still a hard pill to swallow.)

Don't forget the 2007 Republican Debate... or the Alamo.

If Charles Darwin would have had the microscopes we have today, he probably would have given up on his theory of evolution.  He had a very primitive microscope in comparison to today's microscopes.  Darwin thought the single cell was very simple.  We know today that that is not true.  Non-Christian scientists are realizing major problems in the theory as Darwin perceived it.

Sadly, even though we have had such an influx of knowledge on the cells of our body, their is a segment of our scientific community failing to acknowledge that this is pointing to a Creator.

Chip Ingram (Living on the edge) has done some recent powerful teachings on Creation.   The following link will take you to his teachings.  If you have an open mind listen to his teachings and then decide for yourself who is right.  Listen to the 8/7/08 and 8/8/08 teachings:  http://lote.org/listen/listenDaily.php

"The Nine great "Proofs' for Evolution:  and Why They Are All False."
http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=53

Listen to a great evolution song on You Tube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gwIDSIOEFo

                                                    Shalom in Jesus [Yeshua in Hebrew]

Proverbs 14:12  There is a way that seems right to a man [or woman], but in the end it leads to death. (NIV)   Bob Ayala wrote a song in 1985 titled "It's My Dream" Bob is a blind Christian singer.  Here are the lyrics:

                                How many times did you hear God
                                Quietly walk among your thoughts
                                 How many times you turned away when
                                 Something inside you said you should pray
                                  But you never needed anyone
                                   I remember when you'd say-

                                   Chorus
                                    It's my dream, it's my life
                                    It's my loss if I don't  make it to paradise

                                   You said the future is right now
                                    take what you can get...all you know how
                                    You were the captain of your soul
                                    but now you lie shipwrecked in the cold
                                    You never counted on this so soon
                                    I remember when you said
                                     Chorus

                                     So why don't you leave me alone
                                         cause it's my dream.

                                     Why did you wait--you waited far too long (Heb.2:3)
                                      and now there is no second chance
                                      to right where you went wrong (2 Cor. 6:2)

                                     I see the hearse the limousine
                                     the people in black the hills of green
                                     You slipped from view without a sound
                                      as gently they laid you in the ground
                                      You never counted on this so soon
                                     I remember when you said
                                      Chorus
                                      So now you can be all alone
                                         is this your dream
                                       Copyright 1985 Creation Heart Music ASCAP

The following link gives you the reality of how Christians die in comparison to how atheists die.    http://www.pathlights.com/theselastdays/tracts/tract_11b.htm

I do not hate atheists, love compels me to warn them of the path they have chosen without Jesus [Yeshua in Hebrew].

                                                Shalom in Jesus [Yeshua in Hebrew]

That goofy kid who never ties his shoes? The dork with the brown-bag healthy lunch? The kid with asthma? The kid who can play the trumpet but couldn't score a goal if his life depended on it? That's a tough position in the social rank, and let me tell you, I have been all of those things at one time or another. It's tough to be the loser, and depending on the reason you're the loser it can be better or worse.

What I'm about to say I would be crucified for saying in polite public circles, but I'm afraid from my own limited experience it's true. Every Atheist I've ever known has been some sort of loser. They may have used drugs. They may have been really overweight. They may have been whiney or sketchy. Whatever the case, I've never known an Atheist I could exactly qualify as "normal." It doesn't mean they were mean or overly negative, on the contrary many of them were very nice. But they weren't the kids who scored the goals, who got the grades, played the "cool" instruments, or got the girls and boys. They were those lovely social outcasts, and I think because of this, even though I disagreed with their theological views, I felt a certain kinship with all of them. This led to many of my first interesting religion discussions.

Know that I'm speaking only from experience when I say this. I'm sure a lot of Atheists out there probably get laid all the time and play a mean guitar. But sometimes I do have to wonder. Take the new Atheists for example. I've joked about this and ranted about it in the past, but now addressing it seriously, they do act rather strange don't they? Richard Dawkins speaks in the most bitter angry tone, which is somewhat unnatural, and has been divorced three times. Sam Harris became an enlightened atheist after using ecstasy. Christopher Hitchens whines incessantly, but doesn't really have a job. Victor Stenger is pathologically obsessed with his grandchildren. And the entire reason Daniel Dennett became a philosopher was to disprove dualism, which he read about when he was sixteen years old. Why? What's the point? What do they get out of this? Money and fame yes, but what else?

The admission I think we all have to make is that your average atheist has a better reason for being an Atheist than your average Christian has for being a Christian. You see, a lot of Atheists will tell me about how there's no "objective evidence" for God's existence and all these great figures about how much harm religion does to society. But frankly, I think when we get down to the fact, that's all a bunch of bullshit. No one is objective when it comes to ultimate reality, and who could be? When you're talking about the reality that permeates everything, and the fate of your immortal/mortal soul, who is going to be objective about that? Just read some books from amazon. It's interesting how on both sides of the debate, Atheist and Theist, you see the books displayed as being objective and scientific, but when you read them it's plainly obvious the author has a position. Everyone has a position. Ultimate Reality can't be reduced to an objective critique (not that objective critiques exist anyways, but for sake of argument, Ultimate Reality especially can't be reduced in that way.)

So, given that no one is objective about ultimate reality, I must say that I see Atheists with quite compelling reasons not to believe in God, but not scientific ones. This modern obsession with science and physicalism is painfully limited. However, what creates an Atheist is something much bigger than that. Imagine that your parents die when you're six years old. How can you believe in the face of something like that, especially at such a young age? Another common one I see is the Atheists we created. People go to church every sunday, and they go to one of these whacko fundamentalist churches. One day they wake up in church, and realize that this doesn't make sense, there's a problem here, it doesn't mean anything. They ask questions and are told "either shut up or get the hell out." Well what thoughtful person wouldn't just get the hell out? God knows I would. If I had been brought up in a religious home, I am confident that I would be an Atheist today.

You see I don't often bother tangling with Atheists in debate, and this is why. Ordinarily, given enough time and effort, I think I can pretty conclusively show why most Atheist conclusions are wrong (although frankly I'm pretty damned lazy so I'm rarely willing to expend said time and effot.) However, the fact is, it's never about the facts. People are never Atheists because of the weakness of the cosmological or teleological argument, or because of the implications of materialist philosophy. People become Atheists because they experience something. Or sometimes it's because they don't experience something. It isn't about evidence. Of course, try to get any Atheist to admit this, and they never will. But in my own (limited) experience, you can always trace it back to something. Even Bertrand Russell, the father of Analytic Philosophy and the author of the essay "Why I'm Not a Christian" (which, along with Antony Flew's "Theology and Falsification" would become a cornerstone of modern Atheist thought) was an Atheist because of the negative impact that bleak moralist Christian preachers had on him when he was young (according to his daughter in her biography of him.)

So at the end of the day, I usually realize that there is no point to the debate, because the debate, at the core, isn't about God. It's that something happened in this person's life, and whatever happened is inexcusable. Whatever happened has destroyed the idea that there can be any ultimate goodness, ultimate hope out there. How can my words or my arguments change this? Many times I don't even dare to try, because frankly I have no right. How can I argue with a person whose mother is dying of Multiple Sclerosis? I have never known such terrible pain. How do I explain the coherence of Theism to someone whose parents died in a car accident? The coherence of their upbringing ended with a drunk driver and a red light. What do I say to these people? There is nothing I can say. Their hopes were destroyed before they ever got a chance to take off. I cannot replace their hopes with words. It is my prayer that actions can replace these hopes, but that is a theory I will have to test in due time.

However, to conclude, I would like to send a warning to my fellow Christians. It is a sad reality of the universe, that in a world governed by our free will some people should have their hopes dashed so early and should lose their faith so fast. However, the sad truth is that we Christians created many of these problems. We created the new Atheists, we brought their scorn and disdain and arrogance upon ourselves. All the times we refused to listen, all the times we were insensetive, all the times we forgot the words of the Savior and replaced them with our own filthy human utterances we helped to create this problem. It doesn't make the Atheists right. Christianity serves as the new Scapegoat, after African Americans and Jews and Atheists themselves, as well as a host of other scapegoats. This will pass and one day there will be another scapegoat. The connection between Hitler's methodology (kill the Jews and all will be will with society) and Richard Dawkins's methodology (destroy faith and all will be well with society) is laughable. However, we must realize that we have created this problem, and that in some senses we deserve this. We must remain Christian during this time. We must forgive Atheists, accept their scorn and disdain for our religion, and not strike back. If we do that, we win. If we fight back, we continue the cycle of violence and destruction created by our original sin, the very cycle that Jesus Christ died for us to break.

Atheists state that evolution proves there is no God.  They only believe in what they can see (evidence).  They approach evidence on a subjective level, whereas Creationists approach it on a objective basis.  Creationists know that the complexity and order of our known Universe points to a Creator.  This is the point where the minds of atheists and evolutionists start going into a war stage, determined to prove these statements wrong.

Atheists and Evolutionists believe that our world was created over a period of millions and millions of years.  Creationists believe the Biblical account of Creation.  The concept of Hell might line up with the thinking of atheists and evolutionists. At this point, atheists and evolutionists are in the war stage.  Moot point, you say.  Atheists and evolutionists don't believe in hell!  I know that, but it doesn't matter what you believe about Hell, that does not change the reality of it's existence.

Atheists and evolutionists that die in their thinking will arrive at the destination of Hell.  Here is where an evolutionary concept will come into place.  For millions upon millions upon millions of years they will be thinking to themselves "I was wrong"!  You will receive what you believe.  You will get what you wanted. To be free from hearing about God [Hashem in Hebrew].  No one to blame except yourself.

The good news is that you don't have to arrive at the destination of hell, you can change your mind before it's too late.  Romans 5:8  But God demonstrates his own love for us in this:  While we were still sinners, Christ[Mashiach in Hebrew] died for us. Repent ( Turn from your way of thinking) and give your life to Jesus [Yeshua]. 

I you have an open mind, listen to the following teaching on Living on the Edge.  "Why I believe in Creation" Part 2  8/8/08:  http://lote.org/listen/listenDaily.php

                                              Shalom in Jesus [Yeshua]

Credit: NASA, ESA, S. Beckwith (STScI), and The Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)
NASA holds rights to this picture.

Psalm 19:1-4                  The heavens declare the glory of 
                                               God [HASHEM in Hebrew]
                                       the skies proclaim the works of his
                                                     hands. 
                                      Day after day they pour forth
                                                     speech;  
                                           night after night they display
                                                  knowledge.
                                      There is no speech or language
                                         where their voice is not heard.
                                         Their voice goes out into all the
                                                  earth.
                                        their words to the ends of the
                                              world.   (NIV)

John [Yochanan in Hebrew] 1:1-4
In the beginning was the Word [Jesus, Yeshua in Hebrew] and the Word was with God [Hashem] , and the Word was God [Hashem].  He was with God [Hashem] in the beginning.  Through him all things were made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men.  The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.  (NIV)

                                                 Shalom in Jesus [Yeshua]

I created (and danced) the "Richard Dawkins: Beware The Believers" viral ad for "Expelled : No Intelligence Allowed" found here:

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw&fmt=18

The viral ad received 200, 000 views on the web during the three weeks prior to the (Expelled) release. I also have a visual effects credit for the film Expelled.

Since Beware the Believers contained an all-star atheist cast (Dawkins, Myers, Scott, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett) it was immediately popular among the atheist community. While a funny video that I quite enjoy (and will always enjoy, probably), it's a resounding example of a creationist failure. You know the drill, don't you?

1. Kirk Cameron (Lying for Jesus: Kirk Cameron Edition)
2. Dr. Jason Lisle (Reading Answers in Genesis: Probably easier when high.)
3. Lee Strobel (Lee Strobel: Ex-Atheist or just ignorant?)
4. Ray Comfort (Banana: Proof of creationism., Ray Comfort has a blog, Ray Comfort: What the fuck, man?)
5. Rhonda Storms (Fuck Rhonda Storms)
6. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (DO SOMETHING IN LOUISIANA! QUICK!, Now the Candle Burns at both Ends)
7. Rush Limbaugh (Rush Limbaugh)
8. Bill Donohue (It Gets Me!, It Gets Me! (Part II))
9. Michael Edmondson

Atheists, Skeptics, Freethinkers: 1 billion+

Expelled: No Intelligence At All: 0

I recently heard the best teaching on Heaven and hell.  Chip Ingram (Living On The Edge) gave this teaching.  You will hear it on the following link: http://lote.org/listen/listenDaily.php  "Why I Believe" 7/31/08

                                                     Shalom In Jesus