The evil ghosts of atheism - are they on the rise again?

"Chinese socialism is founded upon Darwin and the theory of evolution." Mao Tse-tung (1893 – 1976). Kampf um Mao's Erbe (1977)

 

(Apart from the last remaining, atheist regime in North Korea) we could say that global atheism died with the demise of the brutal, atheist regimes of the 20th century.

But its ghosts still haunt us.

Incredibly, while the horrendous crimes of the hideous, atheist ideology are still within living memory, attempts are being made to resurrect it and make it seem respectable, under the guise of 'new' atheism.

 

The atheist beast of the East which had died, is now raising its ugly head in the West.

"And I saw one of his heads as if it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world marvelled after the beast." Revelation 13:3

 

Will the atheist monster live again? Who knows?

What we do know - is what history tells us about atheism, and it is not at all pleasant.

 

The promised atheist/communist utopia ... the idea of an atheist Heaven on Earth resulted in a diabolical Hell on Earth.

 

Atheism proved to be the most horrendous, barbaric, murderous and criminal ideology the world has ever experienced. Countless millions suffered and died at the hands of this hideous ideology, they must never be forgotten.

 

Who, but a complete idiot would want to resurrect such a monstrous, no-hope philosophy?

The so-called 'new' (improved?) atheists try to disassociate themselves from the disastrous record of the world's first ever, official, atheist states of the 20th century's, great, atheist experiment. But there is no other example to go by.

The atheist experiment has been tried and, from beginning to end, was a diabolical failure. The new atheists may say: it's nothing to do with us gov.

But who wants to risk such devastation again, by giving atheism another chance? Only an idiot would want to take that gamble.

 

However, it was only to be expected and it could easily have been predicted beforehand, that the inevitable result of atheism's lack of an absolute ethical or moral yardstick would be to wreak havoc on the world - and that is exactly what it did.

Atheism hasn't changed at all in that respect, because it can't. The ephemeral values, moral relativism and situational ethics of atheism is the ideal recipe for abuse.

We can see from the aggressive, intolerant, rabble rousing rhetoric and ranting of today's militant, new atheist zealots, that the leopard hasn't really changed its spots. Let no one doubt it - atheism has a hideous, barbaric history, ... we must never let it happen again.

 

Moreover, it is a singularly perverse ideology that motivates its adherents to waste so much time of the only life they believe they have, trying to convince everyone else that they are doomed to eternal oblivion. The ultimate reward for atheists is to never know if they got it right, only if they got it wrong.

 

There is no moral or rational defence for the atheist cult, past or present.

 

But what do atheists themselves say about their ethical and moral values?

 

They claim that they DO have an ethical and moral yardstick, and cite the Humanist Manifesto as representing the ethics and moral code of atheism.

So is it really true?

 

The Humanist Manifesto looks good at first glance, but like most proposals atheists come up with, when examined closely, it is full of holes.

 

Problems ....

1. You don’t have to sign up to the Humanist Manifesto to be an atheist.

 

2. Even if you do sign up to it, there is no incentive to follow it. No reward for following it, and no penalty for not following it. You are not going to be barred from being an atheist because you reject or break the rules of the Humanist Manifesto. It is not enforced in any way.

 

3. It borrows its desirable ethics from Judeo-Christian values, there is no atheist, moral code per se.

Genuine, naturalist ethics is basically the Darwinian law of the jungle, the ethics of the Humanist Manifesto are actually a contradiction of social Darwinism. The ethics of the H.M. are not consistant with atheist materialist and evolutionist beliefs.

 

4. By far the biggest flaw in the Humanist Manifesto is the fact that it is entirely ephemeral. It advocates 'situational ethics' and 'moral relativism'. And that major flaw makes it a worthless scrap of paper.

Why?

Because .....

Situational ethics is based on what people want or find desirable, not on any adherence to what is intrinsically right or wrong.

 

A good, example of humanist style, situational ethics in practice, is the gender selection abortions now being blatantly carried out in abortion clinics in Britain. It primarily discriminates against female babies, who are especially targeted for killing, because most of the parents who want it, prefer to have boys for cultural reasons.

The abortion clinics openly admit to it happening, and claim it is legal.

The abortion act of 1967 certainly did not intend that, and the Government admits it was not intended.

So we have a Government that knows it is going on, it also knows it is not what the abortion law intended, yet it is still reluctant to do anything about it.

Why? Because it is wedded to the secularist concept of situational ethics, i.e. whatever people want, people get. Any concept of intrinsic right and wrong has to take a back seat, to whatever is the spirit of the times. And that is an example happening right now, in a so-called democracy.

 

The Nazi persecution of the Jews became popular through brainwashing of the public, and was eventually supported by a good proportion of the public.

So Hitler cleverly used situational ethics to do what he had persuaded people was right and good.

 

So, all in all, the Humanist Manifesto is a very dangerous document.

It gives carte blanche to any so-called ethical values, as long they become the fashionable or consensus opinion. Whatever people want, people get, or what a government can claim people want, they are justified in giving to them.

And for that reason it would not stop; a Lenin, a Stalin, a Hitler, or a Pol Pot, even if they had signed up 100% to abide by the Humanist Manifesto.

 

In fact, the 20th century, atheist tyrants even called their regimes ... Democratic People's Republics. They claimed they were representing people's wishes, and thus carried out their 'situational ethics' on behalf of the people.

 

What about the common, atheist tactic of highlighting alleged crimes and wrongdoing committed by Christians?

 

The point is ....

Christians who do wrong, go against the teachings of Christianity.

And, without sincere repentance, they don't get to go to the Christian Heaven.

End of story!

 

Atheists who do wrong, go against nothing, unless it is against the law of the land.

The atheist 'heaven' is right here on earth, and far from being a 'heaven' it is an horrendous nightmare. Anyone with any sense would call it a hell.

 

And even the law of the land need not stop them .....

Whenever, atheists get into a position of power they change the law to suit their situational ethics. Then they can do whatever they want.

That is what Stalin and all the other atheist tyrants did in their people's DEMOCRATIC republics.

 

And the atheist thirst for blood does not cease when they live in the so-called 'real' democracies, it is simply sanitised by atheist inspired, situational ethics.

They use their 'humanist' ethics to change the law, accompanied by 'newspeak' and propaganda.

So that what was once considered evil, is not only made legal, it is actually turned around so it is considered a virtue.

 

The wholesale and brutal slaughter, of the most vulnerable in society ... millions of unborn babies, is callously shrugged off as necessary, for 'free choice'.

Of course murder is always a free choice for the killer, only the dangerous, warped, atheist style, situational ethics could value a killer's free choice to kill, above the victim's right not to be killed, and make murder legal.

 

The callous slaughter of the unborn, which in most cases, was not even put to the people democratically (it was imposed on them by a handful of secularist politicians, lawyers and bureaucrats), is accompanied by the usual atheist lies and devious propaganda.

 

So the secularists simply laugh off democracy, it doesn't stop them, if it gets in the way of their ideology, they just ignore it, like they do with science.

 

"Democratic societies" what are they?

Why ask the people? They are apparently not qualified to consider such difficult matters of right and wrong, like whether babies should live or die? You can't give those ignorant peasants, plebs and rednecks a vote on it, ... leave it to the secularist EXPERTS and their wonderful, situational ethics based on 'reason' and 'science'.

 

We are told by atheist moralists that the unborn baby is not fully human, it is only a blob of jelly, which has, and deserves, NO rights.

And we are also told, anyone who supports the rights of the unborn babies not to be brutally ripped limb from limb is evil, because they are interfering with free CHOICE.

 

So the atheist leopard certainly hasn't changed its lying, devious, brutal and murderous spots, even in so-called 'real' democratic societies. It simply legalises and sanitises evil and murder and makes it appear good.

Then it can claim atheism is extremely ethical and virtuous, with its own, beautiful code of morals and conduct .... Yeah Right!

Remind you of anyone?

 

That, then ... is the atheist Heaven on earth, and images in the picture are of the atheist tyrants of the last century, who exemplified atheist, situational ethics.

 

Is atheism credible, logically or scientifically?

 

..If people would only think for themselves - there would be no atheists.

Atheism is anti-logic ......

 

Atheism = NOTHING created Everything - without a cause and - for NO REASON.

Makes perfect sense .... NOT!

 

www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existen...

 

Atheism is the rejection of one of the only 2 origins options.

The only two options are:

1. An uncaused, supernatural first cause.

2. An uncaused, natural first cause.

Atheists categorically reject option one, therefore they believe in option two - by default.

Option two (an uncaused, natural first cause) is impossible according to logic, natural laws and the scientific method.

 

Every natural event/effect/entity has to have an adequate cause.

All material/natural entities/events are contingent, they rely on preceding causes.

A natural first cause, cannot be a very FIRST cause because something (which didn't need a cause) must have caused it.

A natural first cause also cannot be the very first cause of the universe because it is woefully inadequate for the effect. An effect cannot be greater than its cause.

So atheism is a set of beliefs which violate the scientific method, ignore logic and defy natural laws.

 

In addition, the fact that there are natural laws and an ordered structure to atoms is not conducive to the idea of a purposeless universe.

 

Also, the Second Law of Thermodynamics rules out the unguided development of order of its own accord. The application of raw energy, without a directive agent, results in entropy, not increasing complexity and order, which atheists propose.

 

And the First Law of Thermodynamics tells us that there is no 'natural' mechanism for the creation of matter/energy. Yet atheists insist that matter (along with natural law and information) arose naturally of its own accord.

 

It is evident that, while pretending to be scientific, the atheist dogma is actually anti-science, it manipulates science to fit its own agenda, regardless of the violation of natural laws, logic and the scientific method.

 

Atheism is akin to a religion because it credits matter/energy with similar creative powers and attributes as those applied to a creator God. It is really just a more sophisticated version of pagan naturalism, which imbued natural entities such as Mother Nature, The Sun or Moon god etc. with creative and magical powers.

 

To clarify further:

 

If there are only 2 options and one is ruled out as 'impossible' by logic, natural law and the scientific method, then it is safe, indeed sensible, to deduce that the other option is the only possible, and likely one.

 

Anyone who believes in science should know - that the basis of the scientific method is looking for adequate causes for every natural event/effect.

An 'uncaused' natural event is an anathema to science, it cannot even contemplate such a prospect.

If someone was to propose a natural first cause of everything, science would have to ask - what caused it? You cannot claim it was uncaused - that defies the scientific method.

However, if it was caused - if it had a preceding cause, ... then it cannot be the FIRST cause. Because FIRST means FIRST, not second or third.

So the very first cause of everything must be UNCAUSED ... which means, according to science, it CANNOT be a NATURAL cause.

In other words ... it cannot be a contingent entity, it can only be an eternally self-existent, self-reliant, autonomous, infinite, omnipotent entity which is entirely independent of causes, and the limitations that causes impose.

 

Furthermore, the first cause also has to be completely adequate for the effect, the effect cannot be greater than the cause ... so the first cause has to have adequate powers, properties and potentiality to create the entirety of the universe, i.e. nothing in the universe can be superior in any respect to the first cause.

That means the first cause must embody, or be able to create, every property and quality that exists, which includes: natural laws, information, life, intelligence, consciousness, self-awareness, design, skill, moral values, sense of beauty, justice etc.

All proposed, natural first causes - Big Bang's, Singularities, quantum mechanics etc. are not only ruled out because, as contingent events, they cannot be uncaused, they are also grossly inferior to the effect, which definitively rules them all out as credible first causes.

 

To put it more simply ... all effects/events/entities are the result of a combination of numerous, preceding causes, but the very first cause is unique, inasmuch as it is a lone cause of everything.

Everything can be traced back to that single cause, it is responsible for every other cause, entity and effect that follows it. Unlike other lesser or subsequent causes it has to account for the totality of everything that exists. So it cannot be inferior in any respect to any particular property, entity, event, effect, or to the totality of them all.

If we have intelligence then, that which ultimately caused us cannot be non-intelligent.

Atheists assume that we are greater in that respect than that which caused us .... that is ridiculous and it defies logic and natural law.

 

What about infinite time?

Time is simply a chronology of natural events. Time began with the origin of the material realm. No natural events ...means - no time. All natural entities, events/effects are contingent, they cannot be self-existent, they rely on causes and the limitations that causes impose. they are not autonomous entities, to propose that is anti-science.

 

Atheists often say: you can’t fill gaps in knowledge with a supernatural first cause.

 

But we are not talking about filling gaps, we are talking about a fundamental issue ... the origin of everything in the material realm.

The first cause is not a gap, it is the beginning - and many of the greatest scientists in the history of science had no problem whatsoever with the logic that - a natural, first cause was impossible, and the only possible option was a supernatural creator.

Why do atheists have such a problem with it?

 

Atheists seem to think that to explain the origin of the universe without a God, simply involves explaining what triggered it, as though its formation from that point on, just happens automatically.

This has been compared by some as similar to lighting the blue touch paper of a firework. They think that if they can propose such a naturalistic trigger, then God is made redundant.

That may sound plausible to some members of the public, who take such pronouncements at face value, and are somewhat in awe of anything that is claimed to be 'scientific'.

But it is obvious to anyone who thinks seriously about it, that a mere trigger is not necessarily an adequate cause.

A trigger presupposes that there is some sort of a mechanism/blueprint/plan already existing which is ready to spring into action if it is provided with an appropriate trigger. There has to be an existing, inherent potential for future development and everything else that follows the trigger. So a trigger is not a sole cause, or a first cause, it is merely one contributing cause.

Natural things do only what they are programmed to do, i.e. they obey natural laws and behave only within the limits dictated by the potential of their pre-ordained properties, composition or structure. Those pre-ordained properties are determined by the ability, powers and adequacy of the first cause, which brought them into being.

Lighting blue touch paper achieves absolutely nothing, unless there is a carefully designed and manufactured firework already attached to it. Chance or randomness is not an answer.

 

Atheists invent all sorts of bizarre myths to explain the origin of the universe and matter/energy.

Such as it arising from nothing of its own volition, for no reason.

Or even the utterly, ludicrous notion - of the universe creating itself from nothing. Obviously for something to create itself, it would need to pre-exist its own creation, in order to do the creating.

Incredible!

 

“When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”

― G.K. Chesterton ..... HOW TRUE THAT IS PROVING TO BE!

Done