Atheist Attack on Religion

 

Positive & Negative

I believe that Atheism is a matter of an open mind +, or closed mind -. Below are many reasons why atheists do not believe in God, they give their own reasons for disbelief. It is hardwork trying to convert an atheist, because to him or her, the point of God or religion has no meaning. How he or she comes to this conclusion is perplexing, even to the point of them denying truth without checking it out through study, relying mostly on so called intellectuals, so that their beliefs are built on heresay. Others have not had the education, cannot read or write in some cases, and are open to all sorts of lies by false prophets. Others have had an unfortunate upbringing, and still others have had no, or little leadership in spiritual ways.

          Such doctrines like evolution, scientific dogma, tutors, or even peers persuade them to their beliefs and understanding, which they will accept and believe.It would be the same if people believed in God by learning from so called Intellectual people, and by so doing they are open to lies and false prophets instead of studying Gods-Word for themselves. Dividing God’s-Word means trying to disprove if you can which you will find impossible to do.

 

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

 

Atheists will accept any subject as long as it conforms to their limited knowledge, and negative attitude, is easy to interpret, and doesn’t interfere with their lifestyle. As for studying God’s-Word, most haven’t even read the Bible, let alone study it. So what do you think makes atheists such an authority on God and religion?

 

Taken from a BBC page Atheism and Religion

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/beliefs/reasons_1.shtml

 

This article is an in depth look at some of the reasons why people choose atheism, and some of the most influential atheist thinkers and their arguments.

The arguments and counter-arguments are presented in this article in an extremely simplified way and are intended only as a starting point for further reading and exploration.

Christian Reply.  Already this opener is contradictory by first stating that it is in depths look at some of the reasons why people choose atheism, and some of the most influential thinkers and their arguments.

 Then we find in Note for philosophers the arguments and counter-arguments are presented in this article in an extremely simplified way and are intended only as a starting point for further reading and exploration.

They surely cannot be an in depth, extremely simplification. Here is a statement containing the correct use of these two words.

The basic and detailed guides in our main Pensions Simplification section provide an introduction to these ... You may require more in-depth information on the topics we have ...

The whole list of arguments is bias

 

                    BBC. Different reasons for being an atheist

Intellectual (Is there such a thing?)

Most atheists would offer some of the following arguments as their reason for deciding that God does not exist.

 

BBC Non-Intellectual

Many people are atheists because of the way they were brought up or educated, or because they have simply adopted the beliefs of the culture in which they grew up. So someone raised in Communist China is likely to have no belief in God because the education system and culture make being an atheist the natural thing to do.

Other people are atheists because they just feel that atheism is right.

 

 

Christian Reply Forgetting China, Russia, and other communist countries for the moment, these other people who feel atheism is right for them means the feeling is felt emotionally.  Fear, anxiety, peer pressure, Christian persecution, social pressure, and many other reasons will result in not believeing in God, totally dismissing His existence without knowing, or understanding why. As for communist countries, westerners including Great Britain are mostly athiest. The communist countries however still have Christians who find it very difficult to follow their faith, but persist in the face of great governmental brutality, and interference. These are true Christians willing to pay the price for their beliefs. If the situation were reversed, I often wonder; would the athiests persist under the same pressures? I think not.

 

BBC Note for philosophers

The arguments and counter-arguments are presented in this article in an extremely simplified way and are intended only as a starting point for further reading and exploration

·                                                                                             Lack of evidence

·                                                                                             Law of probabilities

It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence

                                               W. K. Clifford (1879)

Many people are atheists because they think there is no evidence for God's existence - or at least no reliable evidence. They argue that a person should only believe in things for which they have good evidence.

A philosopher might say that they start from the presumption of atheism.

 

The presumption of Atheism

This is an argument about where to begin the discussion of whether or not God exists. It says that we should assume that God does not exist, and put the onus on people who believe in God to prove that God does exist.

 

The philosopher Anthony Flew who wrote an article on this said:

If it is to be established that there is a God, then we have to have good grounds for believing that this is indeed so.
Until and unless some such grounds are produced we have literally no reason at all for believing; and in that situation the only reasonable posture must be that of either the negative atheist or the agnostic.


So the onus of proof has to rest on the proposition.
It must be up to them: first, to give whatever sense they choose to the word 'God', meeting any objection that so defined it would relate only to an incoherent pseudo-concept; and, second, to bring forward sufficient reasons to warrant their claim that, in their present sense of the word 'God', there is a God.

 

1.     God is unnecessary

2.     Science explains everything

3.     Atheists argue that because everything in the universe can be explained in a satisfactory way without using God as part of the explanation, then there is no point in saying that God exists.

 

The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment. A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the sense.

 

Atheism's best kept secret.

Christian Reply. An atheist believes nothing made everything. (A scientific impossibility.) They say, "...space and time both started at the Big Bang and therefore there was nothing before it." They try their hardest to sell that idea to us, and unfortunately most people will buy it;

 Darwinian evolution and the Biblical Genesis account of creation are incompatible. Either God made man in His own image as morally accountable beings, male and female, reproducing after their own kind, or He didn’t. If the theory of evolution is a scientific fact, then the Bible should be discarded as mere mythology. But if the Bible is right, Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution single-handedly propagated a fantasy that has hoodwinked millions. Promoted and presented by Godless people to undermine the Christian faith.

Determining which is true could impact your eternity. Take time to examine the evidence to make sure your beliefs—and your future—are based on something solid.

Read what eminent men have said…

 

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views. " Albert Einstein.

 

"Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance." Sir Isaac Newton

 

Occam's Razor

The argument is based on a philosophical idea called Occam's razor, popularised by William of Occam in the 14th century.

In Latin it goes

Pluralitas non EST ponenda sine necessitate or in English... "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily".

This is usually simplified to say that the simplest answer is the best answer.

Therefore atheists might argue that since the entire universe, and all of creation can be explained by evolution and scientific cosmology, we don't need the existence of another entity called God.

Therefore God doesn't exist.

What would William have said?

William of Occam would not have agreed; he was a Franciscan monk who never doubted the existence of God.

But in his century he wasn't breaking the rule named after him. 14th century science knew nothing about evolution or how the universe came into being. God was the only explanation available.

What William would think if he lived now is another matter...

 

Job 38:31-33 Christian Reply

31. Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?

Canst thou bind fast the cluster Pleiades? Or, canst thou loosen [great] Orion’s bands?

32. Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? Or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?

Canst thou lead forth the Zodiacs monthly signs? Or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?

33. Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? Canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?

The statutes of the heavens: know’st thou these? Didst thou set their dominion o’er the earth?

 

Job 40:2. “Shall he that contendeth with THE ALMIGHTY instruct Him? He that reproveth GOD let him answer it.”

 

Arguments for God aren't convincing

Weakness of the proofs that God exists

There are a number of traditional arguments used to prove that God exists; however, none of them convinces atheists. Here they are:

1.     The Argument from Design

2.     The universe is such a beautiful and orderly thing that it must have been designed. Only God could have designed it. Therefore since the universe exists, God must exist.

3.     An atheist might refute this by saying that, actually, the universe is not particularly beautiful and orderly. And even if it was, why should there be a designer?

4.     And modern science shows that most of the natural things we think of as designed are just the products of processes like evolution.

 

Christian Reply Evolution is only one of several theories invented to explain the phenomena of created things. It is admitted by all scientists that not one of these theories covers all the ground; and the greatest claim made for Evolution, or Darwinism, is that “it covers more ground than any of the others.”

The Word of God claims to cover all the ground: and the only way in which this claim is met, is by a denial of the inspiration of the Scriptures, in order to weaken it. This is the special work undertaken by the so-called “Higher Criticism”, (Kenites) which bases its conclusions on human assumptions and reasoning instead of on the documentary evidence of manuscripts, as textual Criticism does.

Man starts from nothing. He begins his life in helplessness, ignorance, and inexperience. All his works, therefore, proceed; proceed on the principle of evolution. This principle is seen only in human affairs: from the hut to the palace; from the canoe to the ocean liner; from the spade, and ploughshare to machines for drilling, reaping, and binding etc. But the birds build their nests to day as at the beginning. The moment we pass the boundary line, and enter the Divine sphere, no trace or vestige of evolution is seen. There is growth and development within (ones-self), but no passing, change, or evolution out from one into another. On the other hand Gods works are perfect.

 

The "Ontological" Argument

We think of God as a perfect being. If God didn't exist he wouldn't be perfect. God is perfect therefore God exists.

Most atheists think this argument is so feeble they don't bother dealing with it.

Professional philosophers usually reject it on the grounds that existence is not a property of beings. (Christians being in this world, but not of it).

 

Question: "How can believers be in the world, but not of the world?"


 
 
Christian Reply. When we read of the "world" in the New Testament, we are reading the Greek word cosmos. Cosmos most often refers to the inhabited earth and the people who live on the earth, which functions apart from God. Satan is the ruler of this "cosmos" (John 12:31; 16:11; 1 John 5:19). By the simple definition that the word world refers to a world system ruled by Satan, we can more readily appreciate Christ's claims that believers are no longer of the world—we are no longer ruled by sin, nor are we bound by the principles of the world. In addition, we are being changed into the image of Christ, causing our interest in the things of this world to become less and less as we mature in Christ.

 

The First Cause Argument

Everything that happens has a cause. Therefore the universe must have had a cause. That cause must have been God. Therefore since the universe exists, God must exist in order to have caused it to exist.

An atheist might respond by asking what caused God. (And what caused the cause of God, and so on.) (Chicken and the egg). The argument might proceed that if God didn't need a cause, then maybe the universe didn't need a cause either. If God was already perfect before he created the universe, why did he create it? How did it benefit him? Why would he bother? And if the universe was caused, perhaps something other than God caused it?

 

Christian Reply.

Isaiah 40:25-26

25 To whom then will ye liken Me? Or shall I be equal?'' saith the Holy One.

26 Lift up your eyes on high, and behold Who hath created these things, That bringeth out their host by number: He calleth them all by names by the greatness of His might, for that He is strong in power; not one falleth.

 

 

The problem of evil http://www.godsplan.org.uk/evilproblem.htm

The Argument from Evil

The existence of evil seems inconsistent with the existence of a God who is wholly good, and can do anything. The argument goes like this:

Most religions say that God is completely good, knows everything, and is all-powerful. But the world is full of wickedness and bad things keep happening. This can only happen if...

God is unwilling to prevent evil, in which case he is not good or

God doesn't know about evil, in which case he does not know everything or

God can't prevent evil, in which case he is not all powerful or

Some combination of the above

And so there is no being that is completely good, knows everything, and is all-powerful. And so, there is no God.

Theologians and philosophers have provided various answers to this argument. They all agree that it gives useful insights into the nature of God, evil, and belief.

 

 

 

Christian Reply. The history of Gen. 3 is intended to teach us the fact that Satan’s sphere of activities is in the religeous sphere, and not the spheres of crime or immorality; that his battlefield is not the sins arising from human depravity, but the unbelief of the human heart. We are not to look for Satan’s activities to day in the newspaper press, or the police courts; but in the pulpit, and in professor’s chairs. Wherever the Word of God is called in question, there we see the trail of “that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan’’, This is why anything against the true interests of the Word of God (as being such) finds a ready admission into the newspapers of the world, and is treated as “general litrature’’. This is why anything in favour of its inspiration and Divine origin and its spiritual truth is rigidly excluded as being “controversial’’ This is also why Satan is quite content that the letter of Scripture should be accepted in Gen.3 as he himself accepted the letter of Ps 91:11.For He shall give His angels charge over thee, To keep thee in all thy ways. He himself could say “it is written’’ Matt 4:6 so long as the letter of what is “written’’ could be put instead of the truth that is conveyed by it; and as long as it is misquoted or misapplied. This is his object in perpetuating the traditions of the “snake’’ and the “apple’’, because it ministers to the acceptance of his lie, the hiding of God’s truth, the support of tradition, the jeers of the infidel, the opposition of the critics, and the stumbling of the weak in faith.

This is connected with Christ’s exaltation as Head over all things to His Church, which is His body, which is developed and revealed more fully in the prison Epistles (letters) (Eph 1:21-23. Phil 2:9-11. Col 1: 14-19). It not only involves the present glory of Messiah, but includes the final defeat of Satan, the crushing of his head, and the subjugation of all spiritual beings, be they powers, principalities, authorities, dominions, or thrones etc.

 

Hence it is Satan’s great aim now, at this present time, to blind the eyes of them that believe not, so that they may not learn of his coming defeat, as foretold in Gen 3:15, and seen fulfilled in Rev.20 .(see 2 Cor 4:4). Knowing his object, and being “not ignorant of his devices’’, we know also what should be our own object: viz. The making known this good news, which he would seek to hide; and proclaiming “the Gospel of the glory of Christ

 

 

Arguments concerned with science and the development of human thought

The best explanation

For most of human history God was the best explanation for the existence and nature of the physical universe.

But during the last few centuries, scientists have developed solutions that are much more logical, more consistent, and better supported by evidence.

Atheists say that these explain the world so much better than the existence of God.They also say that far from God being a good explanation for the world, it's God that now requires explaining.

Before science

In olden times - and still today in some traditional societies - natural phenomena that people didn't understand, such as the weather, sunrise and sunset, and so on, were seen as the work of gods or spirits.

 

Do you really understand the precession of the Equinoxes? http://www.godsplan.org.uk/thestarsalso2.htm

 

Christian Reply. Psalm 97:6, and 111:6); they prophesy “day by day”, “night by night”, The question is: What do they prophecy? What knowledge do they show forth? What glory do they tell of?

The answer is-

Genesis 3:15. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her Seed; It shall bruise thy head, and thou shall bruise His heel.

The one great central truth of all prophecy –the coming of One, Who, though he should suffer, should in the end crush the head of the old serpent, the Devil.

But, where are we to open this book? Where are we to break into this circle of the Zodiacal signs?

Through the “Precession of the Equinoxes” the sun gradually shifts it’s position a little each year, till in about every 2000 years it begins the year in a different sign. This was foreseen; and it was also foreseen that succeeding generations would not know when and where the sun began it’s course, and where the teaching of this Heavenly Book commenced, and where we were to open it’s first page. Hence the “Sphinx” was invented as a memorial.

It had the head of a woman and the body and tail of a lion, to tell us this book, written in the Heavens, began with the sign “Virgo” (Virgin), and will end with the sign “Leo” (Lion). The word “Sphinx”is from the Greek Sphingo, to join; because it binds together the two ends of this circle of the heavens.

The number of the signs is twelve, the number of governmental perfection or “rule”: It is the number or factor of all numbers connected with government: whether by Tribes or Apostles, or in measurements of time,or in things which have to do with government in the heavens and the earth.

 

Genesis 1:18. And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness:

And God saw that it was good.

They are divided into three books of four chapters (or signs)each: twelve being the product of 3 x 4, i.e. of Divine truth working in the heavens and in the earth.(see app 10).

Each book, therefore, consists of four signs; and these are all arranged by structure, in exactly the same way.

Each is an introversion (a central dimension of human personality)

 

 

Bible times (Grammatical Error. Should be Biblical Times)

The Old Testament portrays the world as something controlled by God http://www.godsplan.org.uk/godcontrols.htm

Where we would see the weather as obeying meteorological principles, people in those days saw it as demonstrating God at work. And it was the same with all the other natural phenomena; they just showed God doing things.

 

Christian Reply. An example of a false philosophy might be a belief that man can earn God's favour by a certain act or acts. In fact, earning eternal life is a predominate theme around the world. Earning God's favour by works, however, is contrary to biblical revelation. Man cannot work to earn God's favour; eternal life is a free gift (see Ephesians 2:8-9). And that free gift is available through Jesus Christ and Him alone (John 3:16; 14:6). You may ask why does mankind simply not receive the free gift that enables them to truly be called children of God (John 1:12)?

The answer is that Satan—the god of this world—pushes a false philosophy onto the world. Satan sets the agenda, the unbelieving world follows, and mankind continues to be deceived. It is no wonder that Scripture calls Satan a liar (John 8:44).

 

The Greeks

Everything is full of Gods

                                                Thales (624-546 BCE), Greek philosopher

The Greek philosopher Thales moved things on by suggesting that the gods were actually an essential part of things, rather than external puppeteers pulling strings to make the world work.

Myth and magic

But there was more to these ancient explanations than gods doing things in or to the world. People saw the whole universe in a religiously structured way; they had no other way to see it at that time.

For the ancients, God provided the power that made the universe work, and God provided the structure within which the universe worked and human beings lived.

Part of the British National Curriculum is to learn about the ancient Greeks. A very important part of their culture was tied up in beliefs about their gods. Many myths and legends survived. They are fascinating adventure stories loved by the young even today.

 

Astrology

Ideas like that survive in modern astrology. Many people believe that their lives are in some way influenced by the movements of heavenly bodies. And the heavenly bodies concerned have names taken from mythology and religion.

 

Christian Reply. More fools and idiots, and no more time to waste on this.

 

Modern religion

And you'll find similar ideas in most popular religious thinking. Many people still believe, or want to believe, in the idea of God as puppeteer.

They believe that God is able to do things in the world: he can divide the waters of the Red Sea to save the Israelites from Pharaoh, he can respond to prayer by healing an illness or getting someone through an exam.

 

Christian Reply. The trail of Satan looms large with this one, but atheists don’t believe in God or Satan, so again, what makes them think they have the authority to speak on something they know absolutely nothing about.

 

Cosmology

Cosmology is the study of the origin and nature of the universe.

Nowadays it's a branch of astronomy and physics, but in pre-scientific times it was a religious subject, organising the universe in terms of almost military ranks of beings. God was at the top, and human beings came pretty much at the bottom.

In some cosmologies there was also an inverted hierarchy of evil beings going down from humanity to the source of wickedness, the devil, at the bottom.

 

Christian Reply. Creationist cosmologies encompass a variety of conjectures advanced by Young Earth creationists to support the idea that the observable universe is only a few thousand years old, in line with a literal reading of Genesis. Creationist cosmologies have in common the goal of solving the "starlight problem"; namely, how light from galaxies at distances of billions of light-years may have reached the Earth in a few thousand years. More recent creationist cosmologies also attempt to explain phenomena such as galactic redshifts and the cosmic microwave background (CMB), which are adequately explained by standard models of physical cosmology. They believe, along with more mainstream scientists, that the universe is "finely-tuned" for life.

 

 

Power

These religious cosmologies were rigid; each being had its place worked out for it in the structure that God had provided, and that was where it stayed.

Looking at the universe like this provided great support for the hierarchical power structures of earthly nations and tribes: Everyone in a nation or tribe had their place, and the power came from the top.

 

Christian Reply.  It would be of little use coming from the bottom.

 

And if God had decided to organise the universe in such a hierarchy, (ONLY IFS?) this provided a strong argument against anyone who wanted to suggest that society could be organised in a fairer and more equal way - God had shown us the perfect way to organise things, and those who were ruling did so by a right given by God.

It was also very good news for whichever religion was followed in a particular nation: since the power all came from God, (religion was bound to be given high status).

 

Christian Reply. Human society will only be fair when we are in God’s new Kingdom, and Satan has been put away. As usual the atheist blames the wrong one for all the ills that befall this world.

 

The Mechanical Universe

The idea that God steered everything in the universe as he saw fit was demolished by the discovery that there were natural laws obeyed by objects in the universe.

Galileo, for example, discovered that the universe followed laws that could be written down mathematically.

This suggested that there was logic and engineering throughout creation. The universe behaved in a consistent manner and was not subject to gods pulling a string here and there, or some unexplained influences from astrological bodies.

This didn't give Galileo any religious problems (although it annoyed the church greatly and they eventually made him keep quiet about some of his conclusions) because he believed that God had written the scientific rules.

And around this time scientists began to come up with new ways of assessing whether certain things were true. Things were expected to happen in a repeatable, testable way, which could be written down in equations.

 

Christian Reply John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar , and the father of it.

 

God the Engineer

Although scientific discovery began to explain more and more, it didn't cause large numbers of people to become less religious.

Even many - probably most - scientists still had a place for God in the universe. At the very least, he had started the whole thing going, and he had created the rules that his universe was shown to obey.

This halfway house between religion and science still had problems for the faithful, since it didn't seem to leave much room for God to intervene in the universe - and certainly it didn't need God to keep things ticking over.

Christian Reply Job 8:8-9

8. For enquire, I pray thee, of the former age, and prepare thyself to the search of their fathers:

9. (For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow.)

 

                        God the Creator

But the halfway house also provided some support for the faithful. They could look at the universe and see how beautifuly made it was, and be reassured that God had demonstrated his existence by creating such a wonderful place.

And since science, until the late 18th, and 19th centuries, hadn't produced any good explanation of how things began, religion still had an important place in explaining how the world was the way it was.

 

Christian Reply But, where are we to open this book? Where are we to break into this circle of the Zodiacal signs?

Through the “Precession of the Equinoxes” the sun gradually shifts its position a little each year, till in about every 2000 years it begins the year in a different sign. This was foreseen; and it was also foreseen that succeeding generations would not know when and where the sun began its course, and where the teaching of this Heavenly Book commenced, and where we were to open its first page. Hence the “Sphinx” was invented as a memorial.

It had the head of a woman (Not a Pharaoh) and the body and tail of a lion, to tell us this book, written in the Heavens, began with the sign “Virgo” (Virgin), and will end with the sign “Leo” (Lion). The word “Sphinx” is from the Greek Sphingo, to join; because it binds together the two ends of this circle of the heavens.

The number of the signs is twelve, the number of governmental perfection or “rule”: It is the number or factor of all numbers connected with government: whether by Tribes or Apostles, or in measurements of time, or in things which have to do with government in the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:18. And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: And God saw that it was good.

They are divided into three books of four chapters (or signs) each: twelve being the product of 3 x 4, i.e. of Divine truth working in the heavens and in the earth.(see app 10 of The Companion Bible).

Each book, therefore, consists of four signs; and these are all arranged by structure, in exactly the same way.

Each is an introversion (a central dimension of human personality). Thus we have the three books:

 

God takes a back seat

God's role as an explanation for the way things are took a serious knock from the sciences of geology and evolution.

Geologists discovered that the earth was hundreds of millions of years old, and not just 6,000 years old as was generally believed at that time.

They showed that the rocks that make up the earth had been laid down in layers at different times; a deeper layer (by and large) came from an earlier time than a shallow layer.

In each layer were fossils that showed that different species of animals had lived in different eras. Not only were many no longer in existence but also some didn't appear until relatively recent times.

This was incompatible with the idea that God completely created the world in 6 days and so scientists with a faith came up with another compromise - the 6 days of biblical creation were a poetic way of describing long periods of millions of years during which God worked on the world.

 

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

 

   Christian Reply The Hebrew has 'eth' before heaven and earth, emphasising each "the" article before both. This treatment makes a distinction between the state of the earth in Genesis 1:2. In other words, as we'll find out in the next verse, this creation of the heaven (heavens, plural in the Hebrew), and the earth, is the very first forming of the universe by God (Elohiym here in Hebrew). When God accomplished this, no one truly knows how long ago, but scientists can document that this old earth is literally thousands and thousands of years old. There is no disagreement here with God's Word.1

 

Gen 1:2   And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

 

    This verse speaks of a different condition of the earth than in Genesis 1:1. Stay with me, I'm going to document it. The word 'was' in Hebrew is 'hayah', meaning "to become, to exist, or come to pass". This word 'was' is in italics in much of The Old Testament, as it was added by the King James translators, because there is no verb 'to be' in the Hebrew. (This is another subject for another time.) 2  So this word 'hayah' in the Hebrew should be interpreted as 'became', i.e., past tense. The phrase 'without form' in the Hebrew is 'tohuw', meaning to 'lie waste, a desolation, vain' (Strong's no.8414).  And the word 'void' is 'bohuw' in the Hebrew, meaning 'an undistinguishable ruin'.(Strong's no. 922).
    In other words, the earth became a 'desolation', a 'ruin'. You'll find in Isaiah 45:18 that God said He did not create the earth "tohuw" (the Hebrew word tohuw appears there again as 'in vain', meaning a waste, a desolation). Well what does this mean? It means that something caused that 'desolate' condition upon the ancient earth.  God did not make it that way.  What could have caused the beautiful earth that God originally set up in the beginning to become a 'waste', a 'desolation'?  The Books of 2 Peter and Jeremiah give us more clues as to this state of ruin.  In 2 Peter 3, Peter makes a distinction between 'the world that then was' verses 'the heavens and earth which are now.' Let's turn to 2 Peter 3:5.

 

2 Pet 3:5   For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

 

2 Pet 3:6. Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

 

 

The theory of evolution (It is only a theory)

Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. (What a joke) Richard Dawkins, the Blind Watchmaker

The theory of evolution explains the variety of life forms on earth without any reference to God.

It says that from very simple beginnings, processes of genetic variation and selection (i.e. new forms of life keep appearing, and some forms of life don't survive and become extinct), working for hundreds of millions of years, generated the range of plants and animals that exist today.

These processes are not directed by any being, they are just the way the world works; God is unnecessary.

 

Christian Reply Man starts from nothing. He begins his life in helplessness, ignorance, and inexperience. All his works, therefore, proceed, on the principle of evolution. This principle is seen only in human affairs: from the hut to the palace; from the canoe to the ocean liner; from the spade, and ploughshare to machines for drilling, reaping, and binding etc. But the birds build their nests to day as at the beginning. The moment we pass the boundary line, and enter the Divine sphere, no trace or vestige of evolution is seen. There is growth and development within (ones-self), but no passing, change, or evolution out from one into another. On the other hand Gods works are perfect.

 

Stephen Jay Gould has explained the result of this for God:

No intervening spirit watches lovingly over the affairs of nature (though Newton's clock-winding god might have set up the machinery at the beginning of time and then let it run). No vital forces propel evolutionary change. And whatever we think of God, his existence is not manifest in the products of nature.

 

Arguments that claim God is meaningless

·                                                                                             Relative philosophy

Some philosophers think that religious language doesn't mean anything at all, and therefore that there's no point in asking whether God exists.

They would say that a sentence like "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" is neither true nor false, it's meaningless; in the same way that "colourless green ideas sleep furiously" is meaningless.

 

Logical Positivism, or Verificationism

·                                                                                             Logical Positivists argued that a sentence was meaningless if it wasn't either true or false, and they said that a sentence would only be true or false if it could be tested by an experiment, or if it was true by definition.

A more accurate version of this idea can be found here:

Since you couldn't verify the existence of God by any sort of "sense experience", and it wasn't true by definition (eg in the way "a triangle has 3 sides" is true), the logical positivists argued that it was pointless asking the question since it could not be answered true or false.

These particular philosophers didn't only say that religious talk was meaningless, they thought that much of philosophical discussion, metaphysics for example, was meaningless too. This philosophical theory is no longer popular, and attention has returned to the issues of what "God" means and whether "God" exists.

 

Christian Reply Evolution is only one of several theories invented to explain the phenomena of created things. It is admitted by all scientists that not one of these theories covers all the ground; and the greatest claim made for Evolution, or Darwinism, is that “it covers more ground than any of the others.”

The Word of God claims to cover all the ground: and the only way in which this claim is met, is by a denial of the inspiration of the Scriptures, in order to weaken it. This is the special work undertaken by the so-called “Higher Criticism”, (Kenites) which bases its conclusions on human assumptions and reasoning instead of on the documentary evidence of manuscripts, as textual Criticism does.

 

Note for philosophers

This is how one prominent philosopher put it:

We say that a sentence is factually significant to any given person, if and only if, he knows how to verify the proposition which it purports to express - that is, if he knows what observations would lead him, under certain conditions, to accept the proposition as being true, or reject is as being false.

 

Ayer actually preferred a weaker version of the theory, because since no empirical proof could be totally conclusive, almost every statement about the world would have to be regarded as meaningless.

A proposition is said to be verifiable, in the strong sense of the term, if, and only if, its truth could be conclusively established in experience. But it is verifiable, in the weak sense, if it is possible for experience to render it probable.

And this led Ayer to dispose of the God question rather brusquely:

...There can be no way of proving that the existence of a god...is even probable.

For if the existence of such a god were probable, then the proposition that he existed would be an empirical hypothesis. And in that case it would be possible to deduce from it, and other empirical hypotheses, certain experiential propositions that were not deducible from those other hypotheses alone.

But in fact this is not possible...For to say that "God Exists" is to make a metaphysical utterance, which cannot be either true or false.

 

 

Arguments that claim God is in the mind Psychological Explanations of Religon.

 

Psychologists have long been fascinated by religion as something that exists in all societies.

They ask whether 'religion' is actually a name given to various psychological drives, rather than a response to the existence of God or gods.

Such a belief is clearly atheistic.

Religion, to the common man, is a:

System of doctrines and promises which on the one hand explains to him the riddles of this world with enviable completeness, and, on the other, assures him that a careful Providence will watch over his life and will compensate him in a future existence for any frustrations he suffers here.

 

                                                Freud, Civilization and its Discontents

Religion comes from emotions

Human beings believe in God because they want:

1.     A father figure to protect them from this frightening world

2.     Someone who gives their lives meaning and purpose

3.     Something that stops death being the end

4.     To believe that they are an important part of the universe, and that some component of the universe (God) cares for and respects them

These beliefs are strongly held because they enable human beings to cope with some of their most basic fears.

Atheists argue that since religion is just a psychological fantasy, human beings should abandon it so that they can grow to respond appropriately to deal with the world as it is.

Freud

Sigmund Freud tackled religion in great detail and had several ideas about it.

One of his theories was that religion stems from the individual's experience of having being a helpless baby totally dependent on its parents. The infant sees its parents as all-powerful beings that show it great love and satisfy all its needs. This experience is almost identical to the way human beings portray their relationship with God.

Freud also suggested that childhood experiences caused people to have very complex feelings about their parents and themselves, and religion and religious rituals provide a respectable mechanism for working these out.

Freud also described religion as a mass-delusion that reshaped reality to provide a certainty of happiness and a protection from suffering.

God is a social function

Sociological explanations of religion

Some people think that religions and belief in God fulfil functions in human society, rather than being the result of God actually existing.

 

Christian Reply Sigmund Freud and his family escaped Nazi annexation of Austria in 1938.

Freud was also deeply interested in witchcraft and other occult phenomena. On Saturday evenings, he would frequently play tarock - a card game associated with the Kabbala. However, he appeared to have a conscious hatred of religion - both Orthodox Judaism and Christianity. In 1937, when he was urged to flee Nazism, he responded that his real enemy was the Roman Catholic Church. Interesting enough, his childhood hero was Hanibal, the Carthaginian besieger of Rome.

Again, where is the evidence for any of this? When Freud was told that there was no replacement Moses, he responded: “And yet, it might be true for it fits so well into the frame of my thesis!”

These comments are hardly typical of an atheist. The Catholic Psychiatrist Gregory Zilboorg concluded: “Religion was for Freud a field of which he knew very little and which moreover seems to have been the very centre of his inner conflicts, conflicts that were never resolved.”

After all, in the future of an illusion, Freud wrote: “Among the instinctive wishes of mankind are those of incest, cannibalism and lust for killing.” And in his famous Interpretation of dreams he wrote: “I was making frequent use of cocaine to reduce some troublesome nasal swellings.”

If he had nasal swellings, he was almost certainly using cocaine regularly. Whatever one’s view of the cocaine hypothesis, it would appear that in accepting his theories without due discernment, we have plunged Christianity and culture into chaos. If Rogerian man, innocent of original sin and naturally good, is capable of salvation without grace, Freudian man is, in contrast, utterly depraved, riddled with guilt feelings from childhood and incapable of making a good moral act. We move from Pelagianism to Jansenism.

The church has surely been wise to treat certain aspects of psychotherapy with great caution.

 

 

Ludwig Feuerbach

Ludwig Feuerbach was a 19th century German philosopher who proposed that religion was just a human being's consciousness of the infinite.

He said that human ideas about God were no more than the projection of humanity's ideas about man onto an imaginary supernatural being.

 

Christian Reply Including external nature; for as man belongs to the essence of Nature, – in opposition to common materialism; so Nature belongs to the essence of man, – in opposition to subjective idealism; which is also the secret of our “absolute” philosophy, at least in relation to Nature. Only by uniting man with Nature can we conquer the supra-naturalistic egoism of Christianity

 

 

Emile Durkheim

Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), a French sociologist, thought that religion was something produced by human society, and had nothing supernatural about it.

Religious force is nothing other than the collective and anonymous force of the clan.

 

                                                Durkheim. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life.

He believed that religion existed, but he did not agree that the reality that lay behind it was the same reality that believer’s thought existed.

Religion helped people to form close-knit groups, in which they could find a place in society. Religious rituals created mental states in those taking part, which were helpful to the group.

To put it another way; religious rituals do not do anything other than strengthen the beliefs of the group taking part and reinforce the collective consciousness.

 

Religion fulfilled the functions of:

1.     Giving a meaning and purpose to life

2.     Binding people together in groups

3.     Supporting the moral code of the group

4.     Supporting the social code of the group

Durkheim thought that this was enough to give people a feeling that there was something supernatural going on.

Since it is in spiritual ways that social pressure exercises itself, it could not fail to give men the idea that outside themselves there exist one or several powers, both moral and, at the same time, efficacious, upon which they depend.

 

                                               The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life

Durkheim said that religious beliefs divided experiences into the profane and the sacred - the profane were the routine experiences of everyday life, while the sacred were beyond the everyday and likely to inspire reverence.

Objects could become sacred, not because of any inherent supernatural resonance but because the group fixed certain 'collective ideals' on an object.

 

Christian Reply One-man’s point of view, we clearly see here where Atheists get their ideas.

 

Karl Marx's criticisms of religion

Marx's view of religion

Karl Marx thought that religion was an illusion, with no real God or supernatural reality standing in the background. Religion was a force that stopped human societies from changing.

A social institution

Marx believed that religion was a social institution, and reflected and sustained the particular society in which it flourished.

He went further. Religion was a tool used by the capitalists to keep the working-class under control.

Religion provided the working-class with comfort in their miserable oppressed circumstances, and by focussing attention on the joys to come after death; it distracted the workers from trying to make this life better.

 

Religion cheats human beings

Furthermore, it took the noblest human ideals and gave them to a non-existent God, thus cheating human beings of realising their own greatness and potential.

Religion disguises the true wrongs

Marx argued that putting right the economic conditions that caused people to need this illusion to make their lives bearable should eliminate the illusory happiness provided by religion.

Religion was like a painkiller (hence Marx's famous reference to it as "the opium of the people"), but what was needed was to cure the sickness, not sedate the patient.

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the feelings of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of unspiritual conditions. It is the opium of the people.

 

Target: Christianity

The Marxist analysis of religion was principally aimed at Christianity, as Christianity was the dominant faith in the industrial societies, which Marx was criticising.

1.     God is not apparent

2.     God is Loving

3.     This is one of the more unusual arguments used to show that God can't exist:

4.     God is perfectly loving

5.     God knows that human beings would be happier if they were aware of the existence of a loving God

So if such a God existed, he would make sure that everyone knew it

There are lots of people who aren't aware of the existence of a loving God. Therefore such a God does not exist

Christian Reply In 1842, Marx joined the staff of the newspaper the “Rheinische Zeitung” and became its editor. The views expressed in it quickly came to the attention of the authorities and it was suppressed. Marx went to Paris. In 1845, he was expelled from Paris and went to Brussels. Here, he joined the Communist League, and stimulated its growth. In 1848, Marx, supported by Engels, completed the “Communist Manifesto”. This was a mixture of other people’s beliefs consolidated into one. Marx never denied that he was less than original in his thinking - his skill was interweaving other people’s ideas into one. This in itself was a major achievement as many of those who influenced him, were frequently at intellectual odds with others who also influenced Marx. He took what appealed to him and ended with a relatively small book that was to revolutionise society.

So, when the Bible says that Satan is the "god of this world," it is not saying that he has ultimate authority. It is conveying the idea that Satan rules over the unbelieving world in a specific way. In the case of…

 

2 Corinthians 4:4, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, Who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

 

…the unbeliever follows Satan's agenda. According to 2 Corinthians 4:4, Satan's agenda includes pushing a false philosophy onto the unbelieving worlda false philosophy that blinds the unbeliever from the truth of the Gospel. Satan’s philosophies are the fortresses in which people are imprisoned, needing to be set free and brought captive to Christ in obedience to the truth.

Satan uses people like those mentioned above, Freud, Ludwig Feuerbach, Emile Durkheim, and Karl Marx and others. Beside being just mortal men and everything that goes with it, it beggars belief that anyone can take their theories seriously when there is more proof of the truth in God’s Word than all the conjecture put together by mortal man, it is because the trail of the serpent intertwines with every sentence of the atheists logic..

The points above must be of a similar nature to the arguments put forward by Satan in the first earth age, causing 30% of the people to believe, and follow him. This action of course brought about the fall of man, and the whole KJV Bible is about God restoring His ruined creation. Whether you are a belever, atheist, or an agnostic, it is so important for you as an individual to check out the word of God for yourself thoroughly using a…

 

Strong’s Concordance

This revised, corrected, and updated edition of a legendary classic puts generations of Biblical research at your fingertips. The New Strong’s Concordance of the Bible is the ultimate reference guide for finding any verse or passage quickly and easily. 

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, generally known as Strong's Concordance, is a concordance of the King James Bible (KJV) that was constructed under the direction of Dr. James Strong (18221894) and first published in 1890. Dr. Strong was Professor of exegetical theology at Drew Theological Seminary at the time. It is an exhaustive cross-reference of every word in the KJV back to the word in the original text.

Unlike other Biblical reference books, the purpose of Strong's Concordance is not to provide content or commentary about the Bible, but to provide an index to the Bible. This allows the reader to find words where they appear in the Bible. This index allows a student of the Bible to re-find a phrase or passage previously studied or to compare how the same topic is discussed in different parts of the Bible. James Strong did not construct Strong's Concordance by himself; it was constructed with the effort of more than a hundred colleagues. It has become the most widely used concordance for the King James Bible.

                             Strong's Concordance includes:

1.     The 8674 Hebrew root words used in the Old Testament.

2.     The 5624 Greek root words used in the New Testament.

      KJV Companion Bible

http://www.godsplan.org.uk/theompletecompanionbible.mht

 

Neh. 8.8. So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

http://www.godsplan.org.uk/Massorah2.htm

 

I am also a great believer in…

A man/woman convinced against their will,

Is of the same opinion still

I am not here to convince you, but only to guide you and show you the way. Whichever way you choose is your decision and yours alone.

A good starting block for study is this website. http://www.godsplan.org.uk/index.htm you can also post your questions or arguments through my guestbook, or two choices of email. Your email address is kept private and not used in anyway unless you wish me to respond.

 

May God bless and keep you.

 

John Bradburn.