Tuesday, February 28, 2012

There Is No God & I Hate Him

[Warning: This blog post contains extremely vulgar, blasphemous, and highly offensive language. Please do not read this and then contact me with complaints. If you feel I should not reprint such things then please STOP reading now. Thank you.]

Recently I watched the latest Liam Neeson flick entitled The Grey. It was absolutely brutal and entirely atheistic. There was no attempt to disguise the nihilistic underpinnings of meaninglessness, hopelessness, and despair.

Midway through this numbing assault on mind and emotion, one character speaks, somewhat wistfully, of the value of faith. He is swiftly rebuffed as being a delusional fool. The other men have no use for “fiction” or “fairy tales.” For them the “only thing real” is the “cold” and the “snow” [a tip of the cap to atheistic materialism].

Near the end, the protagonist, with uplifted gaze, cries out to God: “Prove yourself!” His excruciating plea is met with nothing but silent, pale grey. And in a rage he bellows forth a torrent of obscenities and blasphemies against the Deity he denies.

What irony. To whom does the atheist scream? Against what or whom does he rail? The flying spaghetti monster? Hardly. I was immediately reminded of Vox Day’s “atheist creed”: 1) There is no God and 2) I hate him.

To be sure, it was more than a little difficult to watch! But this is the all too real condition—the contradiction--of those who suppress the knowledge of God’s existence. Thus, it seems that dead atheists are all dressed up with nowhere to go and living atheists are all obsessed with phantoms of “lesser minds.”

But make no mistake: Atheism is not merely the “absence of belief.” (I don’t believe in many things and this has never been a source of frustration.) No, the absence of belief is not responsible for the atheist’s anger. Rather, the atheist is inflamed because he suppresses the Truth.

I was reminded of the atheist’s fury, oddly enough, when I posted this status on my Facebook: The biblical truth is each of us is born in sin. Being "born gay" has absolutely no bearing on the sinfulness of homosexuality.

Obviously, the above sentiment has little or nothing to do with atheism per se, but it provoked the wrath of non-theists all the same. Consequently, a few Christian brethren and I were subjected to a withering assault from these non- believers.

Their comments are nothing but ad hominems, straw men, red herrings, and non sequiturs. Their logical fallacies contain more errors than words. (And please bear in mind, these folks pride themselves on “reason” and “rationalism” and “tolerance.”)

Here are a few selections [I have left the spelling and syntax unedited]:

*****************

Wow...what a bunch of bigots. You clowns can go back to giving each other hand jobs while you're reading "the good book”

Quit quoting scripture, you idiots! Read something educational and better yourselves!

Are you guys affiliated with the priests that molest children.

you idiots use the words "reason" and "god" in the same posts, yet neither has anything to do with the other. FYI, you guys believe in a old man who floats around in the sky, and that imaginary friend dictates your lives. Pathetic really. Listening to you guys and your ignorant hate only solidifies my atheism and non-homophobic ideology. Good luck with that afterlife thingy…

Your imaginary friend who created the world 6,000, 7,000, maybe even 10,000 years ago? Your hate towards your fellow man is simply wrapped up neatly in a religious dogma that you use to justify your own insecurities dumbass.

Keep preachin it dopes!

You terds are a riot! are you hitting on me? You wanna make out with me, don't you?

You must have been voted "Most Likely to be a Condescending Bigot" your senior year. Again, funny, funny shit kid.

Evolution is real, creationism is simply a story. Thus, it is "reasonable" to believe in evolution and not the story of Adam and Eve, or Noah, etc. There turd, that is my "philosophical musing" for ya.

you believe in a book, which apparently you believe is "fact." Name one fact from the bible kid.

By the way, I can jump over buildings. Don't believe me?? Fool, I wrote it in a book, so you know it's true.

I guess this god hates kids he gives AIDS to; starves kids in Somalia, kills kids in car crashes, etc. etc. Believe that because people can't prove a negative, that you have the "upper hand." All you have bud is magic wrapped up in superstition engulfed in fear with a topping of brain washing. And if your god is the god that starves those kids or gives them AIDS, then fuck your god. He's an asshole.....

“You kids keep usin dem big ol words and believing what you say is somehow refuting anything. "Atheistic non reason." That makes ZERO sense putz. Keep preaching bigotry and hate, mask it with chrisianity and believing you're a good person…Too much Dungeons and Dragons for you squids......”

*************************

I have dialogued with many, many atheists; and while some of them do not use such unpalatable terminology, all of them--without exception--are essentially the same. Despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, every atheist with whom I’ve interacted [read, heard, or debated] esteems himself to be intellectually and morally superior to theists. Indeed, atheists are elitist in every sense of the word.

As I contemplate the above comments coming from my detractors, the hatred is palpable: the derision and animosity for scripture, the expletives and epithets, the irrationality and madness. The American Church needs to understand that the persecution so rampant in other parts of the world is lurking barely below the surface right here at home.

After reading these invectives hurled towards Christians, can anyone reasonably conclude that these "tolerant" folks would NOT incarcerate, "re-educate," silence, take the children of, and even execute or exterminate Bible believing people of faith? There really is no "middle ground" is there?

I've little doubt that these God-hating, antichrists--if sufficiently empowered--would "feed us to the lions" without hesitation. Nothing has changed. The spirit of the world is very much alive and well and is as raging mad against God and His people as ever.

And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake” (Luke 21:17). We’ve been warned, brothers and sisters. We’ve been warned.

37 comments:

  1. Excellent post...I have been thinking this way for a long time and the heat is getting turned up higher with each passing day. Lord, come quickly!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for reading and commenting. It does seem like things are heating up doesn't it? May God give us the grace to stand our ground and see the salvation of the Lord.

      Delete
  2. Again commenting, as an atheist, hoping some of your readers are also ineterested in my point of view. Full thoughts on this here http://gonoammo.blogspot.com/2012/02/this-wouldnt-fit-into-comment.html
    But I would like to point out, that what you seem to be mad at Atheists for, is standing up for themselves against being bullied.
    Keep attacking us ad hominem, trolling us in our Atheist FB groups, and every time we stand up for ourselves, you view it as a personal attack. You're not "doing God's work", you're not opening up anything for discussion or intelligent debate, you're just claiming we're stupid, arrogant, and elitist, and every time we say you're wrong, it's a personal attack against you. You're a bully, a troll, I don't know what you expect to gain from any of this.
    I don't know what else to say, here, besides, I'm sorry you see things this way. I hope you find the help you need.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First, I am not "mad at atheists." The mean, vicious words in my article are not mine. These words were written by atheists and are directed towards me and my Christian friends.

      The exerpts from above are from MY personal FB page, not from your "atheist FB groups." [I did however post my article on your atheist group page. And...as you know...the atheists of your group are as arrogant and demeaning as the atheists in my article. They are proving my point for me.]

      You write: "you're just claiming we're stupid..."

      Anna, please cite 1 single reference where I called you or any atheist "stupid." I'll take just 1. If you cannot prouce a single reference, will you kindly retract your accusation?

      You claim: "you're not opening up anything for discussion or intelligent debate..."

      And yet, here you are discussing and debating. Well, Anna, which is it? If I've not opened up anything for discussion then why are you here? If I have opened up something for discussion [which the evidence--YOU--seems to indicate] then why are you claiming otherwise?

      You call me names: "You're a bully, a troll..."

      Yes, Anna, you are demonstrating the accuracy of my thesis. Your fellow atheists came on my personal FB page and called names. Now, you are on my blog calling names.

      (And...as you confess in your atheist FB group "I do hate some of the blindfolded people that believe in him [God].") Again, your admission only proves my contention.

      You claim: "every time we say you're wrong, it's a personal attack against you..."

      Come on, Anna...let's be honest, ok? Did you actually read my article? Do those hate filled remarks spewing from your atheist cohorts simply amount to "you're wrong"? Really? You and your atheistic band of brothers are saying MUCH more than "you're wrong." I think you know this.

      You write: "I don't know what you expect to gain from any of this."

      I thought it was obvious. I'm showing my readers how incredibly hostile atheists are towards God and those who believe in Him. (And, oddly enough, you're showing my readers this very same thing.)

      You remark: "I hope you find the help you need."

      I've no idea whether or not you are sincere in your hope, but either way, I assure you: The "help" I needed I could never find. Rather, the Help I needed found me. I sincerely pray God our help finds you as well.

      Thank you for reading and commenting.

      Delete
  3. http://gonoammo.blogspot.com/2012/02/in-response.html

    Once again, your comment section has capped my answer to less words than I need to explain. So here's another link. I don't think you read the last one though.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "No, the absence of belief is not responsible for the atheist’s anger. Rather, the atheist is inflamed because he suppresses the Truth."

    It's really quite simple. Those atheists who are angry, are angry because of people like you. The comments you quoted made me smile because they are indicative of the freedom people feel in the modern age to ridicule beliefs which are ridiculous. There is no point in engaging the religious in any kind of rational dialogue, because the religious are not rational. Ridicule is by far the best response.

    Yes, people like you will undoubtedly continue to spew your hatred and bigotry until long after I am dead, but at least we have the freedom to call you out on the superstitious, backwards, irrational, dehumanising nonsense that you proclaim to be some kind of "truth". We've all seen what happens in societies where religion gains the upper hand, and it ain't pretty. It involves persecution, torture and death for those that disagree. Give me a secular culture every time.

    People like you make me angry, yes. But you also make me afraid. I am afraid for the future of humanity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Those atheists who are angry, are angry because of people like you."

      Obviously, by "those atheists" you mean yourself and every atheist similar to you. And of course, you are not to be blamed for your own anger. "We're angry and it's your fault!" How juvenile.

      "The comments you quoted made me smile because they are indicative of the freedom people feel..."

      Your sophomoric and crass view of "freedom" makes me smile. :)

      "There is no point in engaging the religious in any kind of rational dialogue..."

      If your comments are indicative of what you consider to be "rational"...then we are agreed. (And yet...here you are. Why? Do you often engage in what you deem pointless?)

      "Ridicule is by far the best response."

      Actually, liminus, I think "ridicule" is the only response of which you are capable. (That's why it seems "best" to you.) I don't believe you are intellectually equipped for rational discourse concerning the existencd or non existence of God. (You may claim I am mistaken but I see no evidence to the contrary of my assessment.)

      "We've all seen what happens in societies where religion gains the upper hand, and it ain't pretty. It involves persecution, torture and death for those that disagree."

      Oh, I know! We've never seen millions upon millions of folks murdered by atheistic regimes. Oh, wait...we have? Never mind. (Here is where I think "ridicule" is a good "response" to a rather stupid, ill-informed comment.)

      "People like you make me angry, yes. But you also make me afraid."

      Sometimes, liminus, ignorance breeds anger and fear. This could be one of those times. Also, many people who are scared and angry are irrational. Perhaps fear and anger cloud your thinking.

      At any rate, your comments only reinforce my thesis above. Thank you for reading and commenting.

      Delete
  5. This is my first interactions with Steve.
    Steve: comes to Atheists circle on FB and posts this theory about all Atheists are assholes and hate God.
    We: I tell him how I dont't hate God, I don't believe in God, I just hate assholes.
    Steve: that proves my point! You just called me an asshole.
    Me: posts first link with the story of my life and all the Christan assholes I've had to deal with and lost family and friends who thought they were better than me.
    Steve: doesn't read it, still thinks I'm calling him an asshole.
    Me: defends myself
    Steve: see! Proves my point, you're an asshole.
    Me: calls steve a bully.
    Steve: see! Proves my point, you're an asshole.

    No, Steve. You showed up to a circle of atheists and immediately called them all assholes, when we defended ourselves, you decided that proved your point. You harrassed us, Steve. You instigated this. I'm calling you out on it. I dislike people who think I'm an asshole just because I'm atheist without ever getting to know me and talk to me. You see what you want to see and claim it proves your point.

    I asked what you would prefer I do, if not stand up for myself. No response from you, Steve.

    I asked why you chose to post this link on our fb wall. No response.

    You disturbed an ants nest, Steve. The ants are biting you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anna,
      Your "interactions" are lies. I never once called you or anyone or used the term "asshole." As I challenged you before, so I challenge you now: Present a single reference where I used such language. I'll take just one.

      What I would "prefer" for you to do is state your beliefs without ad hominems and lies. Why are you so dishonest, Anna?

      Delete
    2. I'll admit you did not use the term "asshole" however, you did claim that "I have dialogued with many, many atheists; and while some of them do not use such unpalatable terminology, all of them--without exception--are essentially the same. Despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, every atheist with whom I’ve interacted [read, heard, or debated] esteems himself to be intellectually and morally superior to theists. Indeed, atheists are elitist in every sense of the word."

      If you claim that all atheists are the same even though some of use do not use unpalatable terminology, so did you call us assholes in so many words. Sure you did not use the term asshole, but Elitist.

      Urban Dictionary defines asshole as such:
      someone being arrogant, rude, obnoxious, or just a total dickhead....

      Arrogant = Elitist. Someone who thinks they're better than you.

      Ergo, in so many words, you called me and all atheists assholes.

      My beliefs are that your god is man-made and fallible, the book you go by is man-made and fallible, and/or this God is horrible, making a book he knew not everyone would believe to be his word and then punishing us for all eternity for not believing in it, and therefore not worthy to be worshipped, praised, etc.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. I stand by my claim that atheists are elitist and I stand by my denial of labeling them "assholes." I have never once thought "elitist=asshole" (until reading your comment above). This connotation is all yours.

      "your god is man-made"

      This is an assertion. Would you care to now substantiate your assertion in the form of logical argumentation?

      (Let's see if you and I can actually dialogue without name calling. Sound fair?)

      Delete
    5. Indeed that does sound fair.

      Before The Bible came about, people believed in other gods, pre early judaism around 1800 BCE. The gods were also man-made, and eventually people turned away from them.

      This god is said to be all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving, and all-powerful.

      If a god is all three of these things, then why would he allow suffering to happen to good people? Why would he allow children to be born with aids? Unless perhaps he is not all-loving, or perhaps he cannot stop it, which makes him not all-powerful, or perhaps he doesn't know about it, which makes him not all-knowing. Any two of these three would work, but this god is said to be all three.

      If God is all-knowing, and all-loving, and all-powerful why would he knowingly write a book that includes rules for buying and selling slaves, knowing we would deem that wrong as a society?

      If God is all-knowing, all-loving, and all-powerful, why would he knowingly create beings that would not believe he is god, and punish them for all eternity for not believing. Why would he allow Atheists to exist, if he knew before letting us be born that we would not believe and be sent to hell (or grave if you go by the literal translation pre-NKJV)

      Essentially, God cannot be all three things, and any two by themselves would not be the Christian God as the Bible describes him.

      Delete
    6. Also, this god, by not appearing before early judaism in around 1800 BCE, must've just been sending everyone before that to hell. Humans existed since around 8000 BCE. That's a lot of people that just got sent to Hell, without having any evidence of the "true god" to save them. Why would an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving god do that?

      Delete
    7. I am so glad that you have decided to enter into a friendly discussion with me. (If I hadn't posted on the atheist group page...this never would've happened!)

      To begin, I want to say that I appreciate your thoughtful questions, and I think each of them deserves to be answered and sufficiently pondered. To do this...we must go slowly and contemplatively.

      I'm not intrested in giving pat answers and cliches. Thus, rather than give short answers to these queries, we should be deliberate and thorough. You deserve that. You've asked a lot of questions and each of the questions contains their own assumptions or presuppositions. So, rather than a "machine gun" approach, we'll take them one by one. Okay?

      Let's begin.

      You write: "Before The Bible came about, people believed in other gods, pre early judaism around 1800 BCE. The gods were also man-made, and eventually people turned away from them."

      True, before the first books of the Bible were written people did believe in "other gods." And these gods were indeed "man-made." (The Bible itself is explicitly clear about these things.)

      The Apostle Paul writes:
      "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things" (Rom 1:20-23).

      The first of the 10 Commandments also acknowledges the sin of imagining false gods and false religions: "You shall have no other gods before Me" (Ex. 20:3).

      But please notice, the apostle Paul plainly teaches that worship of the only true and living God--the God of the Bible--predates the writing of the Bible, Judaism, and false worship of false gods. Just to be clear: True worship of the true God comes before all these things.

      The "man-made" gods of which you speak are representative of the sinful corruption of pure and true religion. Hence Judaism, which comes about with God's revelation to Moses and the exodus from Egypt, is not at all the "invention" of a religion, but rather the recovery of true religion.

      Thus, while pagan religions certainly predate Judaism, pagan myths do NOT predate the Truth revealed and codified in Old Testament scripture. And we should add, that no amount of false religions have any bearing on True religion. (By way of analogy we may consider how counterfeit money in no way disproves the genuineness of authentic currency.)

      Delete
    8. When were the teachings of Paul supposedly around? The Bible itself was recorded some 30-500 years after Jesus Christ was said to have lived. Certainly the people before that had absolutely no way of knowing anything about the teachings of Christ or the "one true god".

      All of the gods that existed prior to this one were many, Roman gods, Greek gods, pagan gods, all of them believed in a group of supreme beings, I agree that they were man-made, but that doesn't make any difference about this god, which prior to the Quran (Old Testament), didn't exist.

      This "one true god" also doesn't exist in anything except the Bible. There's no "proof" outside of this book, therefore, one has to already believe it before reading it to accept it as truth. Outside of being indoctrinated as a small child, similarly to believing the Easter Bunny and Santa Clause, you would not believe that with prior knowledge of the rest of the world. Surely, an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving god knew this hundreds of thousands of years ago, and could've provided proof elsewhere. He knew people, much like myself, wouldn't believe in this book prior to my even existing (Jeremiah 1:5). So either he's okay with sending me to hell (or grave, pre-NKJV), therefore not all-loving, didn't know previous to writing the Bible, not all-knowing, or the bible is flawed because it is man-made. (Some say inspired by god, but wars were also inspired by god and many horrible things done in god's name, including the holocaust, Hitler was Catholic, and believed god had chosen him to drive out the jews and start the aryan race.)

      Delete
    9. You write: “When were the teachings of Paul supposedly around? The Bible itself was recorded some 30-500 years after Jesus Christ was said to have lived.”

      This is factually inaccurate. The Old Testament was written prior to Christ. The Old Testament was the scripture from which Jesus and His apostles preached. There are many, many Old Testament passages quoted and alluded to in the New Testament.

      The New Testament was being written and circulated among Christians shortly after the Ascension of Christ. In fact, there is a terrific book, “Before Jerusalem Fell,” by Kenneth Gentry, which makes a very good and well documented case that the entire New Testament [including “The Revelation of Jesus Christ”] was written prior to 70AD [less than 40 years after the Ascension of Jesus].

      Actually, the more scholars study manuscripts the earlier the dates for the composition of the New Testament scriptures become. The canon of the New Testament was received by the Church in the 4th century, but there is a huge difference between the church’s recognition of the canon and the composition of the canon by the Apostles and their associates.

      You write: “I agree that they were man-made, but that doesn't make any difference about this god, which prior to the Quran (Old Testament), didn't exist.”

      We are agreed: no amount of false religions or false gods negates or has any bearing upon true religion and the true God.

      However, again I must raise a factual error. The Quran [sometimes “Koran”] is NOT the Old Testament. The Old and New Testaments comprise the Christian canon of scriptures. The Quran is Muslim and it was not written until the 7th Century…over 600 years AFTER Christ.

      And, of course, the one and only living and true God did exist before both the Quran and the Old Testament. This one and only living and true God was worshiped long before the writing of the Old Testament [which itself was over a thousand years in being compiled].

      You write: “This ‘one true god’ also doesn't exist in anything except the Bible.”

      Here you are begging the question. That is, you are assuming what you’ve yet to prove. God certainly does exist external to the Bible and because He exists the universe and all that exists within it exists because of Him. That is, God’s Being is necessary being. God exists due to the impossibility of contrary.

      You write: “Outside of being indoctrinated as a small child, similarly to believing the Easter Bunny and Santa Clause, you would not believe that with prior knowledge of the rest of the world.”

      Here again, you are simply begging the question. I do not accept the proposition that believing in God is the result of being “indoctrinated as a small child.” Two things:

      1)Lots and lots of folks believe in God who were never taught about Him as a child. In fact, I’m sure many Christians were reared in the homes of avowed atheists. Certainly I know personally of Christians who were raised in irreligious environments.

      2) Being “indoctrinated as a small child” has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether or not such indoctrination is true. In other words, one could never logically say, “Well…this can’t be true because I was taught this as a child.” Right? (To think otherwise is to fall into what we call the "genetic fallacy.")

      Well, Anna, we've covered enough ground for 1 day! We'll get to your other concerns tomorrow or shortly thereafter.

      Delete
    10. I have a brief window for a quick comment!

      I have a third point [see above for 1 and 2] to your thoughts regarding the "indocrination of children" and the "similarity" between believing in God and the "Easter Bunny" or "Santa."

      On a superficial level it may seem to you [and other atheists who raise this same objection] that these beliefs are similar. But are they? Sometimes we play mind tricks on ourelves to "see" similarities where none exist.

      I think the best way to see how truly dissimilar these beliefs are is to simply look at the evidence readily available.

      1)How many children continue to believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny as they grow older? [Statistically, I think we could say "none."] Conversely, how many children continue to believe in God/Jesus as they grow older? [I'm guessing it's somewhere in the mid to high 90%.]

      2)How many adults first come to believe in God/Jesus long after they are mature? [Hundreds of thousands, even millions.] Conversely, how many adults first come to believe in Santa or the Easter bunny long after they are mature? [Statistically speaking, I think we could say "none."]

      Again, this third point [divided into 2 correlative statements] simply serves to demonstrate that these beliefs are in fact quite dissimlar.

      I'll have more things to ponder later!

      Delete
    11. You write: "Hitler was Catholic, and believed god had chosen him to drive out the jews and start the aryan race.)"

      As you can imagine, this is more than just a little debateable! But also, it's entirely a red herring or perhaps a non sequitur. "God does not exist because Hitler was bad," is illogical.

      But here is an excellent, well balanced and infromative article dealing with Hitler and whether or not he was a Christian or Catholic [and "Christian" or "Catholic" in what sense?]:
      http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1699/was-hitler-a-christian.

      Below is an excerpt from the article.

      ***************
      My friend and source David Gehrig noted that Hitler still sets the gold standard for "easiest rhetorical cheap shot." He related a comment from Usenet that there is an empirical law: As a Usenet discussion gets longer, the probability that someone in it will compare someone else in it to Hitler asymptotically approaches 1. In other words, atheists looking for a quick cheap-shot may claim Hitler was a Christian; similarly, Christians looking for a quick shot may claim he was an atheist. Know what? Hitler was a vegetarian! Oooh, those evil vegetarians! He also recommended that parents give their children milk to drink instead of beer and started the first anti-smoking campaign. (So by the "reasoning" used in these types of arguments, if you are truly anti-Hitler, you should smoke heavily and only give your baby beer!) Better watch out, though he was an oxygen-breather, too! In other words, does it really matter whether Hitler was an atheist or a Christian or whatever? Just because somebody may hold a particular worldview (along with other views) doesn't make him a spokesman for that view, or even remotely representative of others who hold that view. No matter how his madness is painted, he was still evil incarnate.
      ******************

      Talk to you later.

      Delete
  6. "Here you are begging the question. That is, you are assuming what you’ve yet to prove. God certainly does exist external to the Bible and because He exists the universe and all that exists within it exists because of Him. That is, God’s Being is necessary being. God exists due to the impossibility of contrary."

    A basic principle to remember here is that the burden of proof always lies with the person who is making a claim, not the person who is hearing the claim and who may not initially believe it. One can say "Santa exists" and the non-believer says "prove it" and the believer says "if you search the North Pole you will find it" but if you search the North Pole high and low and don't come up with anything, the believer will say "You're not looking in the right place. Similarly, if you took reindeer to the top of the Empire State Building and started tossing them off one by one to see if they flew, you'd eventually run out of reindeer, and the believer would still say "you just haven't found the right ones." Hence, the burden of proof of a God outside of the Bible lies with the theist, not the atheist. I do not see God outside of the Bible anywhere. I see a miracle of chance created by a happenstance of circumstances starting with the Big Bang and leading through Evolution and Pangea theory with an ever-expanding universe to the life we know today.

    1)Lots and lots of folks believe in God who were never taught about Him as a child. In fact, I’m sure many Christians were reared in the homes of avowed atheists. Certainly I know personally of Christians who were raised in irreligious environments.

    --Yes, well as one grows older, someone eventually outs Santa or the Easter Bunny, because once the child moves out they'll wonder why they suddenly stopped getting presents.

    2) Being “indoctrinated as a small child” has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether or not such indoctrination is true. In other words, one could never logically say, “Well…this can’t be true because I was taught this as a child.” Right? (To think otherwise is to fall into what we call the "genetic fallacy.")

    --We're taught several things as children that we still hold true well into adulthood, simply because nobody has proven it wrong to us, yet. The idea that we only have 5 sense, sight, touch, taste, smell, and hearing, is a good example, the fact is we have several more senses and we don't teach children this at a young age for fear they won't completely understand all of it. We have a sense of balance, a sense of where our limbs are in relation to the rest of us (sense of self), we have common sense (most of us), we have a sense of hot and cold, etc.

    http://www.cobourgatheist.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1210:how-the-bible-was-written-and-is-a-forgery&catid=25:the-bible&Itemid=107 This would be a good read on how the Bible came to be as we know it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You write: "the burden of proof of a God outside of the Bible lies with the theist, not the atheist."

      I disagree. In fact, I feel no compulsion whatsoever to attempt to "prove" the existence of God to you or to anyone. The fact is, the one and only living and true God exists and all men know this. Yet, some men suppress the truth of God that they know. "Not knowing" and "supressing" are two entirely different things. (We must also distinguish between "proof" and "persuasion.")

      You claim: "I do not see God outside of the Bible anywhere. I see a miracle of chance created by a happenstance of circumstances starting with the Big Bang and leading through Evolution and Pangea theory with an ever-expanding universe to the life we know today."

      You do not "see" God but somehow you do "see" a "miracle of chance"? (I guess sometimes "believing" really is "seeing!") What does a "miracle of chance" look like?

      1) What exactly is "chance"?

      2) "Created by a happenstance"...what in the world does this even mean? What is "happenstance"? How can this "happenstance" [whatever or whoever it is] "create"? [Doesn't "create" connote "mind" or "intelligence"?]

      Your responses to two of my observations have absolutley no bearing on whether or not God exists. You have to offer more than "God doesn't exist because the Easter Bunny has been 'outed' and when I left my parents I found no presents under my Christmas tree." You have not even begun to address my thesis that belief in God is essentially dissimilar to belief in Santa or the Easter Bunny.

      Finally, the article you provide is little more than a "hit piece." It's factually inaccurate. (For example, claiming that no extra-biblical historian before the 4th Century speaks of Christ. The author is either ignorant or dishonest [maybe both?]. Josephus speaks of Christ and of John the Baptist.) His characterization is entirely skewed and hostile.

      There is an entire technical field of study known as "lower criticism" which deals with the canon and ancient manuscripts. If you're truly interested in the transmission of the biblical text I would recommend reading online articles which deal with lower criticism.

      An excellent book [for a layman] which deals with lower critical method is "The Origin of The Bible," edited by Philip Wesley Comfort.

      Anna, thus far what I'm getting from you are insufficient and ill-informed "reasons" to disbelieve. You are simply presenting me with tired atheistic "arguments." I hope that by the time we're finished here, you will abandon such spurious positions. If not...at the very least perhaps we'll know each other a little better.

      Delete
  7. One can say "Santa exists" and the non-believer says "prove it" and the believer says "if you search the North Pole you will find it" but if you search the North Pole high and low and don't come up with anything, the believer will say "You're not looking in the right place. Similarly, if you took reindeer to the top of the Empire State Building and started tossing them off one by one to see if they flew, you'd eventually run out of reindeer, and the believer would still say "you just haven't found the right ones." Hence, the burden of proof of a God outside of the Bible lies with the theist, not the atheist.

    Perhaps you do not feel any obligation to "prove" your god's existence, but I also do not feel any obligation to believe in a god.

    "You do not "see" God but somehow you do "see" a "miracle of chance"? (I guess sometimes "believing" really is "seeing!") What does a "miracle of chance" look like?"

    It is certainly believed that "something" cannot come from "nothing", however scientists have witnessed a phenomenon, you can experiment with at home. If you hang two sheets of paper next to each other so that they may move freely, and with only a few millimeters of space in between them, they will drift apart from each other to create more space, or the space in between them will expand, much like the universe that we live in that is continuously expanding. Is your god between these two sheets of paper pushing them apart? Why would he bother? Aren't there children to feed in Africa?


    It's all a bit of quantum physics, which I don't claim to know much of, but is rather well explained here:
    http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/science/something-from-nothing-is-a-quantum-possibility

    "Heisenberg's principle implies, for example, that the very space around us is seething with subatomic particles, popping in and out of empty space. During their fleeting existence, these "vacuum particles" interact with each other, and turn the supposedly dull vacuum of space into the quantum vacuum - which astronomers now know is anything but dull. Observations suggest the expansion of the entire cosmos is being propelled by quantum vacuum energy, in the form of enigmatic "dark energy"."

    We can very easily explain how to get something from nothing using quantum physics.

    Although, by your very definition of not being able to get something from nothing I wonder how you explain how god ever came to be? If he just "always was", then couldn't the universe have also been "always" as it is?

    The thing about the "tired atheistic arguments" is that we see things through the eyes of science and can explain anything this way. You see things through the eyes of a believer in a god who created everything. I can easily see how an "easy way out" answer for you would be "Well, it's just another miracle of GOD", where as I need a bit more than that. For example, why would a god create such a giant universe if he were only ever really concerned with one small corner of it all? Why would a God create such a vast expanse of space just to give one species on one planet a bunch of rules to go by, wouldn't he focus more on the evolving planets on the outer corners of space? I don't know if you've ever created anything, but as an artist I create tons of things. I know that after a bit of painstaking work on one project, I call it done and move on to the next. I don't ever go back to see if everything is still okay later. I don't understand the point, especially if God knows exactly what was going to happen after creating such a place (Earth), what reason would he have to stick around? By using the quantum physics theory, I get around all of that by saying there never was a God, but a happenstance of circumstances that lead us to here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I just received this in an email this morning. A fragment of Mark's Gospel dating from the first century was found in early February.

      http://www.christianexaminer.com/Web%20News/Webnews_Headlines07.html

      Talk to you later.

      Delete
    2. I think we can leave the discussion of Santa and the Easter Bunny. If you do not honestly see the dissimilarity between believing in these and God, then I don’t think you will see. (This exemplifies the difference between “proof” and “persuasion.”)

      I realize that you don’t feel any obligation to believe in God, but the scripture tells us otherwise. Contra your feelings, God’s word and world obligate you to believe.

      “Since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).

      So, the Bible is clear: All men know that God exists because all men live in His world and all men are His image; that is, man “sees” God both externally and internally. Thus, disbelief is willful and inexcusable.

      You left my last questions unanswered so I shall ask them again:

      1) What exactly is "chance"?

      2) "Created by a happenstance"...what in the world does this even mean? What is "happenstance"? How can this "happenstance" [whatever or whoever it is] "create"? [Doesn't "create" connote "mind" or "intelligence"?]

      You write: “It is certainly believed that ‘something’ cannot come from ‘nothing.’”

      This is believed by most [certainly not all] because it’s true. Something cannot come from nothing. But…this wasn’t always believed. Scientists once thought otherwise. The long discredited theory is termed “spontaneous generation.” (Please tell me you don’t believe in this!) Here’s a brief article on the history of “spontaneous generation” written from the microbiological perspective. http://www.microbiologytext.com/index.php?module=Book&func=displayarticle&art_id=27

      You write: “the very space around us is seething with subatomic particles, popping in and out of empty space. During their fleeting existence, these "vacuum particles" interact with each other…”

      Anna, surely you see the glaring flaw here? “Subatomic particles” which “interact with each other” is SOMETHING not nothing. Nothing is NOTHING. Nothing is NOT a “little something.” (This is what I mean by “mind tricks” we play on ourselves.)

      You claim: “We can very easily explain how to get something from nothing using quantum physics.”

      Actually, you can’t. (See my above comment.) Ex nihilo nihil fit.

      Your unenviable task, Anna, is to somehow “demonstrate” or find “evidence” to substantiate how “something” [anything!] can come from absolute “nothing” [NOTHING nothing]. If you cannot produce a shred of evidence or even begin to demonstrate how something can come from absolute nothing, then your belief in such a reality is by definition, blind faith.

      You ask: “Couldn't the universe have also been ‘always’ as it is?”

      Absolutely not. Not according to the truth claims of modern astronomy. Do you or do you not believe in the “Big Bang”? Big Bang astronomers believe the universe has a beginning (around 17 billion years ago). If modern astronomy’s truth claims are correct, then, no, the universe hasn’t “always” been as it is.

      You write: “’Well, it's just another miracle of GOD’, where as I need a bit more than that.”

      It take it that by “more” than a “miracle of God” you mean a “miracle of chance”? ;)

      Anna, I’ve not offered you the nebulous “God of the gaps.” Rather, I am questioning the very shaky foundations of your own worldview. I’ve given you much to think about. I hope you’ll answer, in a thoughtful manner, the various challenges and questions I’ve posed.

      Delete
  8. Again, I cannot prove that Santa does not exist, nor can I prove an invisible all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving being does not exist. You have to prove that he does. You write "(This exemplifies the difference between “proof” and “persuasion.”)"

    I don't care if you show me proof or persuade me to see things your way. I started out in a Christian home, remember, I had thought I saw things that way, but frankly, could not see how a being who loves everybody could allow us to kill each other and allow diseases to exist while not only does he have the power to stop it, but the knowledge that we all want these things to go away. How can several thousand people in prayer for healing go unanswered? There is no god.


    1) What exactly is "chance"?

    A possibility of something happening.

    2) "Created by a happenstance"...what in the world does this even mean? What is "happenstance"? How can this "happenstance" [whatever or whoever it is] "create"? [Doesn't "create" connote "mind" or "intelligence"?]

    Coincidence

    The world was created by coincidence. We are, as some say, an accident of nature. A beautiful accident.

    You ask: “Couldn't the universe have also been ‘always’ as it is?”

    Absolutely not. Not according to the truth claims of modern astronomy. Do you or do you not believe in the “Big Bang”? Big Bang astronomers believe the universe has a beginning (around 17 billion years ago). If modern astronomy’s truth claims are correct, then, no, the universe hasn’t “always” been as it is.

    I've already decided there was enough proof in the subatomic particle theory mentioned by quantum physicists, and was merely pointing out the flaw in "God always existed" idea. If you believe that something has to come from something, then a being such as God had to also come from something, or does God not have parents. In which case, how can he expect that we honor ours? If god doesn't have parents, though, that explains how he can seem so childlike. "If you don't worship me, I'll throw a fit!"

    "It take it that by “more” than a “miracle of God” you mean a “miracle of chance”? ;)"

    I think life is more beautiful if you take away the "intelligent design". If you care to see through my eyes, for a moment. Having someone create something that is infinitely changing and expanding because they designed it to, might be pretty cool on it's own. But finding out that that something in a way created itself, and that it's changing itself constantly and nobody has any power over it, is infinitely cooler, to me.

    My problem is this, and this is one example from the Bible. Have you read and are familiar with the story of Job? He was an honest to God, God-loving man, much like Noah and Abraham before him, and he praised God every single day for everything, gave to the poor, had a wonderful family and at the end of every day, praised god for these things. Then Satan went up to heaven and told god "He's only praising you because you've given him all these things." And god says "Nu-uh! He'd worship me even if he didn't have these things" and in a day, God kills Job's family and all of his farm animals and leaves the man with nothing, again, this man did absolutely nothing wrong or deserving of such a thing. And Job praised God anyway. End of story. God didn't miraculously bring his family and farm back after proving his point to the devil, he didn't even need to prove his point to the devil, he created the devil, could've just gotten rid of him, but he took a good person who had everything and took everything away from them and then left them like that. All-loving god, my arse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You ask: “How can several thousand people in prayer for healing go unanswered? There is no god.”

      First, you claim there is no God because the Easter Bunny has been “outed” and after leaving your parents no presents appeared under your Christmas tree.

      Now, you claim there is no God because He says “No” to prayers. (When God says “no” you disbelieve in Him and when folks claim He says “yes” you explain it away. Such an approach is more than just a little emotional and arbitrary.)

      You write: “I see a miracle of chance…”

      Then you define “chance” as, “a possibility of something happening.”

      Your use of the term “chance”--as you yourself define it--is nonsensical. You “see a miracle of a possibility of something happening”?? Anna, you define “chance” as mere “possibility” but then use it in a sentence as though it is some kind of a force or power.

      What kind of exertion can mere “possibility” enact? “Possibility” cannot be a causal agent of any kind. How can you not see that mere “possibility” is impotent to produce anything, much less a “miracle” or the universe?
      How is this illogical concept in any sense “scientific”? This is more magic than science.

      You then offer: “The world was created by coincidence.”

      What?? This is nothing but gibberish. "Coincidence” is NOT a force or power. If one says, “We happened upon each other by coincidence,” they do not mean that “coincidence” is some kind of force/power or causal agent.

      Yet again, to speak of “coincidence” as being some kind of entity with force/power or the ability to act as a causal agent is in no sense scientific. This is magic…poof…a universe “created” by “coincidence.”

      You claim: “we see things through the eyes of science and can explain anything this way.”

      Your task is to demonstrate from science how mere “possibility” [chance] and “coincidence” have the force/power to serve as causal agents. Thus far it seems you see things through the eyes of magic, not science.

      You write: “We are, as some say, an accident of nature.”

      Well, nature is something not nothing. Right? And Big Bang cosmology says the universe [nature] has a beginning.

      Hence, you are on the horns of a great dilemma: How does one postulate the universe came from absolute nothing [the long discredited theory of “spontaneous generation”] without resorting to magic?

      To date, no atheist has escaped this quandary.

      Delete
  9. Let me ask you these simple questions:
    1. If I already "know" god exists, then why is "belief" involved at all?

    2. Why does God not only allow bad things to happen to good people, but also cause bad things to happen to good people, even his followers/believers whom he claims to bless?

    3. Did God create us in his image when the homo-family branched off of the ancient apes/chimps?

    4. Moses: In the Ancient Egypt story, why did God harden Pharaoh's heart in order to cause him to throw down worse and worse plagues eventually killing the first born child? If he knew that would be the one thing that would make Pharaoh give in, certainly he could've started there, or perhaps even "soften" Pharaohs heart into letting Moses and his people go before all this nonsense happened?

    4. Noah: Why flood the entire earth to kill all the bad people and start over? Certainly not all of these people were bad, you still had children out there who hadn't done anything yet, and the salt water would've mixed with the regular water in the oceans killing all the fish, and couldn't he have just given all the bad people a heart attack, instead? Also, two of every animal could not have fit on a boat of the size described.

    According to the Bible, "The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits." The Egyptian cubit, which Genesis' author Moses would have been familiar with, is just over 20 inches. Using this, the Ark would have measured a little over 500 feet long, 84 feet wide and 50 feet tall. This is smaller than an average Cruise ship. It would have had to shelter over 10,980 mammals, not including humans or marine mammals such as whales and dolphins, over 16,450 reptiles, over 13,190 amphibians, over 20,000 birds, and over 1,800,000 insects, if he marched them in two by two as told by the Bible. There wouldn't be enough room for the animals, much less food for them to survive off of, and I don't expect they'd want to live in each other's poop either. I propose they just would not fit, sir.

    ReplyDelete
  10. First of all, it is not my fault you do not seem to have a grasp on the English language.

    Coincidence-
    If you and I happened to meet on the street, it would be coincidence. There would not be any "fate" involved, no "Greater being" that forced us together.

    Possibility-
    There was always a possibility of the world occurring in the beginning of the universe, or else it could not have happened a possibility, a chance so small, but yet still could occur. The chance of the Saints winning the super bowl is a possibility, however unlikely, but it is still possible.

    "Now, you claim there is no God because He says “No” to prayers. (When God says “no” you disbelieve in Him and when folks claim He says “yes” you explain it away. Such an approach is more than just a little emotional and arbitrary.)"

    --I'll say this. When you pray to god to answer your prayers he can answer "yes", "no", or "later". All of the outcomes of these answers could have been given without prayer to this God. If I don't pray to god but want something to happen, that something will either happen, not happen, or happen at a later time. If I want to win the lottery, I'll buy a ticket, I'll either win, not win, or win the next time I buy a lottery ticket. If I pray to a milk jug, the milk jug will answer "yes", "no", or "later". Thus what purpose does god have if he doesn't actually do anything. I conclude there must not be a god because he doesn't seem to have any role in the world as it works. Or else it's a different kind of deity, one that doesn't care about us, and is off living his life as a god in the vast expanse of the universe.

    I'm not saying "God doesn't exist because the Easter bunny doesn't" I'm saying that both are fictional, only one has been grown out of for obvious reasons and the other still seems to have a hold on you.

    The questions in my next comment still stand.
    I'll repeat them.

    1. If I already "know" god exists, then why is "belief" or "faith" involved at all?

    2. Why does God not only allow bad things to happen to good people, but also cause bad things to happen to good people, even his followers/believers whom he claims to bless? Even if thousands of his followers pray to fix these problems?

    3. Did God create us in his image when the homo-family branched off of the ancient apes/chimps? And if you don't believe in evolution, I direct you to fossils.

    4. Moses: In the Ancient Egypt story, why did God harden Pharaoh's heart in order to cause him to throw down worse and worse plagues eventually killing the first born child? If he knew that would be the one thing that would make Pharaoh give in, certainly he could've started there, or perhaps even "soften" Pharaohs heart into letting Moses and his people go before all this nonsense happened?

    4. Noah: Why flood the entire earth to kill all the bad people and start over? Certainly not all of these people were bad, you still had children out there who hadn't done anything yet, and the salt water would've mixed with the regular water in the oceans killing all the fish, and couldn't he have just given all the bad people a heart attack, instead? Also, two of every animal could not have fit on a boat of the size described, much less mention food and not sleeping in fecal matter for 40 days.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You write: “it is not my fault you do not seem to have a grasp on the English language.”

      Now, Anna, you’re pretending to be a nice, polite atheist, remember? ;) My grasp of the English language isn’t the issue. In discussions such as these, definitions are of utmost importance. The problem here is, you are defining your terms one way but then using them conceptually in a manner which is logically inconsistent with your own definitions.

      I’ll lay this out for you yet again. “Coincidence,” “chance,” and “possibility” [as you define them] are not CAUSAL agents. To use your example: “Coincidence” has no force/power to CAUSE you and me to meet. (“Coincidence” in this context simply implies we met unintentionally. It has nothing to do with what actually CAUSED our meeting.)

      As to your second example: Neither “chance” nor “possibility” has the force/power to CAUSE the Saints to win the Super Bowl. (In this context, “chance” or “possibility” refers to mathematical probability—similar to a tossed coin has a 50/50 “chance” of being heads/tails. But mere mathematical probability cannot CAUSE the coin to land one way or the other or CAUSE the Saints to win the Super Bowl.)

      Therefore to speak of the universe [or anything!] to be CAUSED by “chance” or “possibility” or “coincidence” is to speak nonsense. These terms neither denote nor connote force/power.

      Thus far you have offered me nothing but belief in an UNCAUSED universe. And yet, you believe in Big Bang cosmology which holds to a finite universe with a definite beginning.

      So once again I’m asking you: How does one postulate that the universe came from absolute nothing [the long discredited theory of “spontaneous generation”] without resorting to magic?

      (I fully understand why you want to leave this topic and move on to others, but your 5 questions—you used the number “4” twice!—are not anywhere near as important as what we are currently contemplating. We are examining the very foundation of your worldview.)

      Delete
  11. Clearly what I have said is being twisted around to seem like I'm the ignorant one, and I can no longer have a discussion with you.

    I am using the words correctly. I do not see how you can say otherwise. And by leaving my important questions unanswered, you seem to want to also leave this conversation behind. I have not come here to discuss the English language or define words, I've come here to discuss theology, atheism, and science.

    I've always believed in questioning everything, that is how I came to the answer I have come, to. I hope one day, you'll do the same, to the same depths that I have questioned and with similar skepticism.

    I wish you well.

    Peace.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sorry you feel compelled to leave the discussion.

      You write: "I have not come here to discuss the English language or define words, I've come here to discuss theology, atheism, and science."

      Anna, can't you see how important and essential language is to such dialogue? We're not discussing the movie, "Jackass." We're conversing on matters of theology, philosophy, and science. One simply cannot meaningfully or effectively speak of these things without linguistic precision. Hence, one simply cannot overstate the importance of defining terms.

      No, I've not twisted your words. Rather, I've demonstrated to you that "chance," "coincidence," and "possibility" are not CAUSAL agents. Such concepts--as you yourself define them--have no capacity to exert force/power. That is, they cannot act upon anything.

      Big Bang cosmology forces you to concede that the universe has a definite beginning. Yet you haven't an answer--beyond the discreditd theory of "spontaneous generation"--as to how the universe came into existence.

      And thus, you are absolutely stuck on the horns of a dilemma: Your worldview cannot account for the existence of the finite universe [or by neccessary inference anything within it].

      You write: "by leaving my important questions unanswered, you seem to want to also leave this conversation behind."

      Not at all, Anna. By leaving your much less important questions unanswered [for now], I am forcing you to face the atheist's quandary: Why and how is there "something" rather than "nothing"? [Or, as you have opted to do...leave the discussion--which is certainly your prerogative.]

      Because the atheist has no logical answer for existence, he must resort to magic. In the final analysis, the atheist must say: The finite universe sprang into being from absolute non-being; matter materialized from non-matter. Poof! Magic!

      Such belief is not scientific. Quite the contrary. Such belief is the epitome of blind faith. In the end, the "answer" you "have come to" is in reality a non-answer.

      Thank you for this discussion. It's been fairly irenic and enjoyable.

      Delete
  12. Point-for-point parrying becomes far too arduous a task for the atheist. He would rather assume his own intellectual superiority, assault his theistic opponent with a plethora of non-sequiturs, and then declare victory when said theist has not sated the philosophical prejudices of materialism. If only victory were this easy to ascertain...

    Said atheist loathes the burden of proof for his own positive claim for a universal negative because a simple Q & A would highlight the overarching weakness of the naturalist/materialist paradigm . For when examined, materialism can not satisfy the most elementary demands of its own system. The system collapses upon itself. But rather than face the elephant in the room, they would rather assume that naturalism has satisfied its own requirements and it is incumbent that the supernaturalist give full reckoning for why his system does not cohere with the assumed conditions of naturalism...

    Much more could be said but I think the weakness of the atheistic position has been demonstrated clearly by Steve. But rather than a quid pro quo in logical discourse we got a litany of red-herrings don't 'jive' in the materialist worldview. The only logical trajectory for atheism is to terminate on nihilism, and if that's the case, why should they care about what they care about? Oh, because they are made in the image of the God they hate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "When examined, materialism can not satisfy the most elementary demands of its own system. The system collapses upon itself."

      Precisely!

      Thanks for reading and commenting.

      Delete
  13. Atheists will kill us if given the chance. What I fear is a feminine, pacifist church that will allow these hateful people to take over the reigns of power in our culture. Like the false prophet Camping, they are awaiting a rapture that will never come. In the mean time, they have been poor stewards of the republic our Founders fought for and entrusted to us and our children!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If history is any guide...you are correct. When sufficiently empowered, atheists are absolutely murderous.

      Delete
  14. Steve - in all your patient discussion with Anna, you failed (as far as I can tell) to point out to her that THE reason she does not believe in God has nothing to do with what she knows. It is only because she - like all of us - was born spiritually dead and unable to know anything spiritual. And unless she is elect, she will not be given ears to hear. The Gospel is what Anna needs - nothing else will be able to work God's plan of raising to life in time those He chose before the foundation of the world.

    Blessings in Christ, my brother and fellow Reformed Baptist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're probably right. I did offer her, "The fact is, the one and only living and true God exists and all men know this. Yet, some men suppress the truth of God that they know. 'Not knowing' and 'supressing' are two entirely different things." And of course, I gave her Romans 1.

      My basic approach was to deconstruct her own worldview. I feel like I was able to do that.

      I pray God opens her heart.

      Thanks for reading and commenting, brother!

      Delete