What's the Point of Life?

Psychoanalyst suggests that atheist parents lie to their kids about God ..

Don’t Believe in God? Lie to Your Children - The alternative is to tell them they’re simply going to die and turn to dust.

Excerpt:

As a therapist, I’m often asked to explain why depression and anxiety are so common among children and adolescents. One of the most important explanations—and perhaps the most neglected—is declining interest in religion. This cultural shift already has proved disastrous for millions of vulnerable young people.

A 2018 study in the American Journal of Epidemiology examined how being raised in a family with religious or spiritual beliefs affects mental health. Harvard researchers had examined religious involvement within a longitudinal data set of approximately 5,000 people, with controls for socio-demographic characteristics and maternal health.

The result? Children or teens who reported attending a religious service at least once per week scored higher on psychological well-being measurements and had lower risks of mental illness. Weekly attendance was associated with higher rates of volunteering, a sense of mission, forgiveness, and lower probabilities of drug use and early sexual initiation. Pity then that the U.S. has seen a 20% decrease in attendance at formal religious services in the past 20 years, according to a Gallup report earlier this year. In 2018 the American Family Survey showed that nearly half of adults under 30 do not identify with any religion.

Comment: You've lied about Santa Claus ... might as well!

The Frank Turek series

1. Does Truth Exist?
2. Does God Exist? (Part 1)
3. Does God Exist? (Part 2)
4. Are Miracles Possible?
5. Is the New Testament True?
6. I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
7. Related: The Resurrection Argument That Changed a Generation of Scholars - Gary Habermas at UCSB

Key website

Tactics for Atheists

Tactics for Atheists

Excerpt:

Consider this scenario. An atheist engages two Christians on a sidewalk and begins to gently and genially engage them about their beliefs. Their initial, breezy assurance begins to fade, however, as they falter in the face of carefully-worded questions about the things they think they know “by faith.” The atheist gives no evidence for atheism. He gives no evidence against Christianity. Instead, he only does one thing. He asks questions about “faith” as a way of knowing. He remains calm and friendly as the discussion closes, but by that time one of the Christians is visibly uncomfortable.

Comment: Good read

The Brain ≠ the Mind: Material Brains are Easy to Explain

Five Ways Your Brain Is Different From Your Mind And Why That Matters

1. Brains are physical and can be measured … the mind is immeasurable
2. Brains can be publicly accessed … mental entities cannot be publicly accessed
3. “Is-ness” verses “about-ness”: Mental entities are about something else: There is a difference between “the thing” … and the thoughts about “the thing”. Thoughts are dependent upon the entity (about “the thing”). Illustration of the burglar outside of the house (the entity) vs the thoughts about the burglar. Physical entities “are” … mental entities are “about”. Philosophers call this “intentionality”
4. Disputable: Physical entities can be disputed … mental entities cannot be disputed. The illustration of the bugler: He may or may not exist (can be disputed) but one’s thoughts about it cannot be disputed.
5. Physical entities are impersonal (objective)… mental entities are personal (subjective)

Comment: Full video (9 mins) - worthy of your time! Also see The Mind-body problem and Intentionality

The Brain ≠ the Mind: Material Brains are Easy to Explainhttps://t.co/FWzjpaJ2VI pic.twitter.com/UEdgyII7x9

— James Peet (@jrpeet) February 22, 2019

Charles Krauthammer - “This is the final verdict. My fight is over”

Pulitzer Prize-Winning Columnist Charles Krauthammer Says He Has Weeks to Live - The conservative writer and commentator said he is battling an aggressive form of cancer

Excerpt:

Charles Krauthammer, the Pulitzer Prize-winning conservative columnist whose incisive critiques made him an influential voice in Washington for decades, said Friday he is battling an aggressive form of cancer and his doctors have told him he has weeks to live. “This is the final verdict. My fight is over,” the 68-year-old wrote in a farewell note to his readers.” He added, “I am grateful to have played a small role in the conversations that have helped guide this extraordinary nation’s destiny.”

Comment: Prayers! Source of atheism quote.

His message:

have been uncharacteristically silent these past ten months. I had thought that silence would soon be coming to an end, but I’m afraid I must tell you now that fate has decided on a different course for me.

In August of last year, I underwent surgery to remove a cancerous tumor in my abdomen. That operation was thought to have been a success, but it caused a cascade of secondary complications — which I have been fighting in hospital ever since. It was a long and hard fight with many setbacks, but I was steadily, if slowly, overcoming each obstacle along the way and gradually making my way back to health.

However, recent tests have revealed that the cancer has returned. There was no sign of it as recently as a month ago, which means it is aggressive and spreading rapidly. My doctors tell me their best estimate is that I have only a few weeks left to live. This is the final verdict. My fight is over.

I wish to thank my doctors and caregivers, whose efforts have been magnificent. My dear friends, who have given me a lifetime of memories and whose support has sustained me through these difficult months. And all of my partners at The Washington Post, Fox News, and Crown Publishing.

Lastly, I thank my colleagues, my readers, and my viewers, who have made my career possible and given consequence to my life’s work. I believe that the pursuit of truth and right ideas through honest debate and rigorous argument is a noble undertaking. I am grateful to have played a small role in the conversations that have helped guide this extraordinary nation’s destiny.

I leave this life with no regrets. It was a wonderful life — full and complete with the great loves and great endeavors that make it worth living. I am sad to leave, but I leave with the knowledge that I lived the life that I intended.

The freak accident that changed Charles Krauthammer's life https://t.co/1OICBYvZBQ

— James Peet (@jrpeet) June 8, 2018

The news that Charles Krauthammer’s condition is terminal is heartbreaking. Beyond the brilliance of his analysis and the paralysis he so remarkably overcame, there is his extraordinary personal grace and kindness. I have missed him very much. I always will

— Brit Hume (@brithume) June 8, 2018

LISTEN —> @brithume on @krauthammer: “I don't think there's anyone alive that I admire more than I admire Charles. It's no exaggeration to say that I love the guy.” Moving, worthwhile interview... https://t.co/nWmsNgefSY

— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) June 9, 2018

Charles Krauthammer goes out like Gehrig, writes Fay Vincent https://t.co/5HsXDaf8Ao via @WSJOpinion

— James Peet (@jrpeet) June 11, 2018

Fox News Pundit Charles Krauthammer Dead At 68 https://t.co/O14X2q0lyj via @YahooNews

— James Peet (@jrpeet) June 22, 2018

But what I do remember is the email Charles Krauthammer sent my dad. I'd like to share it here. pic.twitter.com/FO6hMJvjwz

— Nash Jenkins (@pnashjenkins) June 21, 2018

.@brithume remembers longtime Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer: "He was a giant of our time and of our trade and he carried it out to the highest standards." https://t.co/xCL2PcxoFn pic.twitter.com/jA5YIUBbL1

— Fox News (@FoxNews) June 22, 2018

#Krauthammer will be missedhttps://t.co/7tb5p2xje9 pic.twitter.com/eoWQCOiqoV

— James Peet (@jrpeet) June 22, 2018

"Some people are such a large presence while living that they still occupy space even when they are gone." #krauthammer

Read more at https://t.co/A2wzsFky8u pic.twitter.com/gIKuzfGvbi

— James Peet (@jrpeet) June 25, 2018

Kim Hume: I was humbled to go to Charles Krauthammer's funeral

https://t.co/gRCrqGe7cw

HT @HumeKim pic.twitter.com/VPtZ0eDTMS

— James Peet (@jrpeet) June 25, 2018

How many American Atheists?

Way More Americans May Be Atheists Than We Thought

Excerpt:

The number of atheists in the U.S. is still a matter of considerable debate. Recent surveys have found that only about one in 10 Americans report that they do not believe in God, and only about 3 percent identify as atheist. But a new study suggests that the true number of atheists could be much larger, perhaps even 10 times larger than previously estimated.

... Atheists have been on the fringe for quite some time. They remain one of the country’s most disliked “religious” groups: Only 30 percent of Americans have a “warm” view of atheists. Research has also shown that even as America has grown increasingly accepting of religious diversity, atheists have been the exception.

Americans express a considerable degree of intolerance toward atheists. More than half of Americans believe atheists should not be allowed to put up public displays that celebrate their beliefs (for example, a banner highlighting Americans’ freedom from religion under the Bill of Rights). More than one-third believe atheists should be banned from becoming president, and similar numbers believe they should be denied the opportunity to teach in public schools or the right to hold a rally.

And therein lies the problem: The stigma attached to the atheist label may prevent Americans from claiming it or sharing their beliefs with others. In certain parts of the country, pressure to conform to prevailing religious practices and beliefs is strong. A reporter with The Telegraph writing from rural Virginia, for example, found that for many atheists, being closeted makes a lot of sense. “The stakes are high,” said a Virginia Tech graduate who was raised Christian but is now an atheist. “Do I want to be supported by my friends and family, or am I going to risk being kicked out of clubs and organizations? It’s tempting just to avoid the whole issue.”

The fear of coming out shows up in polling too. A 2016 PRRI survey found that more than one-third of atheists reported hiding their religious identity or beliefs from friends and family members out of concerns that they would disapprove.

... Despite the fears that some nonbelievers have about coming out, 60 percent of Americans report knowing an atheist. Ten years ago, less than half the public reported knowing an atheist. Today, young adults are actually more likely to know an atheist than an evangelical Christian. These personal connections play a crucial role in reducing negative feelings. A decline in stigma may also encourage more atheists to come out. This would allow us to provide a more accurate estimate of atheists in the U.S. — is it 3 percent, 10 percent, or 26 percent? — and could fundamentally change our understanding of the American religious landscape.

Comment: The bolded sentence in the last paragraph is unsettling

Peter Kreeft's Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God

Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God

Comments: For philosophers, apologists and Theologians.  Peter Kreeft is a Catholic theologian and the author of the Handbook of Christian Apologetics . Image source 

The other side (anticipating comments): Google reasons god does not exist.

Atheism - Is that all there is?

Atheism and the fruitless search for meaning

Excerpt:

We are ... immediately reminded of atheist guru Richard Dawkins who has told us “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”

Dawkins has repeated this concept, telling us that questions related to such things as the purpose for things in the universe are completely meaningless questions, on par with asking “what is the color of jealousy?” Atheists have long held that the world from top to bottom is completely without meaning or purpose. In the 1890’s, atheist Friedrich Nietzche wrote “Whither are we moving? . . . Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing?” In the 1930’s agnostic Bertrand Russell, after pointing out that the universe will result in a vast inevitable death, concluded that our lives can be built “only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair.”

Comment: Meaning is found in Christ!

On atheism and sciencehttps://t.co/SL3K34EjGj pic.twitter.com/q2gtEdnv2b

— James Peet (@jrpeet) October 6, 2018

Textbook atheist. https://t.co/ZwDQ3seoYT

— SJ Thomason ✝️ (@Lead1225) June 2, 2019

The Simple, the Fool, and the Scoffer / Scorner

The Simple

To receive the instruction of wisdom, Justice, judgment, and equity; To give prudence to the simple - To the young man knowledge and discretion; A wise man will hear and increase learning, And a man of understanding will attain wise counsel (Proverbs 1:3-5)

“How long, you simple ones, will you love simplicity? For scorners delight in their scorning, And fools hate knowledge. (Proverbs 1:22)

For the turning away of the simple will slay them, And the complacency of fools will destroy them (Proverbs 1:32)

O you simple ones, understand prudence, And you fools, be of an understanding heart (Proverbs 8:5)

A prudent man foresees evil and hides himself, But the simple pass on and are punished (Proverbs 22:3)

The Fool

The wise in heart will receive commands, But a prating fool will fall (Proverbs 10:8)

To do evil is like sport to a fool, But a man of understanding has wisdom (Proverbs 10:23)

The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, But he who heeds counsel is wise. (Proverbs 12:15)

A wise man fears and departs from evil, But a fool rages and is self-confident. (Proverbs 14:16)

A fool has no delight in understanding, But in expressing his own heart. (Proverbs 18:2)

Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, For he will despise the wisdom of your words. (Proverbs 23:9)

Wisdom is too lofty for a fool (Proverbs 24:7)

The Scoffer / Scorner

How long, you simple ones, will you love simplicity? For scorners delight in their scorning, And fools hate knowledge (Proverbs 1:22)

If you are wise, you are wise for yourself, And if you scoff, you will bear it alone (Proverbs 9:12)

A wise son heeds his father’s instruction, But a scoffer does not listen to rebuke (Proverbs 13:1)

A scoffer seeks wisdom and does not find it, But knowledge is easy to him who understands (Proverbs 14:6)

A scoffer does not love one who corrects him, Nor will he go to the wise. (Proverbs 15:12)

A proud and haughty man— “Scoffer” is his name; He acts with arrogant pride (Proverbs 21:24)

Scoffers set a city aflame, But wise men turn away wrath. (Proverbs 29:8)

The Gradient

Simple

Fool

Scoffer / Scorner

Possibly corresponds to:

Answering Atheism

From time to time, I post something on atheism on this blog. This week was a case to point. While few comment on my blog, I welcome comments and rarely censor them. I do read most of the comments and I did read this comment from anonymous. I do not consider myself a scholar nor a philosopher. I am just about an average man in thought and intelligence. 

I am not going to argue against atheism, but rather my case (others could easily do a better job) for theism.

In my own life's journey I cannot recollect a time when I did not believe in God's existence. From a Biblical perspective I attribute this to "God ha[ving] put eternity into man's heart" (Ecclesiastes 3:11).

My case "for God" is as follows:

• The argument from design. I see intelligent design in the universe. When I see a watch, I understand there is a watchmaker.

• From the heavens 

• To the micro-world

• In the kittens and puppies

• In the tiny hands of babies

• In morality:  "all people recognize some moral code (that some things are right, and some things are wrong). Every time we argue over right and wrong, we appeal to a higher law that we assume everyone is aware of, holds to, and is not free to arbitrarily change. Right and wrong imply a higher standard or law, and law requires a lawgiver. Because the Moral Law transcends humanity, this universal law requires a universal lawgiver. This, it is argued, is God."
• That men "conceive God": "than which a greater cannot be imagined cannot be in the understanding alone. For if it is at least in the understanding alone, it can be imagined to be in reality too, which is greater. Therefore if that than which a greater cannot be imagined is in the understanding alone, that very thing than which a greater cannot be imagined is something than which a greater can be imagined. But certainly this cannot be. There exists, therefore, beyond doubt something than which a greater cannot be imagined, both in the understanding and in reality"
• Jesus (the argument of the man from heaven): John 1:18

Jesus is for me the trump card. C.S. Lewis called him "Either God or a bad man". If he indeed did rise from the grave, He is very God. And thus God exists.

The Atheist Delusion

Website

Christianity without God - a Milquetoast Response

 Gretta Vosper

Church committee recommends defrocking popular minister at West Hill United Church in Scarborough
Excerpt:

Gretta Vosper, the popular and controversial United Church of Canada minister who calls herself an atheist, should no longer be a minister, a review committee has recommended. “In our opinion, she is not suitable to continue in ordained ministry because she does not believe in God, Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit,” the church’s Toronto Conference Review Committee concluded in a 39-page report released Wednesday. “We have concluded that if Gretta Vosper were before us today, seeking to be ordained,” said the report, the committee “would not recommend her.” “After prayer and much discussion,” the 23-person committee voted 19 to 4 in favour of a motion that found Vosper “unsuitable to continue serving.” Vosper, 57, a minister at West Hill United Church in Scarborough for nearly two decades, does not believe in an interventionist, supernatural God. She preaches instead about love, kindness and human connection.

The Right Reverend Jordan Cantwell, Moderator, The United Church of Canada: On Being an Open and Inclusive Community that Believes in God

Jordan Cantwell

Excerpt:

Following the example of Jesus, we seek to be an open and inclusive community that welcomes everyone, regardless of where they are in their spiritual journey. We celebrate the fact that our churches can be places where all are welcome and all belong, no matter what you do or don’t believe. But many people have different expectations of those in ministry leadership who have committed to teach and to preach the faith tradition of the church and preside at the sacraments. The idea that an atheist would be serving as a minister of a United Church congregation leaves them scratching their heads. For some this is simply a natural extension of our commitment to be an open, inclusive, and questioning church. For others it is a violation of the covenant entered into by an ordered minister at ordination or commissioning. Like so many important issues in our church, there are many points of view. It is not for me to defend or critique the Toronto Conference sub-Executive decision. Good and faithful members of the United Church made this decision prayerfully and faithfully. It was their decision to make. Like all difficult decisions, not everyone will agree with the choice they made. I will also not be commenting on Ms. Vosper’s ministry. This is not something that as Moderator I believe is appropriate to do, particularly when this matter is still before the church’s courts. What I do want to say as Moderator is the diversity in our church has been and will continue to be a source of strength, so long as we do not allow our differences to divide us. It is good that we feel so deeply about this issue—that speaks to the high importance we place on our faith and our faith communities. This conversation is not over; perhaps it has just begun. We need to ensure that our churches are safe places where we can have honest, frank, and non-judgmental conversations about what we believe and what we expect of our spiritual leaders. To do this, we must speak together in an attitude of love and care for one another and for the church. And we must resist the urge to dismiss or vilify those with whom we disagree. Let us speak and listen to one another with compassion and humility, seeking to understand even when we can’t agree. This is what it means to be an open and inclusive community that believes in the God of love and seeks to walk in the footsteps of Jesus.

Comment: I was going to say something snarky about Rev Cantell growing some gonads but it's obvious that she won't / can't. A backbone perhaps!?

On Milquetoast

The Monsters Among Us - "Meat Computers"?

Atheist Jerry A. Coyne: Why you don't really have free will

Excerpt:

You may feel like you've made choices, but in reality your decision to read this piece, and whether to have eggs or pancakes, was determined long before you were aware of it — perhaps even before you woke up today. And your "will" had no part in that decision. So it is with all of our other choices: not one of them results from a free and conscious decision on our part. There is no freedom of choice, no free will. And those New Year's resolutions you made? You had no choice about making them, and you'll have no choice about whether you keep them.

The debate about free will, long the purview of philosophers alone, has been given new life by scientists, especially neuroscientists studying how the brain works. And what they're finding supports the idea that free will is a complete illusion.

The issue of whether we have of free will is not an arcane academic debate about philosophy, but a critical question whose answer affects us in many ways: how we assign moral responsibility, how we punish criminals, how we feel about our religion, and, most important, how we see ourselves — as autonomous or automatons.

But before I explain this, let me define what I mean by "free will."

I mean it simply as the way most people think of it: When faced with two or more alternatives, it's your ability to freely and consciously choose one, either on the spot or after some deliberation. A practical test of free will would be this: If you were put in the same position twice — if the tape of your life could be rewound to the exact moment when you made a decision, with every circumstance leading up to that moment the same and all the molecules in the universe aligned in the same way — you could have chosen differently.

Now there's no way to rewind the tape of our lives to see if we can really make different choices in completely identical circumstances. But two lines of evidence suggest that such free will is an illusion.

The first is simple: we are biological creatures, collections of molecules that must obey the laws of physics. All the success of science rests on the regularity of those laws, which determine the behavior of every molecule in the universe. Those molecules, of course, also make up your brain — the organ that does the "choosing." And the neurons and molecules in your brain are the product of both your genes and your environment, an environment including the other people we deal with. Memories, for example, are nothing more than structural and chemical changes in your brain cells. Everything that you think, say, or do, must come down to molecules and physics.

True "free will," then, would require us to somehow step outside of our brain's structure and modify how it works. Science hasn't shown any way we can do this because "we" are simply constructs of our brain. We can't impose a nebulous "will" on the inputs to our brain that can affect its output of decisions and actions, any more than a programmed computer can somehow reach inside itself and change its program.

'Meat computers' And that's what neurobiology is telling us: Our brains are simply meat computers that, like real computers, are programmed by our genes and experiences to convert an array of inputs into a predetermined output.

Recent experiments involving brain scans show that when a subject "decides" to push a button on the left or right side of a computer, the choice can be predicted by brain activity at least seven seconds before the subject is consciously aware of having made it. (These studies use crude imaging techniques based on blood flow, and I suspect that future understanding of the brain will allow us to predict many of our decisions far earlier than seven seconds in advance.) "Decisions" made like that aren't conscious ones. And if our choices are unconscious, with some determined well before the moment we think we've made them, then we don't have free will in any meaningful sense.

Heinrich admits killing Jacob Wetterling

Excerpt:

Heinrich detailed how he kidnapped and killed Jacob. Heinrich told the courtroom how on that fateful night he was driving through St. Joseph around 8 p.m. when he noticed three boys on bikes with a flashlight. He pulled into a driveway after they passed him.

Heinrich testified that he jumped out of the car wearing a mask and holding a .38 revolver. He ordered them into a ditch and asked their names and ages. "I told Trevor and Aaron to run away, don't look back or i'll shoot. " Heinrich recalled.

The defendant described how he handcuffed Jacob and put him in the passenger seat of his car. Heinrich had a police scanner in his vehicle, and after hearing police respond to the kidnapping he decided he'd better drive back to Paynesville. He recalled Jacob at one point asking him, "What did I do wrong?" He took a series of backroads that wound through small central Minnesota communities until he reached a sewage pond road and drove to a gravel pit by a grove of trees. There, he forced Jacob to disrobe and masturbate him until the boy told Heinrich he was cold.

Jacob asked to be taken home, but Heinrich recalls telling the boy it was too far. On the way back to the car he noticed a police cruiser on the road nearby. Heinrich said he panicked, pulled his revolver and put two rounds inside. "I raised the revolver to his head, clicked once with no bullet in the chamber. Shot him twice after that. " He admitted firing into the back of Jacob's head after asking the boy to turn around so he could go to the bathroom.

The details got worse. Heinrich described how Jacob was still crying after the first shot, so he fired again. After driving back to his home and staying for a couple of hours, Heinrich testified that he returned to the gravel pit and dragged him approximately 100 yard to bury him. The defendant says his own shovel was too small so he stole one from the construction site. He then spotted a Bobcat digger with keys in it, and used the machine to dig a large grave for Jacob. When asked by a prosecutor if he returned to the burial site one year later, Heinrich said yes, and detailed how he dug up and collected Jacobs remains and put them in a garbage bag. He moved them to an unspecified site nearby. " Found a spot and dug a hole with a trenching tool about 2 feet deep. and put the bones in that hole and the jacket on top," he told the court.

Comment: Top image from Kare11 article (screen snap). Source of Jacob Wetterling = Missing Persons of America . Human brain source

What would morality look like without free will?

Excerpt:

Coyne argues that people have no choice over their behaviors because that is simply the output of their genetic material and environment. If this is the case, then there is no sense of moral responsibility. As Coyne says, Bernie Madoff, who scammed people for millions, is no different from Nelson Mandela, who helped bring freedom to a nation. Because this is the case, we cannot punish based on personal choice. We should, however, punish based on future deterrent. Here is where Coyne’s argument falls apart.

Why? Why should we deter someone from murdering or committing other crimes? Coyne says we should continue to punish criminals as that adds to the environment of others and can make them choose differently later. But the question remains as to why we would want them to choose in a certain way. If there is no sense of morality, as it would only be the by-products of our brains, why would we care what other’s do, particularly if it does not effect us personally?

Final comments: I have atheist friends and family who are fine, moral individuals. So I am not saying that atheists are killers! But there is a disconnect for atheists because if there is no soul, no moral absolutes based upon a higher Being; what makes the Monsters' acts immoral?! Wiki on Jerry Coyne here.

BBC News - Why were there so many serial killers in the 1980s? https://t.co/FVgKpbBpCQ

— James Peet (@jrpeet) August 31, 2018

.@Ill_Mindst8 Here's a good #worldview question: Does man have a soul? (something separate from the brain / mind). Or is the brain just a "meat computer"?https://t.co/wk4v5CpmJT pic.twitter.com/TobpnwP7Z6

— James Peet (@jrpeet) September 14, 2018

https://t.co/f9gXs3pkc6

JP: I'm ok w universal background checks but even that won't satisfy the libs

— 𝓙𝓲𝓶 𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓽 (@jrpeet) August 4, 2019

On the philosopher himselfhttps://t.co/UwoGA7v7uD pic.twitter.com/QiGkkGLmhv

— 𝓙𝓲𝓶 𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓽 (@jrpeet) August 18, 2019

https://t.co/sd9VNKFeOH pic.twitter.com/hTXHUCb1xy

— 𝓙𝓲𝓶 𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓽 (@jrpeet) August 18, 2019

The Atheist and the Grizzly

An atheist was walking through the woods. 'What majestic trees!' 'What powerful rivers!' 'What beautiful animals!' He said to himself.

As he was walking alongside the river, he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. He turned to look. He saw a 7-foot grizzly bear charge towards him. He ran as fast as he could up the path.

He looked over his shoulder & saw that the bear was closing in on him. He looked over his shoulder again, & the bear was even closer. He tripped & fell on the ground.

He rolled over to pick himself up but saw that the bear was right on top of him, reaching for him with his left paw & raising his right paw to strike him.

At that instant moment, the Atheist cried out: 'Oh my God!'

Time stopped. The bear froze. The forest was silent.

As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky.

'You deny my existence for all these years, teach others I don't exist and even credit creation to cosmic accident.' 'Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament?' . 'Am I to count you as a believer?'

The atheist looked directly into the light, and said: 'It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask you to treat me as a Christian now, but perhaps you could make the BEAR a Christian?'

'Very well', said the voice.

The light went out. The sounds of the forest resumed..

And the bear dropped his right paw, brought both paws together, bowed his head & spoke: 'Lord bless this food, which I am about to receive from Thy bounty. Amen.'

Comment: Forwarded to me from my brother. As an aside whenever an atheist complains "It's not fair!", one wonders where, if life is all chaos, where the concept of fairness is derived!

What does Atheism transcendentalize?

... it has also been shown by Alister McGrath in his book on atheism that if you do not have religion to transcendentalize things, you end up transcendentalizing something else. In other words, the act of making something out to be of transcendental importance is not exclusively a function of religion. It may be a function of human desire to control. In the twentieth century, the powerful movements of Nazism and Stalinism were not religiously driven. Some in the Nazi party laid claim to their reconstruction of Christianity, but the purpose was to domesticate Christianity and harness its energies. In reality, what drove the two movements-Nazism and Stalinism-were were distinct visions of reality: on the one hand, the transcendentalizing of ethnicity, a sense of intrinsic Aryan superiority, a hate-filled blaming of Jews and of the Treaty of Versailles; on the other hand, a transcendentalizing of the state grounded in Marxist social and economic theory. So it is not as if religion poisons everything while everything else is good. The century characterized by the greatest bloodshed, the twentieth century, generated most of its violence in movements that were distinctly anti-religious. The world did not lose one-third of the population of Cambodia because of Christianity but because of communism.

Comment: From D. A. Carson. God Who Is There, The: Finding Your Place in God's Story (pp. 183-184). Kindle Edition. I hypothesize that atheism primarily transcendentalizes science.

Depraved Sinner or Depressed Psycho?

Killer co-pilot sought treatment for problems with his VISION: Haunting selfie emerges of Andreas Lubitz as it emerges he was suffering from 'serious psychosomatic illness' 

They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice [evil-mindedness] (NKJV) (Romans 1:29) (NIV)

Comment: Source of "heinous act" quote is WND. Unthinkable acts like the Germanwings Flight 9525 mass murder cause one to wonder about the nature of evil. Some atheists claim that religion is evil, but as Frank Turek notes "evil [that] the civilized world abhor(s) doesn't disprove God—it disproves atheism." The phrase "evil-mindedness" above is a translation of the hapax legomena (meaning: "occurs only once in the New Testament") κακοήθεια. κακοήθεια means "malignant subtlety, malicious craftiness". As our society degrades we seem to be seeing malicious inventions of killing in greater degrees of magnificent wickedness. 10 years ago one could not imagine the IPhone. And 10 years ago one could not imagine the wicked act of March 24th. One the horizon will be greater technological advancements ... and greater evil acts and wicked actors. Albert Mohler commented on this evil in a recent briefing:

there is now evidence that there was an intentionality behind this that goes beyond our moral imagination. Or that’s at least what the international media are now saying, that it goes beyond our moral imagination. Of course that’s not exactly true; this doesn’t go beyond our imagination. It just enters into the realm of moral horror

"Atheists Don't Have No Songs"

Comment: HT: Powerline

Atheists Don't Have No Songs

Smart ... but not wise!

Einstein letter calls Bible ‘pretty childish’

Excerpt:

The letter up for sale, written to philosopher Eric Gutkind in January 1954, suggests his views on religion did not mellow with age.

In it, Einstein said that "the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

"For me," he added, "the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."

Addressing the idea that the Jews are God's chosen people, Einstein wrote that "the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."


Comment: Psalm 14:1, "The fool has said in his heart,“There is no God.” They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good"