|
Conversations With An
Evangelistic Atheist
"If therefore the light that
is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!" [Matthew 6:24]
The following letters are email conversations
between a Christian and an atheist regarding two apposing explanations for the
origins of life... Evolution and Intelligent Design. The names have been
changed to provide anonymity for the writers. Some original text (such as
ramblings about the accomplishments of Carl Sagan) been removed to condense this
article. Also, some editorial comments have been added to address
unsubstantiated remarks by the atheist, and web links have been added where
appropriate to allow readers to do additional research on the issues herein.
Chris [Christian],
It's funny you
mentioning Richard Dawkins, since I am currently reading his book,
The God Delusion.
Isn't it interesting that all science magazines and
journals contain articles on evolution:
Editor's note: The devout atheists
who have taken over the established scientific institutions in our
world are not willing to acknowledge the weaknesses of their
theories, lest they have to abandon their dearly held "religious"
beliefs (i.e. secular humanism) and come to terms with the
horrifying (to them at least) idea that they might possibly have to
give an account to their Creator for their lives some day. To find
out more about this takeover of the schools and institutions of
learning, you are encouraged to examine this video: "Expelled:
No Intelligence Allowed"
Richard Dawkins and others like him who want more
than anything to encourage people to leave the superstitious dark ages
behind give me hope that there are actually some sane people in this
world.
Anna
[atheist]
Hi Anna.
I figured you might be
afraid to watch any videos that show people like Dawkins for the
charlatan behind the magic curtain that he really is. He was
exposed for the fraud that he is on those videos.
I wish that you and I
could have some reasonable and meaningful conversations about these
extremely important issues. I used to believe the superficial
arguments of “authorities” like Dawkins and Sagan only to find that
those guys are just a bunch of religious zealots, promoting atheism not
science…
Chris [Christian]
Chris,
I don't blindly follow the blind. Clearly you do or you wouldn't forward
unsubstantiated articles you find on the internet.
My philosophical viewpoint is that whatever the scientific consensus is
regarding any issue - whether it is their
theory on the
event that led to the formation of the universe, or their
theory
of evolution by means of natural selection - I am on the side of those
that have a naturalistic worldview. Or to put it in a way you might
better understand - I am not on the side of those that have a
supernaturalistic worldview. If scientific consensus on a particular
theory
changes, then I accept their new
theory.
Editor's note: Since when can any of us assume
that "scientific consensus" is so infallible that we can rely upon it
without bothering to do our own investigation, at least to some
degree, especially concerning origins where there is
plenty of
scientific data to the contrary? And if the only "scientists"
that we seek opinions from are all evolutionary atheists first and
"scientists" second, then of what value is our "consensus"?
It is ludicrous to label people whose philosophical viewpoint holds that
opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason
as "religious zealots."
As you say, Richard Dawkins does promote atheism. Why? As he states in
his foundation's mission statement, "The mission of the
Richard Dawkins
Foundation for Reason and Science is to support scientific education,
critical thinking and evidence-based understanding of the natural world
in the quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition,
intolerance and human suffering."
Editor's note: Dawkins is a crusader
first and a scientist second - if at all. His own
mission statement declares that they are on a
"quest to overcome" those who believe in a Creator (an Intelligent
Designer) of the universe, alluding to their believe that all
religious persons can be grouped with those who are intolerant (of
what? people who blindly promote evolution?) and perhaps linked to "human suffering". If Dawkins
would read the one Book that he apparently despises, he would find
that it is the godless self-worshipping humanistic elitists (like
Nero, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and many many others throughout history)
who have no moral compass but their own arrogant changing minds - it
is they who are most responsible for human suffering as relates to
man's inhumanity to man. In the interest of honesty Dawkins
should rename his foundation "An Egotist's Foundation For Attacking
Opponents As A Backhanded Way Of Defending Poor Science"
Richard Dawkins is a
scientist so to say he does not promote science is another baseless
accusation.
[Editor's comments: Just because his
fellow atheists call him a scientist does not mean that all his
statements are representative of good science
and cold hard facts. He is as prejudiced as it gets when
promoting his religion of secular humanism under the guise of
reputable science and that is no more evident than when he attacks
those who believe in Intelligent Design origins of the universe.]
As for Carl Sagan, his
legacy speaks for itself. His family created a web site which says, "Our
mission is to awaken the broadest possible public to the wonders of
nature as revealed by science." And what were the accomplishments of
this person you dismissed so callously?
It is impossible to have a meaningful conversation with someone who
trashes accomplished scholars like Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan simply
because they don't believe in supernatural concepts for which there is
no credible evidence.
It is not possible to
have a meaningful conversation on the subject of supernatural (man-made)
concepts. I shed the shackles of religion decades ago and I have no
intention of becoming its slave ever again.
Anna
[atheist]
Dear
Anna,
I
don’t think that Dawkins and Sagan are complete idiots… they have
accomplished some things in their lives that have to do with real
science and they do have some scientific knowledge but most of what
they know about origins appears to have been gleaned from other
secular humanists like themselves so their knowledge is a mix of
some real scientific information and lots of secular humanistic
philosophy and dogma. They, like you, are more “secular humanism
evangelists” than completely objective scientists. It comes out in
their presentations (or should I say sermons) where they mention
things as fact that no one has ever proven, all the while never
mentioning some real hard facts that contradict their evolutionary
fairy tales… about what they say happened billions and billions of
years ago.
One
of the videos I sent you a link to included a long moment of silence
by Dawkins after someone asked him if there was any known evidence
for genetic mutations that produced additional information in
the genome.
Editor's note: These are the video
links being referred to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4KXD2zqzBA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo
He
ended his pause by asking the interviewer to stop the video
recorder. That issue (of something out of nothing) is one of many
gaping holes that make evolution a nice pipe dream but a physical
impossibility in this particular universe that you and I and Dawkins
happen to live in. Evolutionists don’t like the Genesis account of
God creating something out of nothing, but then they say the
equivalent of something got created out of nothing… new genetic
material out of nothing, the Big Bang out of nothing, etc. It’s
just another religion, but one that actually goes against the facts
(denying ALL the vast amount of evidence for intelligent design) in
favor of ridiculous fairy tales about how amebas became people… it
just happened to take a very loooong time.
Chris [Christian]
Chris,
It is
ludicrous to dismiss the theory of evolution by means of natural
selection, for which there is credible evidence, while at the
same time claiming a creator created the universe, for which
there is no credible evidence.
Editor's note: Repeating lies long enough and often enough
makes many people think that something is true. I have yet
to have any of these secular humanists provide meaningful
arguments for the gaping holes in the theory of evolution.
Saying that
someone had to create everything means that someone had to
create that creator and someone had to create that creator and
so on. What was he, she, or it doing before he, she or it
created the universe? Tell me since you are all knowing.
Editor's note: This fallacy that someone had to create
the creator denies the possibility of a "first cause", which
is the very definition of God, the timeless, immortal first
cause of all that is and was. God, by definition does
not need a creator. He is beyond time and space and in
fact is in control of it. As God, he had no need for a
creator. If you insist that he must be less than God
for you to believe in his existence, then you are expecting
God to be subject to physical laws that you are subject to,
without acknowledging that He might not have to be subject
to laws that He created.
Anyone who
criticizes humanism - defined as an
outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human
rather than divine or supernatural matters; humanist beliefs
stress the potential value and goodness of human beings,
emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of
solving human problem - all I can say is no wonder civilization
is so screwed up.
Editor's note: humanism tends to
deny its own limitations of knowledge, saying that certain
things came into being without an incredibly intelligent
designer, when in fact, the complexity of design in the
known universe is so enormous that the mathematical
probabilities required for those designs to exist does not
allow the idea of "random chance" or random processes to
ever be considered as contributing factors or causative
agents --- unless you believe in fairy tales and are willing
to throw statistics, physical laws, and observable data out
the window.
You
show how utterly confused you are by using words like "dogma,"
"evangelist," and "religion" to describe secularists. Those
words describe your belief system.
As far as your use of the term "fairy
tale," that describes the land of make believe you have decided
you're going to when you die.
As for Richard Dawkins' pause
- by publishing that video, someone is playing the gotcha
game, for which I have no patience. It's pathetic that
you keep looking for gotcha videos to "support" the nonsense
you believe in.
Anna
[atheist]
Please pray for this
atheist and others like her whose rebellion against the God
of the Bible can only be changed by the power of the Gospel
of Jesus Christ. Many others who believe in evolution
are headed for hell, even if they are devoutly religious.
It is not belief in Intelligent Design or in some religion
that is going to save anyone from the wrath of God. It
is only an undeserved pardon for their sins at the expense
of the death of Jesus Christ that allows anyone into the
eternal presence of Almighty God.
|
