Hadn’t heard of Chuck Missler until I came across this video, but apparently he’s a businessman turned preacher who started the Koinonia House ministry in 1973. In the following video clip he argues that if Evolution were true then he should, on occasion, open up a jar of peanut butter and discover new life. Yes, he’s seriously making that argument.
It’s pretty funny until you realize that a lot of nutcases out there are watching this video and nodding in agreement.
Chris, keep reading creationist propaganda… it suits you.
I was gonna rebut Chris’ ignorant statements with some facts, but seriously, is there really any point? Has anyone ever convinced someone like him that what they know is right that they are wrong? Ignorance is certainly bliss, I just wish they’d keep that shit off my lawn.
Chris- there are plenty of transitional fossils. The problem is everytime one is found, creationists say they want the one beween that one and the latest/first. Essentially what a creationist who want transitional fossils is asking for is an unbroken line of ancestors.
Not only is there evidence for evolution, but it has been observed many time actually happening. Of course these observations are on animals with quick life cycles- observing the evolution of Galapogos tortoises is a long term project by anyone’s book!
What exactly is your evidence for creationism? Even if you could prove evolution is false- and you are not, you are merely recycling the statements of those already shown to be wrong- it does not prove creationism, no more than proving 2+2 does not equal 5 proves that 2+2 must therefore equal 3.
Even if it is obvious that an animal discovered tomorrow is created, it is impossible to be evolved, which particular creation story should we believe? Judeic? Sihk? Hindu? Buddhist?
Pick your myth, and present your arguement. Demonstrate the accuracy of your source.
Biology
Please explain the reason for the fault with the human eye, why the Panda is a carnivore, why the enzymes used in mammalian reproduction need a lower temperature, thus the need for the testes to be outside the body, the function of the appendix in carnivores, why humans only get two sets of teeth, when elephants get 6, and sharks permanently renew, the purpose of freckles, the positioning of the prostrate, the architecture of the genito-urany tracts, and anus, thus being a major source of infection, recessive genes (if we all came from two created people) especially blood types, and any other imperfections in human kind that would have been shared by Adam and/or Eve before the fall, and if we are all decended from one jewish man 2000 BC, the adaptation of human kind to local enviroment, which could be seen as evolution.
Geology
Please explain the difference between carbon dating and creation claims, plate tectonics, the reversal of the magnetic poles, why the magnetic poles wander. Show examples in the bible of Glaciers, the features of which would seem to predate young earth creatinism
Astronomy
Please explain the size of the universe, the fact that we detect light that has travelled farther than allowed for in creationism.
History
Please explain the events that lead to the founding of the 1st Chinese imperial dynasty just 50 years after the great flood.
Hydrology
all the known H2O in the world would not have raised sea levels high enough to cover Mr Ararat, explain the extra water, where did it go?
Anthropology
How did humans reach Australasia, America etc. Why do these people not have residual stories as those of the old testament
I started that before DoF’s post!
Of course there are transitional fossils—they are generally known as creationists.
I’m not sure which is more amusing, Chris’ comment or Bahamat’s reply.
Who cares?! I’m more interested in knowing how KOALA BEARS got to Australia. Kangaroos too. Last time I checked these are not aquatic species, and Noah’s trip ended at Ararat, which by the latest reckoning is one hell of a trip (over quite a bit of water) to Australia.
Les – I’m guessing it’s my tenacity you find amusing, because it tickles your cynicism, which feels good for all (why I like Dilbert)
What do you think my main intentions are with SEB, bearing in mind the double-edged, apparantly self-contradicting sword I am?
I will reveal if asked, and it’s something that’s changed over time. I nolonger care about any consequences and don’t even necessarily desire to know about the system, because that’s out of my hands and I don’t think it’s important anyway for reasons I can explain. There is something far more important than opinion or stance that transcends everyday life that I want to make the best of, but through prevention rather than cure, hence my willingness to conflict and harm to achieve.
Just an observation, I ran across this thread googling something completely different. Most educated Christians believe in evolution, just not as an explanation for the creation of life. Evolution is a fact and has been proven WITHIN species, but never ACROSS species.
Besides, if a water-dwelling organism over time developed lungs and legs, what would happen to it???
IT WOULD DROWN.
Micah6:8 writes…
The Theory of Evolution doesn’t deal with the creation of life. This leads me to think you clearly don’t understand the theory at all.
And the above confirms that you’re a clueless idiot who doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about.
So then perhaps you can explain the existence of such lung-based water creatures as whales, dolphins, and the very aptly named African Lungfish?
Thanks for demonstrating that you’re not one of the aforementioned educated Christians. I’m glad we were able to clear that up.
Hi Les – I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to be insulting, you are obviously an intelligent guy; and the whole Britney Spears thing just came to me…
Anyway, I do have a schoolboy’s grasp of the Big Bang Theory, and I thank you for the synopsis. My question is: Where did this energy come from? How was it compressed? The 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Actually, is the universe expanding? The Red Shift theory is now in question, as some stars are observed to be moving toward us, not away. The speed of light (C) appears to be slowing down also, which points to the 2nd law of Thermodynamics – Entropy.
I think you might be suprised if you took a good look a the book of Genesis – It’s really amazing. A Hebrew scholar named Nachmonidies in the 12th century conluded that we live in 10 dimesions, just from reading the book of Genesis. He concluded that (4) are knowable (three spatial dimensions and time)and (6)are unkowable (curled in less than 10-33 centimeters – inferable only by indirect means).
I look forward to your reply…
Adam stops by several weeks later to try again…
I don’t know if it’s so much a schoolboy’s grasp as much as a preschooler’s. What’s most amusing is that you answer your own question at the end of that paragraph.
If energy cannot be created or destroyed then it logically must have always existed in one form or another.
Oh yes, the classic Creationist one-two punch asserting that redshift theory is wrong and the speed of light is slowing down. I can tell what websites you’ve been reading lately. I’d love to have you tell me which stars, specifically, have been observed heading towards us and where, exactly, you get your claim that light is slowing down.
Nothing I’ve read supports either claim.
I’ve read the book of Genesis a number of times and the only thing amazing about it is how it tries to pass off two different accounts of creation as a single event.
Yet another assertion with nothing to back it up. Please cite your sources. Keep in mind if it’s Answers in Genesis you’ll probably be laughed at.
It’s a known thing that nothingness (empty space of 0 energy) is able to split into matter (of negative energy) and antimatter (of positive energy). As long as the amounts are equal and the products are symetrical, they would cancel back down to zero energy and zero mass were they to meet. As no energy is gained/lost overall (just redistributed), it doesn’t violate thermodynamics.
I have theories as to why there is seemingly more matter to antimatter if you ask (one of the puzzles of late)
Give me a valid possible explanation and I will think about it seriously, i’ll only consider it if you can do that
And how did Nachmonidies know that? With a complete lack of equipment… I will only consider it possible if you can provide an explanation
And, if 6 dimensions are unknowable, how do we know they even exist, let alone count 6 of them?
The big bang, the only time it’s flattering to be compared to a Planck.
In his work “Perush al haTorah” Nahmanides (Rabbi Moshe ben Nahman of Spain 1194–1270) in the part that comment on Genesis makes the following points:
+ The universe first appeared as a tiny speck, “no larger than a mustard seed”.
+ From the initial concentration of this intangible substance in its minute location, the substance expanded, expanding the universe as it did so.
+ As the expansion progressed, a change in the substance occurred. This initially thin, non-corporeal substance took on the tangible aspects.
+ From this initial substance everything that has existed, or will ever exist, was, is and will be formed.
+ The universe was composed of ten aspects or dimensions. During the six days of creation, six of these ten aspects became so small that we are now capable only of detecting four.
In the 1st century, in his commentary on Genesis, Nechunya ben HaKana wrote “…that if you knew how to use the 42 letter name for God you could decipher the time between the creation of the universe and of man”. He then estimated the age of the universe at about 15,340,500,000 + 3800 years old.
Well, that was amusing if nothing else.
Just spotted this
No its not. There is NO credible evidence for the speed of light slowing.
This particular lie is used to support Creationists unable to respond to the query of why light has come from more than 6,000 years away. The only other possible explanation for Creationists is God made it that way. However because of the information in the light, God would have to have invented that- effectively lying to us.
That’s not the only other possible explanation that Creationists have come up with, Hussar. They’re nothing if not imaginative: I took part in a debate with a mathematician who concocted a sphere of ether around the Earth, which almost magically discombobulated the light coming from the actually rather near and less-than-6000 year old stars in exactly the right way that they appear to atheist astronomers to be distant and old. This guy went into amazing mathematical detail, way above my head, but I still somehow had the feeling that he was full of shit. Of course, my feeling was just my arrogant rejection of God, I’m sure. Glory Jee to Beezus!
I’ve not seen that one. I beieve AiG argue as gravity is known to affect light, it is possible that the gravity wells of massive objects slow the light giving us false readings.
While the speed of light does vary with medium, and the maths may have proved this sphere slows the light as needed, did he prove the existance of the sphere, or is it just another turtle to stand on.
As far as I know gravity wells do not slow down light although they do red-shift it.
And anyway dont they have to come up with something that increases the speed of light to be consistent with a young universe?
As I understand it the “speed” of light depends on the medium. Everything slows down with resistance, whether it’s large masses or obscuring particles.
But gravity does bend light- its the way planets in other solar systems are discovered, and of course black holes pull in light. This is the AiG arguement not mine- “if gravity affects light, it could slow it.”
Hussar- you might call it a turtle, but this guy proved its existence by the necessity of reconciling astronomical observations with the God-given Truth. Now that I think of it, he said the sphere was made of “ectoplasm”, which did indeed speed up light. Hey, all’s fair in love, war, and religion, right? In any case, his sphere started getting pretty complicated, when people pointed out that it still didn’t account for stuff like Cepheid variables: he had to throw in all kinds complications to produce what we see. At the end, his ectoplasmic sphere was like a giant jelly, a’wigglin’ and a’jigglin’ in very special ways to take care of all the pesky details.
The amazing thing was, he was absolutely serious, convinced that his concoction had to exist, and that he was likely to get the Fields Medal for his “discovery”. Just goes to show how religion can turn even intelligent people into wackos.
Ah- so turtles all the way down then.
Yep. Jello turtles all the way down and all around.
As a christian reading this thread, thought you might be interested in the scripture that this debate brought to mind. Think of it as research.
Rom 1:18
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
That’s really nice of you to share and all, but a bit on the pointless side. Most of us here are already pretty familiar with the Bible and if we didn’t find it convincing on our own it’s doubtful you throwing quotes at us from it will change our mind.
Come back when you have something rational to contribute.
Sorry les. Thought perhaps seeing it in this context
might be thought provoking. Especially verse 22. Anyway gives you some fresh insight into the thoughts of a christian. And you did say it is “doubtful”that you would change your mind. Means there is a chance. Always hope. Even when there is, seemingly no chance.
Also what part of the quote did you find irrational? All of it or just a certain part?
Thanks for answering and Merry Christmas.
“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.”
blueletter day- not to put words in Les’ mouth, but in the first place, if you check out the archives, you will see that you’re not the first to show up here and simply quote Scripture at us. And I suspect that Les meant “Come back when you have something rational to contribute”, that is, when you have something to say for yourself. As he said, most of us here know the Bible pretty well already.
Merry Christmas, and a Super Saturnalia to you too.
Blueletter, this is a pretty high-traffic atheist site. What are the odds we don’t see this approach on a regular basis?
I find the parts irrational that contain the word “God”.
Hey sorry zilch, sometimes the scriptures just seem so pertinent. As a former devout atheist, guess I underestimated the amount of bible study done around here. In my atheist period I never thought of the bible as worthy of thought or consideration. After some study, it is just the opposite for me now.
Hope and pray it will be the same for all of you one day.
And just in case somebody might want some elaboration on the previous post:
Caution the following has direct references to scriptural text:
Romans 1:21
Next Verse
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Audio commentary on this verse
Note 1 at Rom. 1:21: As Paul explained in Romans 1:18-20 (see note 2 at Rom. 1:18, p. 659), every person who has ever lived has had God reveal Himself to them, but this verse is explaining that revelation is not always received. Each individual has the freedom of choice.
In verses 21-23, Paul describes different characteristics of those who reject God’s revelation. These could also be descriptive of progressive steps that one takes away from the true revelation of God.
The first step in rejecting God is not to glorify Him as the supreme, all knowing, unquestionable God. This is what happened with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. They questioned God’s intent behind His command (Gen. 3:1-6). They ceased to magnify and honor (see ref. b at this verse) God as they once did. Submission to God as supreme is always humbling and therefore “self” rebels. This is very prevalent today.
Secondly, they were not thankful. This is always a sign that self is exalting itself above God. A selfless person can be content with very little. A self-centered person cannot be satisfied. Thankfulness is a sign of humility and cultivating a life of thankfulness will help keep “self” in its proper place.
After these first two steps have been taken, then the individual’s mind is freed to begin imagining foolish, wicked, and idolatrous thoughts (see ref. c at this verse). This leads to a hardened heart (“foolish heart was darkened” -see note 10 at Mk. 6:52, p. 238) and being reprobate (see note 6 at v. 28, below).
No apologies necessary, blueletter day. But I’ll go along with what DoF just said: the parts containing the word “God” are irrational. In other words, you won’t get very far with quoting Scripture to justify Scripture, since we regard the whole thing as irrational anyway.
I could use the same approach to tell you all the things you’re doing wrong based on the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard. You would rightly protest that you don’t believe in Scientology. For us, the Bible is Dianetics without Xenu. Do you understand the problem here?
zilch I do understand the problem. Let me state it like this, I Believe we will all know the truth one day. Until then we are all just guessing.
Fair enough?
No, Blueletter, you’re guessing (that back in the days when people thought the stars were, like, a mile away, sheepherders got the universe right in all essentials). We’re moved by evidence that if you want to understand the universe, you have to look at it, you have to record data, do experiments, prove hypotheses wrong, and build predictive models.
okay dof. Think you will concede that, as of now,we still do not know everything. Right? I heard on the radio recently that only 4% of the Universe is made up of the same matter as we are. The remaining 96% is matter that we know not what it is, with no way to identify let alone prove. Will admit to being scientifically challenged. But if the above is true how can anyone know more than 4%? Heard it on the Dennis Prager show. FWIW
Religion had its chance, BD. We got massive numbers of people dying from preventable diseases, average lifespan
< 50 years, and communication at the speed or horse or ship. This went on for thousands of years with no progress - people were still praying to cure the plague.
Enlightenment comes along, and bam! in 300 years (with religion still nipping at its heels) we nearly double human lifespan, can enjoy art and culture from around the world, and ever-expanding literacy rates. One “mystery” after another – solved, understood, nailed.
Religion? More promises of a better existence after death. Wanna talk about something “that we do not know what it is” – religion is at a disadvantage. Show me
any real evidence that the self resides anywhere other than in the brain, which stops working at death.
blueletter – I will agree that we simply don’t have enough information to reach a conclusion, at least while alive (could be living in The Matrix for all I know…), but that is a double-edged blade against both religion and atheism – only agnosticism is allowed by that arguement.
If you want us to believe, you need to first make it seem logically possible, and make it make sense – christianity is full of contradictions (i.e. loving, forgiving god who sends people to eternal hell) – if you’re going to be religous, at least think up your own theory.
I don’t dismiss the possibility of a god on the grounds of the problems organized relgion caused+causes, those are just human-created theories that have no effect on reality – just because you believe something doesn’t make it any more likely or any more true, so if a god did exist there’s no reason he needs to be anything like the scriptures describe.
I feel the best we can do is philosophically look into the psychology behind someone hypothetically deciding to create a universe – why would they do it? why is it like it is? why is it necessary that we should go through suffering when it was within the abilities of the god to make us 100% foolproof? Why do we prefer certain feelings? etc…
I am here to challenge people, so let’s start:
You may be underestimating this god as a person – if he really is perfect he won’t have an insecure need to be glorified.
Also if he was supreme he could end suffering, and the need for it through life, instantly – he could make human nature instantly perfect and foolproof – it wouldn’t even be possible to go off track (via sin, etc) and the whole process would be painless. If we’re perfect, he could have complete confidence that we didn’t need testing in life, so something, somewhere’s wrong for there to be opposition to him.
Well, to know it even exists in the physical we must’ve physically measured it somehow, so it must interact with at least something in the same physical realms as us – and if we can detect it’s existence, perhaps we can further study it.
That said, everything imaginable automatically exists in an infinite number of imaginary dimensions#. Some of these things also exist in physical dimensions of space and time
# P(existing in a particular dimension)>0
P(existing somewhere) = N(dimensions)*P(existing in a particular dimension)
and with imaginary dimensions,
N(dimensions)=infinity
so,
P(existing somewhere)=infinity
So EVERYTHING can be expected to exist an infinite number of times
(Proverbs 14:15) 15 Anyone inexperienced puts faith in every word, but the shrewd one considers his steps.
(1 John 4:1-3) 4 Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God, because many false prophets have gone forth into the world. 2 YOU gain the knowledge of the inspired expression from God by this: Every inspired expression that confesses Jesus Christ as having come in the flesh originates with God, 3 but every inspired expression that does not confess Jesus does not originate with God. Furthermore, this is the antichrist’s [inspired expression] which YOU have heard was coming, and now it is already in the world.
Yawn. Another drive-by evangelizer. Merry Christmas, Nick, but keep those talking snakes to yourself.
[I Corellians 14:15-18]
15 Then saideth Han of the Thousand Falcons to his furry man servant, the Faithful Companion, Bacca of the Chew,
16 “Do not worryeth, good buddy, we shalt geteth ye home for the Day of Thine Life”.
17 And the Bacca of the Chew dideth respond with a mighty yowl as was his usual fashion.
18 And laughing out loud, Han of the Thousand Falcons did exclaim as his mighty vessel dideth fly off into the vault of the heavens, “Mayeth the Force that is righteous keep you and bless you and be with us, everyone.”
Very funny was that. Coffee on my keyboard spilled I. A very happy Christmas have you all.
And a Merry Christmas to you too, Yodian.
Wonderfull video on the peanut butter. It kills me than anyone has faith in evolution. This is 2008, that type of mindless following needs to be left in the early 1900’s. Good luck
Travis, have you read the comments on this thread? All ten pages of them?
Nope, he’s just a troll passing in the night.
Passing under the bridge, as trolls are wont to do. Here are some peanut butter cookies for you Travis, but don’t try this if you don’t trust science:
Ingredients :
1 1/2 cups all-purpose flour
1/2 teaspoon baking powder
1/2 teaspoon baking soda
1/2 teaspoon salt
1 cup creamy or chunky peanut butter
1/2 cup ( 1 stick ) butter or margarine, softened
1/2cup firmly packed light brown sugar
1/2 cup granulated sugar
1 large egg
1/2 teaspoon vanilla extract
Directions :
Preheat oven to 400 degrees
In a medium bowl sift to combine flour, baking powder, baking soda and salt
In a large bowl beat together peanut butter, butter, brown sugar, and granulated sugar until smooth.
Add in egg and vanilla
Combine flour mixture with peanut butter mixture, scrapping the sides of the bowl to insure batter is well blended.
Cover bowl with plastic and place in frig for 20 minutes
Using a teaspoon drop batter 1 inch apart on an ungreased cookie sheet.
Using a fork make crisscross pattern flattening cookies slightly.
Bake for 10 to 12 minutes per your oven.
Sit down and enjoy with rational conversations about how stupid Chuck Missler is.
The preachers point is that it is ridiculous to assume that life can spontaneously emerge from non-life, called abiogenesis. In his speaking of evolution, abiogenesis is implied because you cannot have one without the other.
Personally, it is harder for me to put my faith in science’s theories of abiogenesis and evolution than in intelligent design. The Biblical accounts of Jesus Christs miracles and life testimony has more evidence for it than science’s evidence for its theories abiogenesis and evolutionary THEORIES.(you all know a theory is something that is UNproven, right?)
Dont forget scientists make mistakes, Pluto used to be a Planet, females used to be seen as inferior to males, scientists created PCP because they thought it was a good drug to use for anesthetics, science used to say the earth was 2 billion years old, now its around 5 billion.
For heaven’s sake science still doesnt know what the appendix does or the origin of some diseases like some cancers. If science cant solve the problems that are directly observable objects, I will not let science force onto me its belief that there is no God.
Oh ya, if your an evolutionists why are you copying christian morals. I thought social darwinism meant that people arent equal because its only “survival of the fittest”. Evolutionist heros should be the Hitlers, Stalins, benito mussolinis, and Pol Pots. You should respect them for being the fit and the strong and wanting to breed a “master race”.
The whole “everyone is equal” movement that all americans enjoy, came from the first and second Great Awakenings in American Coloniel History and its influence is left in the Declaration of Independence saying that “All men are created equal” and are born with “unalienable rights” that are God given.
Evolutioniest should lobby for their own revised constitution which would say, “Everyone is not born equal” they have no “unalienable God given rights” “Only the fit shall rule and others must fight for their rights”
The Dude writes…
It’s not ridiculous because it has already happened and we have some pretty good ideas of how, but those ideas are not a part of the theory of evolution.
Sure you can. Who’s to say that God didn’t implement Evolution as the means to an end. Perhaps God is responsible for that initial spark of life that created the first one-celled organisms and then he left the rest to the evolutionary process? The theory of evolution is not dependent on a theory of abiogenesis.
Your ignorance is showing. First, there’s no proof outside of the Bible for any of the accounts of Jesus’ miracles or, for that matter, of Jesus’ possible existence. Whereas the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that only an idiot who hasn’t actually studied the theory would think it was false.
The fact that you think a theory is something that is UNproven shows you’re exactly one of those sorts of idiots. Go off and learn what a theory actually is and then come back and try to talk to us.
Yep, scientists make mistakes. Unlike religion, science can at least own up to those mistakes and correct them as new evidence comes to light. The fact that scientists make mistakes in no way invalidates the theory of evolution.
Actually science has a pretty good idea of what the appendix is used for—maintenance of beneficial bacteria used in our digestive system—which is just one more mystery wiped off the slate. Science also has a pretty good grasp on the causes of most cancers.
As for science forcing onto you “its belief that there is no God”, well, all I can tell you is that ‘science’ doesn’t have any beliefs because it’s not an entity that can hold beliefs or force them on anything. It’s a process for figuring out reality. You’re free to ignore it at your peril if you wish.
Though if you don’t believe in evolution then I suppose you don’t bother going to the doctor when you’re sick seeing as evolution is pretty much the basis of modern biology and medicine.
Evolution doesn’t have anything to do with morality. And who says we’re copying Christian morals?
Your ignorance is showing again. You should try to get a grip on that.
Funny how Christianity doesn’t propose any of those ideals at all.
Wow, that’s a pretty amazing stretch even for someone as ignorant as you are.
Did no one else find this ironic?
Survival of the fittest doesn’t mean fastest, strongest, highest. It is actually survival of the most fitted (to the environment). Consider Tiger vs Penguin, as say Top Trump cards- Tiger is bigger, faster, stronger, better fighter. Now dump them both in the Antarctic.
I bet Les never expected Adolf Hitler to be quoted on his site in support of him. He used the same form of words in a Reichstag speech in 1938. German Infantry belt buckles were inscribed “Gott mit uns” (God with us) and equipment was regularly blessed.
Stalin did train as a preist, but I do not know if he remained a Christian. However, at no time is there any indication that he did what he did for any other reason than he was a meglomaniac with a persecution complex. Don’t bother quoting Church vs State- that wasn’t religeon, that was politics- a dictator can not afford to have a second organisation commanding support from his people.
Pol Pot obviously not a Christian, as he was in a non Christian culture. People in non Christian cultures also enact great acts of kindness- proof you don’t have to be Christian to be kind.
Actually shouldn’t Christians be excluded from government? Atheists believe this is all there is- there is no reward in heaven. “Reward in heaven” is used as justification of the suppression of the poor by the rich and powerful- This is the God Given order, that we must not challenge. I would argue as an Atheist that it is the responsibility of Society to teach children that wrong is wrong not because the “Almighty had set his cannon ‘gainst it”, but that it hurts others in a way that person would not want to suffer themselves.
‘Rights’ are a human invention. You can not grind up the Universe and sieve it through the finest mesh and say “There it is- the right to life”. There is no “Right to Life” except what people give. People die every day in weird and unusual ways that are not their fault- rocks fall on them, lightning strikes, tsunamis, earthquakes, insect bites. The universe is capricious. By trying to make it less so for evryone, we try to make it less so for ourselves.
Well I have read alot of your comments. And I, as a creationist, believe that if evolution has happened, WHY ARE THERE ONLY PRIMATES AND HUMANS NOW? If evolution took place, don’t you think that we would have creatures in between monkeys and humans right now. I do. Also, the same testing that has been done for years to determine how old something is , also showed that Mount Saint Helens last erupted 1 000 000 years ago. Well we know that to be wrong don’t we. There is a court case going on right now that if won, would change all of the text books in school that say evolution happened to either be re-written or taken out of the schools. The proof that evolution never took place will be proven and these text books will be deemed false. Now as a christian I do believe in creation. You will never change my mind to that. The bible states it and that is what I believe. The truth will eventually come out. I hope for your sake that you ar eright. Because if I am right and I am, you will never enter Heaven unless you accept Jesus Christ. Then again, if you don’t believe in God, why would you want to?
Jeff