“Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him. Answer a fool as his folly deserves, That he not be wise in his own eyes. Atheists are at it again” (Proverbs 26:4-5).
The Backyard Skeptics have unveiled a billboard that claims “Atheists make better lovers.” The atheist billboard tells us why atheists are better lovers. It’s not due to love but because “nobody is watching.” By “nobody” the atheists mean God.
Since there is no God who judges our behavior, men and women, men and dogs, women and horses, adults and children can do anything they want together. If there is no ultimate judge or judgment, everything is up for grabs.
Keep in mind that if no one is watching atheists make better lovers, then they can also make better wife beaters, sadists, thieves, batterers, and rapists.
The Backyard Atheists have adopted and adapted lyrics from John Lennon’s atheist anthem “Imagine”:
Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today
Since there’s only sky above us, meaning no God, you and I can live for today with no consequences attached to our behavior.
Now what’s true for sex is also true for everything else. Given the premise that nobody (i.e., God) is watching, what did Adolf Hitler do that was wrong? “Tyrants make better murderers. (After all, nobody is watching.)” Given the operating assumption of the Backyard Skeptics, after death did Adolf Hitler fare worse than the world’s greatest philanthropist? No. Nobody will be there to judge either one of them.
The worldview of the Backyard Skeptics is expressed well enough in a few lines from the sci-fi film Pandorum (2009).
“Just imagine just for a minute, imagine yourself without the chains of your morality. You’d even surprise yourself. It’s the ultimate freedom.”
Biologist Randy Thornhill and anthropologist Craig Palmer set forth the thesis that rape is natural, that it’s part of the evolutionary process and is beneficial. Their book A Natural History of Rape (2000) was published by MIT Press, and in it they state that human rape “arises from men’s evolved machinery for obtaining a high number of mates in an environment where females choose mates.” Men rape because it helps spread their genes. No one can object on moral grounds, not even the women being raped, since nobody is watching (judging).
Atheists cannot account for morality. I do not accuse them of being immoral, but I do accuse them of borrowing their choice of moral living from concepts derived from the Christian worldview, the very worldview they denounce. If at death, we are no more than dust in the wind and in life a bag of meat and bones animated by electricity, then there is no basis for unchanging morality in life or death.
Atheism is a worldview driven by faith in a system of thought supposedly generated by a brain that evolved from a pre-biotic soup of chemicals that randomly emits electrical impulses through its gray matter. But how can a materialist know that an evolved brain can be trusted to know anything authoritatively or claim that certain behaviors are morally right or wrong given purely materialistic assumptions? C.S. Lewis puts it this way:
If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our thought processes are mere accidents — the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialists’ and astronomers’ as well as for anyone else’s [thought processes]. But if their thoughts — i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy — are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident would be able to give correct account of all the other accidents.[1]
Why is it a “part of nature” when a mother eagle cannibalizes one of her young and feeds it to the stronger chick, but it would be morally reprehensible for a human mother to do the same to one of her own children? How did our DNA figure out these moral distinctions, and why are they ultimately moral in a materialistic cosmos with no design or purpose?
There’s a more fundamental question that is rarely asked. How does the purely material generate the immaterial (wisdom, joy, love, hope, logic, reason, morality)?
Atheists in London promoted a similar campaign.
London buses were outfitted with the following banner ads: “There’s Probably No God. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Life.”[2] The sponsors hope the postings will get people to question the existence of God: “This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think — and thinking is anathema to religion,” the promoters argue. “[Richard] Dawkins said that as an atheist he ‘wasn’t wild’ about the ad’s assertion that there was ‘probably’ no God.”[3] He wanted the ads to say “There is no God.”
If there is no God, then who gets to say what constitutes enjoying life? Are there any restrictions on enjoying life? If there are, then who gets to set the restrictions and why? By what standard and by whose authority?
Two girls who took part in riots in Croydon, a town in South London, England, have boasted that they were showing police and “the rich people that we can do what we want.” They said it calmly and matter-of-factly. Has Richard Dawkins contributed to a change in moral philosophy among London’s youth with his atheist bus campaign?
People were robbed. Businesses burned. Reports on Twitter claimed some people were being stripped, while another shocking video shows a bleeding teenager being robbed in broad daylight by lawless thugs who pretend to help him to his feet. Here’s how one newspaper headline described what was going on: “‘Mob Rule’ as London Rioting Spreads.” It seems to me that it’s nothing more than evolution’s “survival of the fittest” in action, especially since “nobody is watching.”
There’s no God, Dawkins and his fellow atheists have been telling the world, so stop worrying and enjoy life. The rioters are enjoying life at the expense of others, and who are you or anyone else to say that they shouldn’t be enjoying life the way they want to enjoy life?
Endnotes:
- C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970), 52–53. [↩]
- See Gwynne Dyer, “The Atheist Buses” (February 8, 2009). [↩]
- “Atheists Plan Anti-God Ad Campaign on Buses” (October 23, 2008). [↩]
Gary is a graduate of Western Michigan University (1973) and earned his M.Div. at Reformed Theological Seminary in 1979. Author of countless essays, news articles, and more than 27 book titles, he also hosts The Gary DeMar Show, and History Unwrapped—both broadcasted and podcasted. Gary has lived in the Atlanta area since 1979 with his wife, Carol. They have two married sons and are enjoying being grandparents to their grandsons, Calvin and Paul. Gary and Carol are members of Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA).
if no one is watching atheists make better lovers, then they can also make better wife beaters, sadists, thieves, batterers, and rapists.
Famous wife beaters: Mel Gibson (Catholic), Chris Brown (protestant – OK, to be fair, Rihanna wasn’t married to him when he beat her within an inch of her life)
Famous sadists: Donatien Alphonse François, the Marquis de Sade (Catholic), Albert Fish (protestant – also a killer and a cannibal, by the way)
Famous thieves: Bonnie Elizabeth Parker (attended St Joseph Catholic Church, Rowena, Texas), Leonardo Notarbartolo (Catholic)
Famous batterers: Not sure where to go with this one. Julia Child? I’ll just refer you back to “wife beaters”
Famous rapists: Vinson Horace Champ (raised Baptist, used to ask his victims to pray for him)
For that matter (we’ve been over this ground before), Ed Gein was a Lutheran. John Wayne Gacy was a Catholic. According to FBI reports, Gary Ridgeway (the Green River Killer) “attended church regularly, read the Bible at home and at work, and talked about religion with co-workers” (quick search doesn’t tell me which denomination). Dennis Rader (the BTK killer) was president of his church (Christ Lutheran). Robert Lee Yates was a Seventh Day Adventist. Derrick Todd Lee was conducting Bible studies in Atlanta when he was arrested.
Toquemada and Hitler were both good Catholics, as were most of the soldiers in the Crusades.
So what’s your point again?
Touche! Great reply. I should copy and paste it. The author of this page would be too dumb to notice.
“Atheists cannot account for morality.”
What a 100% pure unadulterated load of garbage. This article is not only offensive, but flat our wrong too.
What is morality at its most basis level? It’s a sense of fairness. It comes from evolution. It’s based on our ability to empathize with others and our ability to see cause and effect.
The Christian can’t claim the moral high ground at any time. Thier supposed moral God’s book endorses chattel slavery. Christians forfeit any possible claim to the moral high ground right there.
Evolution explains morality, so… what? BTW what’s wrong with slavery? Judging those poor, innocent asset investors… you sir are a bigot.
Hi Matthew,
You wrote: “Evolution explains morality, so… what?”
So, Gary’s DeMar’s assetion that “[a]theists cannot account for morality” is incorrect.
You wrote: “BTW what’s wrong with slavery?”
It breaks empathy; it is doing something to another person that you would not want done to yourself.
*assertion
What an offensive load of garbage.
Gary, you fail when you write the following:
“If there is no ultimate judge or judgment, everything is up for grabs”
That statement is illogical; it is invalid and unsound. You have not shown how the conclusion (i.e., “everything is up for grabs”) follows from the singular premise (i.e., “if there is no ultimate judge or judgment”).
Surprisingly enough, we have secular ethical systems that work just fine, and we do hold ourselves accountable… to the rest of society. That’s something that we can both agree exists.
Oh, and get off of this “atheist worldview” silliness. There is no such thing as an “atheist worldview”. I know of pro-choice atheists, and pro-life atheists. I know of democrat atheists, libertarian atheists, and republican atheists. I know of pro-communism atheists and pro-capitalist atheists. I know atheists who want to save the world and I know atheists who just want to be left alone.
The only thing we agree upon is that you have no idea what we actually think.
Gary, you, and your writings, are a far better case for atheism than one that I could ever make so, for that, I guess I thank you. But I also know you by your fruits, and saying garbage like, “Keep in mind that if no one is watching atheists make better lovers, then they can also make better wife beaters, sadists, thieves, batterers, and rapists” (where, yet again, I’ll note that your conclusion does not follow from the singular premise) makes me question just how much this is a fever dream, and how much of it is barely-contained projection.
Only you would know the answer to that question, Gary.
One last thing.
Gary wrote: “Atheists cannot account for morality.”
Why do you speak of things that you know nothing about? You obviously have not even attempted to research this subject, otherwise there’s no reason for you to write this statement.
Atheists can account for morality. Please use this internet thing that you have access to and use your favorite search engine to look for “secular morality” and (as a hint) “empathy”.
You might completely disagree with the systems of secular morality, but to claim that atheists cannot account for it is not truthful. I’ll give the benefit of the doubt to you and assume that this is simply ignorance and a lack of desire to do research, instead of straight-up lying.
On my way home from work last night I heard George Noory on Coast to Coast discussing doctrine with an atheist (who’s name I did not catch). The atheist had an interesting point to make. It ran along this train of thought:
If the universe had a beginning, what existed before it? Theists say that would be God. Then where did God come from? The Theist answer is that God exists from eternity, and the universe is caused by God. The Atheist reply is that if the Theist insists on a god who has always existed, and is the cause of all that exists because he exists, it is no less possible that the material universe has always existed and is the cause of all that exists. We trade one eternally existent cause for another in this argument, and this is simply a matter of faith in a presupposition that cannot be proved (although faith never was discussed, this was the crux of the debate).
I have to give the atheist credit at this point for at least coming up with a seemingly logical failure in the Theistic debate against atheism. It is logical that if God always existed from eternity, that the universe may have existed from all eternity as well, or even that the only truly eternally existent “thing” may very well be the universe; i.e., material.
Still, this argument falls apart even for the most well thought atheist when even a small amount of common sense based on ethical sensibility is reviewed. Ethics implies that there is nothing that exists without ethics no matter who’s ethical system is in place. So how is it possible to have ethics without an ethical standard? Keep in mind that ethics is not mystical. That alone implies an ethical standard. Ethics is not just a list of dos and don’t s. Ethics are why we do or don’t, and imply a presupposed list of non-material things not explained by materialism. Love, hate, joy, peace, revulsion, fear, animosity, forgiveness, indebtedness, freedom, etc.
It is impossible to admit such things without explaining the existence of these immaterial “things” that we all know and experience daily. Materialism does not explain the authorship of things that are immaterial and every atheist knows it! However cunning the argument, ethics is always their downfall.
Ethics is an eternal factor that the atheist can never reconcile to his philosophy despite the fact that it is so simple and obvious. That is why the Bible can say “The fool has said in his heart there is no God.” and despite their logic, the common man knows he is being lied to. We can see quite clearly that they are conveniently not considering facts that are evidence against their claim.
I think an interesting point, however, is that the current theory of the existence of the universe rests on the big bang theory. The big bang theory as I understand it indicates that there was a point when the universe did not exist. In a very real way, creation occurred. So it seems that the best indications of science are that the material universe has NOT always existed.
So… you can assert that God exists, despite having no evidence, because you don’t understand physics?
Interesting argument.
Physics! Please go on…
Douglas wrote: “Ethics is an eternal factor that the atheist can never reconcile to his philosophy despite the fact that it is so simple and obvious.”
Are you saying this because you’ve done extensive research in this area and haven’t found anything?
Or, are you just making stuff up?
For the record, “ethics” is certainly something that this particular atheist can reconcile to my philosophy. My guess is that you have absolutely no idea what my philosophy is because you’re operating under the mistaken belief that atheists share a common philosophy.
We don’t.
Please do research next time.
@Drew, he’s being sarcastic. He means to point out that western European, secular countries have low crime. Never mind the homogenious demographics, protestant history, and centuries of growing wealth.
Well, I have to say that was hard to tell considering the article!!! (Or is this whole website the religious version of the Onion?!?)
No. That’s http://www.landoverbaptist.org/
The documented facts speak for themselves. The countries that DO believe the Christian gods are watching them have the lowest crime rates (Italy, Spain, Mexico, USA), while the mostly Athiestic countries have mass rapings, massive murder rates, over-flowing prisons, and no one dares to walk the streets for fear of getting mugged, raped or murdered (Sweden, Denmark, Norway).
PS: Gary DeMar, contact me if you’d be interested in debating Dan Barker in May at UCI.
Mark…. you certainly missed the Mark here. Are there 0 Churches in Sweden, Denmark, or Norway? I mean good gracious someone had to give them Laws and Ethics to live by. The almighty building cell that just appeared for no purpose or reason doesn’t give information.
Did you miss that part of Dr. Demar’s article where Atheist are saying Rape is completely Natural and it’s a man spreading his Genes. Heck, that is the purpose of sacks of protons and neutrons right? What does murder mean to a sack of protons and neutrons? The question “Why not?” comes to mind here.
Again, the underlying principles for your own principles are stolen from a worldview you reject. This makes you irrational.
Damn that Reformation and those do-gooders! When will those Germanic pagans learn that the Reformation has ended in Western Europe?
Please provide us with a credible source of the “documented facts” you name in your comment!
[Not that I even have to refute your claim, for the burden of proof is squarely on you, but it is so ludicrous I cannot stop myself! The USA alone has had a HIGHER crime rate than any of the atheistic countries you named for YEARS! (Have you ever been to even ONE of those countries? Sweden, Norway or Denmark that is.)]
http://www.visionofhumanity.org/info-center/structures-of-peace-2/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdtwTeBPYQA
@Mark Smith, perhaps you should read the book “Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment”. It goes into great details that counters your argument you put forth. Please do give us these so called “facts” you speak of, because everything I’ve read says the opposite.
“…while the mostly Athiestic countries have mass rapings, massive murder rates, over-flowing prisons, and no one dares to walk the streets for fear of getting mugged, raped or murdered (Sweden, Denmark, Norway).”
I find that last statement rather humorous because one portion of the book that stands out is the author is riding a bike with his wife after they’d been living in Denmark for about a month and he asks his wife, “Have you seen a cop since we’ve been here?” Her reply is, no. The first cop he runs into he interviews, the cop is patrolling the streets with just a police baton and a flashlight. The cop says that most crimes committed in the area is just petty theft, etc. They were living in a town of more than 200k people, I think they said they have less than 1 murder a year on average.
So I’d love to see your evidence that people fear walking the streets for getting mugged, raped or murdered in Denmark, Sweden and Norway.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Put up or shut up I say.
I found this reply and the orginal comment very fascinating, since I live in Denmark and have lived here my entire life. I must say, however, that I completely agree with Drew, as the first comment is filled with flaws.
I found a list of countries by their homocide rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate) which corresponds with the official rates from both USA and Denmark. USA has 4,8 intentional homocides pr 100,000 inhabitant per year whereas Sweden has 0,97 and Denmark has 0,85. For some reason Norway’s left out, but their homocide rate from 2011 would obviously be a lot higher, since they had their first terror attack last summer.
I also watched an American news show a month ago where they talked about the recidivism rates of USA, UK and Norway. In the USA and the UK the recidivism rate is 50-60%, but in Norway the recidivism rate is only 20%, and Denmark follows closely with a recidivism rate of 25%.
The first comment claims that Denmark is full of massmurderers, but the only serial killer we have had, was Peter Lundin, who murdered a total of four people.
I’d like to point out that I think the crime rates as well as the recidivism rates has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with Denmark – and Scandinavian countries in general – putting a lot of focus on preventing crime as well as studying which penalties eases the rehabilitation process.
Another thing, I find it deeply disturbing that this entire “article” put atheists out to, not only be more prone to crime, but also to have a lesser (if any) morality.
I think we can all agree that a large part of morality comes from empathy. I also assume that we all know that empathy occurs when certain parts of the brain are activated. If these parts of the brain cannot be activated, the person will feel no empathy, no remorse and won’t have the same set of morals and the same understanding of morals, as the majority of the society. Seen in that aspect, empathy is a matter of brain functionning – not religion.
However, there is another aspect. Morality is part of the norm and as all other norms, they’re given to people during their primal and secondary socialisation. Here, the development of morality relies on the people who surround the child as it grows up. Here, religion can be a biproduct, but isn’t the main cause as the rules of society aren’t made from a religious point of view (here I’m assuming that you know that the USA was founded by men who believed in a secular state).
It’s also common knowledge in the antropological world, that all cultures have had morality codes – even those who didn’t have religion.
What I find very hard to understand, is how you can say that an atheist has less morality than a religious person. Not only for the reasons I’ve already mentioned, but also because a (normal, not psychopathic) Atheist will say that you should never kill or rape anyone, while a Christian who follows the Bible will say that it’s okay to kill homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13 NAB), followers of other religions (Exodus 22:19 NAB), nonbelievers (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB), and the list goes on.
I do realise that the majority of Christians doesn’t believe in those parts of the Bible and therefore doesn’t believe in any kind of murder. But for me, that just raises other questions. A true Christian must believe that God is almighty and omniscent. So how can you decide which of God’s words to follow? How can you decide which of God’s words are the “right” ones and which aren’t?
Doesn’t that imply that the moral compass has been within us all along?
I don’t ask out of spite or in a sarcastic tone, I’m simply wondering.
Uh… excuse me?
You know, when you just make up your own “facts,” that’s called “lying.” It’s considered a sin.
There is no correlation between “religiousity” and crime.
Bruce here – yes – the guy who placed the billboard. This article stands out as one of the weakest arguments against atheism. Atheists can be easily proven to be MORE moral than Christians by looking at the barometer of immoral behavior – prisons. Why is it that atheists are under-represented in prisons in the US by 20 times under the number of Christians in prison? We are consequentialists. We ‘own’ our behavior – there is no silly supernatural superstition called ‘sin’ or ‘salvation’. Is one more likely to repeat their bad behavior (sin in your case) if they know they will be forgiven? I think so. Let me ask all Christians – would you love your wife and family any less if you suddenly found out there were no God – probably not. But for those who think they’d start raping and pillaging – pleaaasseeee keep believing in your imaginary, invisible friend
Yeah right Bruce. Atheist don’t make up that much of the WORLD’S Population (Perhaps because of it is irrational) for anyone to buy that argument. People can claim to be Christians and be in Prison. Doesn’t mean they are real Christians….you’d think this would be a given. The funny thing is since Atheism has no set of morality or ethics I’m sure they can lie and say they are whatever they want to say they are. If an Atheist Murders or Rapes you have no standard of morality to count the STATISTICS.
You don’t have a foot to stand on in this argument. Anytime a person commits sin (see we can account for immaterial concepts like sin/crime) they are acting like Atheist. People with no Law, no ethics, no standard of morality. The most alarming part is even Christians act like Atheist from time to time. However, don’t worry we are all working on being 100% consistent Non-Atheist.
Scripture attest for itself that the “Fool” says in his heart there is not God. There is no one to hold me accountable. However, the “Fool” has his folly coming. Laws have been set up to punish the fool for Justice, Righteousness, and Honor (All Immaterial concepts Atheist can’t account for) has been established by God.
Suppressing Truth is bad business sir.
Hail King Jesus,
seal
Seal, you’re making an error.
You wrote: “The funny thing is since Atheism has no set of morality or ethics I’m sure they can lie and say they are whatever they want to say they are. ”
You are correct when you state that atheism (lower case ‘a’) has no set of morality of ethics.
You are incorrect by then assuming that atheists have no set of morality or ethics.
You make this mistake by assuming that the label “atheist” describes what we are, instead of what we are not.
Once you understand that atheists view it the latter way, you will hopefully not make this same mistake again.
To clarify, atheism is not a philosophy or a worldview; it is the rejection of the claims of theism. Nothing more, nothing less, at least in our heads. For you to say that it’s more than that would be you doing failed mind-reading. “Atheism” is not a synonym for “Nihilism”.
Why would you want to be more moral? Is there a blue ribbon on the other side of the rainbow for people who are more moral? Heck, if I called myself an atheist, I surely wouldn’t be squandering my scarce time putting up billboards. You’d be better off visiting the sperm bank every day; maybe you could have more descendants than the great Khan. Perhaps some hedonism would cure what ails you? Hey man, why not avoid the misery of this world and just blow your brains out? Anyways, if you’re gonna argue against the Xtian faith, you might as well know what you’re arguing against. Faith and works are not separate. You’d be hard press to find something in the Scriptures that suggests that we are at liberty to sin because we have forgiveness. As a matter a fact, the opposite is explicitly stated. Hey, here’s an idea, why don’t you do what hundreds of other unbelievers have done of the centuries… become a high ranking official in a church body and exploit people and yield great political power. Better to use a powerful tool than fight against it like some ridiculous, bleeding-heart saint, right? Here’s to being epistemological self-conscious
Mr. Gleason,
After a second look at my reply to your post, I believe I have omitted something rather important… Atheism and its ilk is a very small matter in the Scriptures compared to religious hypocrites (defined by the LORD) and false teachers. Through all sixty-six books, the biggest problem is that which is within the body of believers (i.e. national Israel and then the transnational Church). Atheism is not by any measure the archrival of the Church.
“Why would you want to be more moral?”
Because, like you, I live in a society.
I also like to sleep at night.
That’s not relevant at all! Come on, if you don’t want to make an effort to answer a question, just leave the answer blank.
Hi Matthew,
What did you think was lacking from my answer? I thought I was being very direct with it.
I certainly wanted to try to answer the question. I could either write an essay, direct you to a bunch of URLs and books, or I could be more direct.
I chose the latter.
But I’m more than happy to discuss this further, but I would very much appreciate it if you would first do some research on “empathy” and “social animals”, so I don’t have to write essays describing those issues.
I don’t doubt the explanations, but rather the imperative. Who can compete with “do what thou wilt?”
Let’s not forget to fact check before we defame entire groups of humans. Hitler was not an atheist. He was an admitted (t)heist who was also Roman Catholic.
Great point! He’s never given the world a reason to doubt his ethics. I see no reason why this guy would have a motive to lie. Seems to me that all that “you’ll know them by their fruits” stuff is for the birds…
Hi Matthew,
I think you might gain from researching the various writings of Hitler where he declared his religious and supernatural views, to have a better idea as to why people claim that he was a theist (at the very least), and certainly no type of “atheist”.
Also, I would be interested to know why you think Hitler would lie about it, when you consider the intended demographic of his writings on his religious views. I’m curious to know what you think he would gain from it.
I can’t imagine you think he was thinking, “but when I die, and the whole world hates my guts for probably all of human history, at least I got back at those meanie theists by lying and saying I was one of them! CACKLE!”, so I won’t assume that, and instead wait for your explanations.
Nohm,
Had he won, I doubt the whole world would hate him. He was loved for his time (in certain places). But he was leading a “Christian” nation. If he was a Norse Pagan or Materialistic Naturalist, why would he tell the truth about hating the faith of Luther?
Apparently Christian authors make better slanderers.
Is that a bad thing?
Hi Matthew,
Yes, it’s bad, because I find it doubtful that the author would like people slandering him.
True, but he would be consistent
Great article Gary.
(((Keep in mind that if no one is watching atheists make better lovers, then they can also make better wife beaters, sadists, thieves, batterers, and rapists)))
Are there not days or hours when we all could feel as if we are ‘atheists’ and pull back the curtain of the though of being a ‘wife beater’,sadist’, thief and rapists? Are there times when we feel that ‘our’ God had ‘left’ us and that we seem to be ‘alone’. No matter how much Faith and Belief we have, we are still of our carnal nature. Only physical death can remove that lust of the mind of thinking of what others may or may not have and to covet it to a point. We are dogs and forever in the fight of the flesh vs the spirit.
Jer 17:9 ¶ The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked : who can know it?
God can know it……
Presuppositional masterpeice here…. Bahnsen would be proud to read this.
If “thinking is anathema to religion”, then secularists must be the most thoughtful people. Yet, why didn’t they think of the obvious conclusions to their worldview that you so eloquently described above? Could it be that they have been given over to debased minds?
I think that ads like these will ultimately backfire on atheists as thinking people start to see the obvious conclusions. At least I hope.
Great article.
Well put, Gary! Without another standard of ethics (besides God’s Word) to inform our personal & civic responsibilities, what principle would keep us from anarchy? The atheist may propose alternate ethical foundations, but in the end it will be totally arbitrary.
Arbitrary? Really?
Here. Before you embarass yourself even more, answer one question: why is it that every advanced society, regardless of religion, has as part of their “established wisdom” some variation on the Golden Rule (“do unto others…”).
If you answer that question and then think it through, perhaps you’ll see where your argument falls down.
I should hope so, otherwise common grace and Romans 1 would both go out the window!
Bravo! Yet another brilliant article by a brilliant man!
Amen!