We won't spam, rent, sell, or share
your information in any way.
“The ‘atheist nation’ of China mourns for their dead and undertakes a huge humanitarian effort which proves their system of shame and honor is vastly superior to the Christian system of dogmatic and silly superstitions. Christians absolutely hate it when other people show more concern for their fellow humans than the Christians do. Christians only pretend to love their fellow humans and do so only because they think they have to, not because they actually want to. Once again atheism trumps Christianity as a much more viable and sane worldview. This is why Christianity is a dead religion that is disappearing faster than the snow in Greenland. Nothing could make an atheist happier than the demise of Christianity.”
The above paragraph was sent to me from an irrational, logically confused, virulent anti-Christian atheist who presents himself as a superior intellect on every topic under the sun. In the hundreds (yes, hundreds) of emails he has sent to me, I find that his worldview perverts every word he reads, twisting and contorting the facts to fit his manufactured state of unreality. Consider why atheists should mourn for their dead or undertake any form of humanitarian effort. Animals don’t mourn for their dead, care for their sick and injured, build hospitals, establish relief agencies, or even attempt to recover the bodies of the dead after a catastrophe. Some species actually feed on the dead. It seems to me that any atheist who offers any kind of aid or shows compassion is the one being superstitious and simply following religious rituals that he does not believe in.
The Chinese have been raised as atheists. Why are they bothering with any form of “humanitarian effort”? Several generations of atheist indoctrination should have removed such thinking from their thought processes as being illogical. Why not just bulldoze the dead under the rubble. A true atheist should look upon such an event as a test of genetic resolve and rational judgment. The best DNA specimens survived to pass on their superior genetic makeup to future generations, and yet the Chinese mourn their dead. In the world of atheism, none of this makes any sense.
Why do humans manifest “shame” and “honor”? Such character traits are not the result of evolution. Humans are carbon units with electricity animating meat and bones. Shame and honor are qualities that manifest themselves in every human being, Chinese human beings included, because we are all created in the image of God. An atheist cannot account for shame, honor, or humanitarianism within the reductionist worldview of materialism. Evolution is the survival of the fittest. Atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins believes that “human super niceness is a perversion of Darwinism because, in a wild population, it would be removed by natural selection. . . . From a rational choice point of view, or from a Darwinian point of view, human super niceness is just plain dumb.” There you have it. The high priest of Evolution has spoken. Of course, like my atheist emailer, Dawkins can’t live with the consequences of his morally sterile worldview, so he must postulate “super niceness” so our world won’t self-destruct under the weight of cold evolutionary logic. While calling altruism “dumb,” Dawkins maintains it “should be encouraged.” How does anyone know what’s nice and what’s not? Maybe the modern-day eugenics movement was being “nice” in attempting to breed out the genetically inferior, and Hitler was being “nice” when the National Socialist government passed the “Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring.” In less than two years after its implementation, more than “150,000 German citizens were forced to undergo the procedure, preparing the way for the genocide to come.” Cyclones, hurricanes, tornados, and earthquakes do it the hard way. Science does it more efficiently. “Better living through atheism.”
The genetic movement in the United States is described by Harry Bruinius in his book Better for all the World as “America’s quest for racial purity.” Senator Aubrey Strode, author of the Virginia sterilization law and the attorney who argued Buck v. Bell (1927) before the Supreme Court studied “the laws of science to help shape the laws of his state. . . . Darwin’s theory of evolution had begun to change how many viewed the nature of mankind.” Eugenics had become “scientific” and therefore justifiable. Bruinius shows the logically scientific impact that Darwin had on the American eugenic movement that was adopted by Hitler and the National Socialists:
In a natural state, the law of the “survival of the fittest” would act as a “purifying process,” allowing each species to evolve to higher states of being. But charity and altruism upset this natural purifying process, and ensured the survival of the weak.
Where is the atheist equivalent of the Salvation Army? I don’t see “Atheist Army” centers around the country. Where’s the atheist religion in action? Why should atheists even bother? There was no tragedy attached to Katrina, China, or Myanmar given the operating assumptions of atheism. Atheists believe that “all we are is dust in the wind.” Meat, bones, and tissue ceased to function as the flood waters squeezed the air out of the lungs of mammals in New Orleans and Myanmar that had not evolved the ability to breathe under water. Then there’s the damage to property. Possessions, as John Lennon told us in his ode to atheism, are a hindrance. It was a good thing for houses and businesses to be washed away and destroyed in an earthquake. Why does any of this matter to those who hold a materialistic worldview who can’t account for purpose, design, love, compassion, morality, or the insatiable need to own things?
Atheists have borrowed the moral worldview of Christianity and claim that it can be sustained by the underlying assumptions of a godless existence. Atheism is an anti-worldview that, ironically, needs Christianity to exist. My atheist emailer wrote, “Nothing could make an atheist happier than the demise of Christianity.” You know, in this single instance, he’s right. Atheists in the atheistic Soviet Union, and atheists in Communist China, and atheists in Cambodia couldn’t be happier with the demise of Christianity. But I wonder what the tens of millions of people who suffered and died under these regimes would say. How happy do you think they were?