Empirical Evidence for God

Outline of impeccable Evidences for Theism to non theism.

1. Contingency – Why does something exist rather than nothing? Self-existence is necessary. Universe began. Universe is not self-existent.

2. Cosmological – Absolute beginning requires a cause. Cause of Physical Universe cannot be Physical. Must be non-physical, space-less, timeless and willful to cause Physical Universe from Physical Nothingness.

3. Design: specified complexity, specifically integrated interdependencies for third purposes, irreducible complexity. No plausible Naturalistic mechanisms or explanations actually exist.

Precision FINELY TUNED constants and quantities present in initial conditions of the Universe to within infinitesimally narrow ranges to permit life. Universe is precision balanced on razor’s edge.

4. Ontological argument – God is a metaphysically necessary Being. Since God’s attributes are metaphysically possible, and all metaphysical possibilities are also actual, God must be actual.

5. Intelligence in Nature: Intelligence, order and reason and information all from Nothingness?
Spiritual instinct of man: Evolved to connect with something not actual?

Moral Truth / Apprehension of Objective moral truth. Is rape really wrong or just an illusion?
Knowledge of reliable Natural Laws
Massive Historical evidences of witnessed Miracles, visions, fulfilled prophecies,
Personal experiences: Ubiquitous NDE’s, supernatural phenomena
Christ’s resurrection witnessed by hundreds.

Absolute failure of Naturalism to explain a Finely tuned Universe, Finite Universe, Sentience, Rational truth Moral Law (morality), reliable knowledge, intelligence, purpose, free-will…

Seven Days that Divide the World - John Lennox, PhD

Evolution - Is It A Fact? [Short Debate]

Evolution Vs God (short version)

Seven Days that Divide the World - John Lennox, PhD

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W37gkpcDJI

Famous Scientists Who Believed in God

Belief in God

Is belief in the existence of God irrational? These days, many famous scientists are also strong proponents of atheism. However, in the past, and even today, many scientists believe that God exists and is responsible for what we see in nature. This is a small sampling of scientists who contributed to the development of modern science while believing in God. Although many people believe in a "God of the gaps", these scientists, and still others alive today, believebecause of the evidence.

Rich Deem

1. Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
   Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.
2. Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
   Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism)
3. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
   Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!
4. Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
   Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.
5. Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
   Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.

Atheists lose latest legal fight over ‘In God We Trust’

[Eds: The word "tenant" in the 10th paragraph is in the original document.]

(RNS) Atheists lost their case against the “In God We Trust” motto on the nation’s currency Wednesday (May 28).

It’s a battle they have lost several times before, as court after court has affirmed that printing and engraving the country’s motto on its money does not violate the U.S. Constitution.

The plaintiffs, a group that included humanists and minor children, argued before a federal appeals court that the words amount to a government endorsement of religion, disallowed by the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. They further held that, forced to carry around a religious statement in their pockets and pocketbooks, their constitutionally guaranteed right to freely exercise religion is being violated.

But the three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York noted that the courts have long looked at the motto not so much as the entanglement of government in religion, but as a more general statement of optimism and a “reference to the country’s religious heritage.”

The decision in Newdow v. United States of America pleased those who have worked to protect religious expression in the public sphere. “Americans need not be forced to abandon their religious heritage simply to appease someone’s animosity toward anything that references God,” said Rory Gray of the Alliance Defending Freedom.

ATHIESTS LOSE: Federal Court says ‘The Ground Zero Cross Stays’

It was a stupid battle that never should have been waged in the first place. A federal court ruled Monday that the existence of a cross at Ground Zero does not violate the Constitution, slamming the appeal filed by the secular activist group American Atheists.

Daily Caller  The famous cross, formed by two intersecting beams left standing after the 9/11 attacks, has been a powerful spiritual symbol for many since and even during the tragedy. Frank Silecchia discovered the cross while helping recover bodies from the site. “It was a sign,” he later said. ”a sign God hadn’t deserted us.”

American Atheists felt differently. In July 2011 they filed suit over the cross, which had been included in the 9/11 Memorial Museum, saying members of their group found its presence there “offensive and repugnant to their beliefs, culture, and traditions, and allege that the symbol marginalizes them as American citizens.”

“Many of American Atheists’ members have seen the cross, either in person or on television, and are being subjected to and injured in consequence of having a religious tradition not their own imposed upon them through the power of the state,” the suit read. (RELATED: The Ground Zero Cross Suffers For The Sins Of Atheists)

In March 2013 a New York district court ruled against the group, noting that “since the decision to include the artifact in the Museum’s Historical Exhibit has a secular purpose, [the authorities responsible for the museum] have not advanced religion impermissibly, and the cross does not create excessive entanglement between the state and religion.” (RELATED: Atheists Attack World Trade Center Cross, Claim It Causes ‘Mental Pain’)

Still not satisfied, they filed an appeal a few months later, again arguing that its presence “alienates non-Christians seeking to commemorate the dead, wounded and other affected persons,” and that “the overwhelmingly dominant display of the cross over any other religious symbolism is a violation of the Establishment Clause.” They softened their argument, however, no longer contending that any display of the cross was unconstitutional, but instead seeking to change the manner in which it was displayed.

The federal appeals court denied the appeal Monday, reiterating that “the stated purpose of displaying The Cross at Ground Zero to tell the story of how some people used faith to cope with the tragedy is genuine, and an objective observer would understand the purpose of the display to be secular” and that “an objective observer would not view the display as endorsing religion generally, or Christianity specifically, because it is part of an exhibit entitled ‘Finding Meaning at Ground Zero,’ [which] includes various nonreligious as well as religious artifacts.”

Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke

Metaphysical thought processes are more deeply wired than hitherto suspected

WHILE MILITANT ATHEISTS like Richard Dawkins may be convinced God doesn’t exist, God, if he is around, may be amused to find that atheists might not exist.
Cognitive scientists are becoming increasingly aware that a metaphysical outlook may be so deeply ingrained in human thought processes that it cannot be expunged.
While this idea may seem outlandish—after all, it seems easy to decide not to believe in God—evidence from several disciplines indicates that what you actually believe is not a decision you make for yourself. Your fundamental beliefs are decided by much deeper levels of consciousness, and some may well be more or less set in stone.
This line of thought has led to some scientists claiming that “atheism is psychologically impossible because of the way humans think,” says Graham Lawton, an avowed atheist himself, writing in the New Scientist. “They point to studies showing, for example, that even people who claim to be committed atheists tacitly hold religious beliefs, such as the existence of an immortal soul.”
This shouldn’t come as a surprise, since we are born believers, not atheists, scientists say. Humans are pattern-seekers from birth, with a belief in karma, or cosmic justice, as our default setting. “A slew of cognitive traits predisposes us to faith,” writes Pascal Boyer in Nature, the science journal, adding that people “are only aware of some of their religious ideas”.
INTERNAL MONOLOGUES
Scientists have discovered that “invisible friends” are not something reserved for children. We all have them, and encounter them often in the form of interior monologues. As we experience events, we mentally tell a non-present listener about it.
The imagined listener may be a spouse, it may be Jesus or Buddha or it may be no one in particular. It’s just how the way the human mind processes facts. The identity, tangibility or existence of the listener is irrelevant.
“From childhood, people form enduring, stable and important relationships with fictional characters, imaginary friends, deceased relatives, unseen heroes and fantasized mates,” says Boyer of Washington University, himself an atheist. This feeling of having an awareness of another consciousness might simply be the way our natural operating system works.
PUZZLING RESPONSES
These findings may go a long way to explaining a series of puzzles in recent social science studies. In the United States, 38% of people who identified themselves as atheist or agnostic went on to claim to believe in a God or a Higher Power (Pew Forum, “Religion and the Unaffiliated”, 2012).
While the UK is often defined as an irreligious place, a recent survey by Theos, a think tank, found that very few people—only 13 per cent of adults—agreed with the statement “humans are purely material beings with no spiritual element”. For the vast majority of us, unseen realities are very present.
When researchers asked people whether they had taken part in esoteric spiritual practices such as having a Reiki session or having their aura read, the results were almost identical (between 38 and 40%) for people who defined themselves as religious, non-religious or atheist.
The implication is that we all believe in a not dissimilar range of tangible and intangible realities. Whether a particular brand of higher consciousness is included in that list (“I believe in God”, “I believe in some sort of higher force”, “I believe in no higher consciousness”) is little more than a detail.

Starry Night at La Silla Creative Common license 3.0 ESO/H. Dahle - Starry Night at La Silla | ESO

Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that?s not a joke

EVIL ATHEISTS

     Militant atheists take great pleasure in informing the world that evils have accompanied some phases of historical Christianity and that some leading believers of the past have committed heinous crimes. This site negates the erroneous notion that evil can co-exist with "true" Christianity and addresses this issue in the, "Is Christianity Evil?," page. Contrariwise, this site asserts that evil and atheism can and have  co-existed, thanks to setting aside the belief in a Supreme Judge and a God-given set of ethics. In fact the greatest crimes in history have been committed not by believers but by militant atheists who are responsible for the death of about one hundred million people this past century alone. This page is meant to inform the reader of the brutal actions of these atheistic psychopathic leaders and other atheists who have, or are contributing evil ideas that have or will cause more anguish for humanity in the future.

BRUTAL ATHEIST DICTATORS

STALIN (Russian Dictator)

"He was born on December 21, 1879 in Gori, Georgia, the son of a poor cobbler. He trained for the priesthood. His mother always hoped he would be a priest but it wasn’t to be. He was expelled from the seminary because of his revolutionary ideas.
Stalin played a minor role in the 1917 revolution. He made a name for himself as a gifted organiser and was hand-picked by Lenin for the position of general secretary.
On Lenin’s death, Stalin’s ruthless quest for the top job began. In 1929 he launched a programme of collectivisation and industrialisation to turn his country of peasants into a modern workforce? The cost was astronomical with several million dying of starvation. Worse was to come in the killings of 1936-1939 that saw countless millions dead.
He had all opposition eliminated through a series of purges. Those who did not co-operate were executed or put into concentration camps. Stalin has surely amassed the greatest toll of killings of all time."
In the process he has become the world’s number-one tyrant and is likely to remain the same to the very end. 
"Russia turns its Back on Stalin's Evil Past." The Kingdom. <http://www.the-kingdom.ie/news/story/?trs=cwojojsnau> (1 June, 2009).

IS ATHEISM SATANISM?

Some Christians believe that atheism is a form of Satanism. That belief is partially right and partially wrong. Atheism is not Satanism as it is generally understood and practiced, but it is Satanism by biblical standards.

---

The most fundamental characteristic of satanic movements is their allegiance to Satan and rebellion against the God of the Bible. Such groups vary in their beliefs from being violent to being somewhat eccentric and just plain comical. Atheism is a philosophy which does not have any allegiance to Satan, since obviously they do not believe that he exists, but they do reject the God of the Bible and His standards and they do preach the elevation of self as the ultimate source of ethical standards and a philosophy which has led many to immoral and self-destructive lives.

In short, they do consciously embrace a god -- and it is "the self". Unfortunately many of them do not simply reject Christianity and proceed to mind their own business; they invest their energy in indoctrinating others into their viewpoints. Some, in fact, become evangelical in their fervor and aggressive in their approach. They clearly and desperately want adepts and they will invest time and money to accomplish their aim.

But what does the Bible say about atheists?

According to the Bible there is no such thing as being free from God and becoming “independent.” If one rejects God’s ways, he automatically joins the "other" camp and that camp is Satan’s camp. Satan is “the Prince of the Power of the spirit that now works in the children of disobedience.” (Ephesians 2:2).

Atheists are “children of disobedience." They have no use for God’s commandments, though some may say that some commandments may have some "social value."

Many have a particular hatred toward the God of the Bible and some openly blaspheme Him and His ways with vehemence. Their spirit is the same bitter spirit that Satan and his rebellious demons have toward God. 

Yet, in spite of their anger, their offensive diatribes and their sinful ways, we must remember that Jesus Christ died for them as well and that in the past several atheists have mended their ways and have become committed disciples of Jesus Christ. A few went on to become famous Christian apologists.

Though they are our adversaries, we must not see them as detestable enemies. We are to love them as Christ loves them, and we must not treat them with disrespect and disdain.

Atheism is therefore a philosophy that emanates from Satan. It leads to abandoning the true God and to idolizing the self.  Furthermore it, at times, supports lifestyles which are dangerous and self-destructive.

Atheism, therefore, must be opposed, and we must do so without relenting, as we must oppose any other form of Satanism.

Michael C.

Suggested Readings (On this site)

Evil Atheists

Immoral Atheists

Atheist Arrogance

Ex- Atheists

Suggested Readings (Other sites)

Satanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Exposing the Atheist (Atheism in Atheism)

The Grey Point: Atheism = Satanism + Humanism

Free Booklet from UCG.org

(No Follow up)

Does God Exist?

Evolution Demolition

Evolution Ex Nihilo

by Henry Morris, Ph.D. *

Evolutionists have frequently criticized creationism as unscientific because of its basic commitment to the doctrine of creation ex nihilo —that is, "creation out of nothing." The idea that God simply called the universe into existence by His own power, without using any pre-existing materials, is rejected out of hand by evolutionists, since this would involve supernatural action, which is unscientific by definition (that is, by their definition).

Yet now we hear evolutionary cosmogonists maintaining that the universe evolved itself out of nothing! Creationists at least postulate an adequate Cause to produce the universe—that is, an infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent, self-existing, personal, Creator God. For those who believe in God, creation ex nihilo is plausible and reasonable. But even if people refuse to acknowledge a real Creator, they should realize that a universe evolving out of nothing would contradict the law of cause-and-effect, the principle of conservation of mass/energy, the law of increasing entropy, and the very nature of reason itself. How can they say such things?

Yet, listen, for example, to Edward P. Tryon, Professor of Physics at the City University of New York, one of the first to propound this idea:

"In 1973, I proposed that our Universe had been created spontaneously from nothing (ex nihilo), as a result of established principles of physics. This proposal variously struck people as preposterous, enchanting, or both."1

Naturally it would! But a decade later it has become semi-official "scientific" doctrine, and cosmogonists are taking it quite seriously.

For many years, the accepted evolutionary cosmogony has been the so-called big-bang theory. However, there have always been many difficulties with this concept, one of which is to explain how the primeval explosion could be the cause of the complexity and organization of the vast cosmos, and another of which is to explain how a uniform explosion could generate a heterogeneous universe. Creationists have been stressing these problems for years, but now evolutionists themselves are beginning to recognize them.

"There is no mechanism known as yet that would allow the Universe to begin in an arbitrary state and then evolve to its present highly ordered state."2

"The cosmological question arises from cosmologists' habit of assuming that the universe is homogeneous. Homogeneity is known to be violated on the small scale by such things as galaxies and ordinary clusters, but cosmologists held out for a large-scale over-all homogeneity. Now if a supercluster can extend halfway around the sky, there doesn't seem too much room left to look for homogeneity."3

Richard Dawkins is a bigot

I just read something entertaining from an Atheist and thought I would link to it for the Dick fans out there.

Even some Atheists are noticing and exposing this joker. That is quite refreshing.

Richard Dawkins is a bigot

Evolutionists Were Wrong Again

Once again it was reported today that Evolutionists were wrong about something... yet again.

Evidently the "Scientists find big differences in Y chromosomes of men, chimps"

I did find the first comment in the article spot on when it says:

"No, it may indicate that the human didn't come from the ape to begin with.

Funny how that logical possibility didn't even occur to them."

This article reminded me of another article that I read last year called

Evolution of the appendix: A biological 'remnant' no more.

In a past post it was mentioned that "Evolutionary theory artificially rules out a kind of cause before it has a chance to speak by the evidence. The cause of intelligence. This is why they pigeon hole themselves and scientists often wear, with pride, the title of metaphysical naturalism. Does anyone now see the dangers of scientists taking philosophical positions such as this?"

Someday, hopefully soon, they will understand they are going down a rabbit hole and getting deeper and deeper into a failed religion of falsehood.

bit.ly/wrongagain

Atheists Adopted a Worldview That Science Never Intended

"The Darwinian revolution was not merely the replacement of one scientific theory by another, as had been the scientific revolutions in the physical sciences, but rather the replacement of a world view, in which the supernatural was accepted as a normal and relevant explanatory principle, by a new world view in which there was no room for supernatural forces."

--Ernst Mayr (1904 – 2005) Professor of Zoology at Harvard University

I just read an article that backed up this quote.

The article was called The Burden of Proof: How Atheism Has Adopted a Worldview That Science Never Intended

"I assume that most atheists, who are generally intelligent people, are smart enough to realize that standing from the sidelines and claiming that there is no value in something that they do not practice themselves is not a defensible position. Atheists obviously don't know the value of spiritual practice, because they don't experience its value. Its a bit like someone who has sat idle in front of a computer for most of their lives telling a soccer player that there's no value in soccer. Coming from a non-soccer player, the statement means absolutely nothing..."

"...When and where, in the history of science, do our greatest scientists tell us that one should live their lives believing only in that which can be proven? Who of them has said that it is more 'intelligent' to accept nothing in life but modern western scientific proof?"

It was certainly worth the read.

The Problem of Evil Atheism

From antiquity to today, the evil in the world has always been a powerful mandate for evolutionary thinking. God would not have designed or created this evil world, so it must have originated by the blind play of natural law. For centuries this solution has fueled atheism, but from where did evil-ness come?

The evil in the world is obvious and upsetting. Atheists, no less than others and perhaps even more so, are exercised by creation's terrors. Earthquakes and tsunamis kill thousands, diseases terrorize, floods destroy and droughts starve. Then there is the seemingly unending narrative of predation in the biological world. Nature is red in tooth and claw, as Lord Tennyson put it.

Atheists often proclaim this problem of evil as a justification for their beliefs but ironically this evil is as much a problem for atheism as it is a motivation. The problem is that atheism fails to explain the existence of evil.

Atheists say that we are able to identify evil as evil because the knowledge of what is evil evolved in our brains. But if that is true then there is no such thing as objective evil. Instead, evil is subjective. We may generally agree that something is evil, but that is only because of similar molecular interactions in our brains that happened to evolve, not because that thing is itself evil. There is no immaterial, objective standard which defines evil-ness.

One might think that atheists could agree with all this, but it is not so simple. Atheists could dispose of objective evil, but then they lose their raison d' etre. God is no longer responsible for creating or allowing evil because there is no such thing as true, objective evil. It is all just in our heads.

In fact, atheists very much do believe there is an objective standard. And they very much hold God to that standard. As PZ Myers wrote:

We go right to the central issue of whether there is a god or not. We're pretty certain that if there were an all-powerful being pulling the strings and shaping history for the benefit of human beings, the universe would look rather different than it does.

This is religion and it is the driving issue. It is no different than what David Hume and thousands of other atheists have been saying for centuries. God wouldn't do it that way and so our only option is atheism. This is what animates atheists. They cannot then turn around and drop their weapon, as though they never used it.

The Evolutionary Paradigm Breeds Atheists

They have no where else to go. There entire industry, careers, and grants are geared to the paradigm of evolution. If wrong, then there is a Creator. These points were discussed in the article named "What Do Scientists Really Think?" that reviews a new book called, 

Science vs Religion: What Scientists Really Think.

We get some of the insight and opinions of secular scientists for example, that was quoting the book, "None of the religious scientists I talked with supported the theory of intelligent design. (94% of religious scientists think that evolution is the best explanation for the development of life on earth)." (pp. 29-30).

Why would they? As Expelled, the Movie points out they would be laughed out, or fired, for such blasphemy towards science. Little do they know science was encouraged in the original Christian universities that searches for the 'Fingerprints Of God'. 

Harvard and Yale (originally Puritan) and Princeton (originally Presbyterian) once had rich Christian histories.

Harvard was named after a Christian minister. Yale was started by clergymen, and Princeton’s first year of class was taught by Reverend Jonathan Dickinson. Princeton’s crest still says “Dei sub numine viget,” which is Latin for “Under God she flourishes.”(AIG)

Yea, 'under God she flourishes' and not under God, they will fail. Evidenced by the current Evolutionary Paradigm. Evolution is the biggest lie ever perpetuated on mankind, besides man causing global warming that is.

Someone that reviewed the book said "Perhaps its most surprising finding is that nearly a quarter of the atheists and agnostics describe themselves as 'spiritual.'"

O'rly? Closet Christians? No such animal. 

The author, Elaine Ecklund, attempts to show that "Only a small minority are actively hostile to religion. Ecklund reveals how scientists-believers and skeptics alike-are struggling to engage the increasing number of religious students in their classrooms and argues that many scientists are searching for "boundary pioneers" to cross the picket lines separating science and religion."

Restating the Positions of this Blog

It's time to restate the main positions of this blog:

ATHEIST INTELLECTUAL RESPONSIBILITIES

IF Atheists believe their position is based on logic and/or evidence, and is therefore rational,
THEN they should be compelled to provide the logic or evidence which supports their belief;
ELSE they are not what they claim to be.

ATHEIST DEFINITION AND REDEFINITION

Many Atheists now claim “not to have any god theories”, a claim which is intended to help themselves avoid having to support their own position: they know they cannot. They are, however, subject to the following:

IF creating entity theories exist, THEN either a person has heard of creating entity theories, or has not.

IF a person has not heard of creating entity theories, THEN he likely has no such theories himself. (this is ignorance, not Atheism).

IF a person has heard of God/creating entity theories, THEN one of the following applies:

(a) He forgets them or ignores them; (recurrent ignorance)
(b) He rejects them; (Atheism)
(c) He requires more information; (Agnosticism)
(d) He accepts one of them; (Deist)

Atheism Analyzed

They say they don't believe in God because they don't have evidence. As if they never believe in anything without having evidence. But could it be the fact that they just don't want to because they are purely evil? And they want to live life how they want to, so they won't submit to God's laws? 

I think that's the more accurate interpretation. They already know there is a God. That's why they spend all this time talking about him. They know he exists, but they are pissed off at him. They're mad because they don't want to submit to his Laws, and they know in the end they will be punished severely for it and they feel it's not fair. So they come on here to refute his existence and degrade him and his followers. Because they know they are completely condemned.

They are just like satan. satan will not submit to God and didn't want to obey him but he wanted to be his own god. And now he's pissed because he's condemned. So he goes around looking for mortal humans to corrupt. To get them to follow him and hate God's people and God himself. Is this the truth?

Atheists Are Stupid

The Theory Of Evolution Is An Evil Lie From Satan And Needs To Be Abolished From Society

By Theodore Shoebat

The Theory of Evolution has no place in civilized society. It is a tyrannical ideology, never composed for the sake of scientific discovery (as it was with Newton), but for the conquest of the world, the ascending of government over the Laws of God, the extermination of the helpless, the degeneration of human life, the enslavement of man under a select elite, and ultimately, the obliteration of Christianity.


Here is a video I made illustrating some points as to why Evolutions needs to be abolished:



Evolution is a dangerous and tyrannical ideology, that teaches that “superior” people need to exterminate the “inferior” people. Both Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer (the one who coined the term Survival of the Fittest) believed in the oppression and extermination of what they deemed as inferior peoples. Therefore the Theory of Evolution has no place in civilized society and must be banned.
Charles Darwin wrote of his envisioning of a utopia, in which the ‘inferior’ races will be exterminated and the ‘superior’ people thus allowed to surpass in civilization:

At some future point, not distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. (Darwin 1871, pp. 200–201, Vol. 1)

Robert Spencer, described Survival of the Fittest (a term he coined), as a utopia in which the society submits to the state:

The Theory Of Evolution Is An Evil Lie From Satan And Needs To Be Abolished From Society | Walid ShoebatWalid Shoebat

Evolution: Modern Myth (100 WAYS to KILL DARWIN'S EVOLUTION)

Dawkins Evolution Test: The Dirty Secrets of Darwin's Evolution --
Evolution: is it the BIGGEST LIE ever told -or- just POOR SCIENCE? http://godinanutshell.com/

The
Theory of Evolution is often promoted by late night comics, such as
Bill Maher, and heavily promoted by atheist spokespeople such as,
Richard Dawkins, using the primary techniques of mocking science, those
who question the old theory's EXTREMELY long lists (Everest size
mountains) of weaknesses, and mockery at religions

Special
acknowledgements, Dr. Chuck Missler, Dr. Carl Smith - as well as those
doctors, Phds. genetists, and one virologist who helped with ongoing
advice for the content of this video.

Special thanks also to
Richard Dawkins, head hardcore Atheist / Evolution spokesman and Science
/ Religion Mocker who has made up so much nonsense in sheer volume at
this point, and comfortably flip flopped on so many critical issues,
that it makes Darwin's 150 year old theory of evolution not only look
intellectually dishonest, but this easy to tear apart in under an hour.
Thank you, Richard Dawkins.

Evolution Theme Music Composed by

Transform the World by Trevor DeMaere http://youtu.be/DHKQw3HnCGQ
Divine Afflatus by Michael Donor http://www.youtube.com/user/MichaelDo...
Theme Music Composed by Sweden Composer Kevin Ohlsson http://www.youtube.com/user/Diskrensare

The Theory of Everything FULL LENGTH DVD by Trey Smith. http://youtu.be/mtBz1roiQR8

Trey
Smith, for information on the time Trey Smith committed a safe robbery
on TV pastor, Mike Murdock in 1999 (Benny Hinn fundraiser) Mike Murdock
Safe Robbery http://youtu.be/kYY5Zz9yV1E

Official Website covering the TV pastor / Mike Murdock safe robbery in 1999 http://readthieves.com/

Also by Trey Smith / God in a Nutshell
Theory of Everything: http://youtu.be/mtBz1roiQR8
Enoch: Book of Enoch -- http://youtu.be/BZGN6EKjvAo
Nephilim: Origin of Genetic Evil http://youtu.be/1zz8_MxcnzY


EVOLUTION DEFINITIONS


Evolution
(Evolution-ism) -- religious movements / political lobbies /
definitions --- Evolution-ism as well as the Atheism religious movement
are often described as, "the religious belief system that most all
science laws, modern knowledge, as well as ancient records are a product
of an unknown grand conspiracy.

Bottom line, the belief that
given enough time dragonflies turn into dinosaurs, dogs become whales,
and monkeys turn into people. -- As a comical note: In 2013, there are
probably a few genetic problems with that idea.

Evolution Quotes - Evolution Quick Notes

Charles
Darwin speaks on Fossils in his own day (NOTE: Knowledge of modern
Fossils / Geology has only made the problem Darwin is commenting on much
worse.)

"The number of intermediate varieties which have
formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every
geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?
Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic
chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection
which can be urged against my theory." - Charles Darwin

Evolution
/ Evolutionism as a cultural movement is a facet of the modern Atheist
belief structures -- it is largely based on those who are "vigorous
fans" so-to-speak of the theories, writings, and speculations of Charles
Darwin. Though Darwin's conjectures and thoughts were violations of
many known science laws even in his own day -- such as Entropy in
Thermodynamics, Mendel's Laws of Genetics, the fossil evidence, etc -- a
writing of his in 1859 titled the "Origin of Species" (often referred
to as "evolution") took on political usefulness (ex. Nazi Eugenics
programs, Marxism, Stalin, oppression of socialist Russia, etc..).

Other
theories were put forth by the Darwin family over the years, such as
his son George Darwin's "Moon Theory" (that the moon was spit out of the
ocean) -- none took hold of public -or-political attention.

It
was assumed by some -- perhaps even Darwin himself --- that the "flaws"
in his theory of evolution would "lighten" as science progressed.
Though, with a wealth of quotes (like the ones listed above) it would be
difficult for one to doubt that Darwin himself -- at minimum -- began
losing "faith" in his theory even during his own life time. The
"scientific troubles" for evolution in 1859 did NOT lighten, but
conversely, have grown to a point many would argue is much beyond fatal.


There is NO theory known to man that violates as many other
science laws in sheer absolute volume as Darwin's 1859 theory of
evolution. Note: There has also NEVER been as much FRAUD committed for
the furtherance of ANY single science idea in history. (many, many hoax
"missing link" finds over the years, etc...)

It is the position
of this video that the theory of evolution has LESS fossil evidence than
BIGFOOT, and directly conflicts EVERY SINGLE observation of the known
world itself... from the cells, to the DNA, to the stars, to the quantum
particles making up the whole place.

Neurosurgeon Ben Carson Rejects Darwinian Evolution

On this episode of ID the Future,
host David Boze speaks with Dr. Ben Carson, renowned pediatric
neurosurgeon and Darwin doubter. Dr. Carson is also a best-selling
author, a celebrated and acclaimed surgeon, and he actually had his life
made into a movie which starred Academy Award winning actor Cuba
Gooding, Jr. Dr. Carson was invited to deliver the 2012 commencement
speech at Emory University. Unfortunately, upon uncovering his
non-allegiance to Darwinian ideology, 500 faculty members and students
alike signed a letter in protest of his welcome. Listen in to hear Dr.
Carson discuss this ill treatment and why his acute knowledge of the
brain has led him to reject Darwinism.

Dr. Ben Carson is the
Director of the Division of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins. An
internationally renowned physician, Dr. Carson has authored over 100
neurosurgical publications, along with three best-selling books, and has
been awarded 38 honorary doctorate degrees and dozens of national merit
citations.

Links:

Dr. Ben Carson on Darwinian Dogma and the DNA/Software Analogy:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/...

Carson's website:
http://realbencarson.com

If there is a God, why is there evil?

Agnostics ask: If God is all-powerful and all loving, then why does He permit evil and suffering in the world? Another agnostic asked, If there is a God, why is there evil? Why do bad things happen to good people? Why is there so much needless suffering in the world, from natural disasters and such? Why would a loving God do this? Numerous and various answers have been given but permanently settling the issue is impossible because so many of our answers raise further questions. Nevertheless, the lack of ability to answer the question perfectly does not mean that we cannot offer solutions. Of course, I do not assume to be able to answer these questions definitively, but I can offer some solutions.

I will begin by saying let us first consider the meaning of the word “evil”.  

What is evil?

Evil is usually seen as the dualistic opposite of good. Definitions of evil vary, as does the analysis of its root motives and causes; however, evil is commonly associated with conscious and deliberate wrongdoing, disobeying the commandments of God or gods or the rules of society, discrimination designed to harm others, humiliation of people designed to diminish their psychological well-being and dignity, destructiveness, motives of causing pain or suffering for selfish or malicious intentions, and acts of unnecessary or indiscriminate violence, in contrast, there can be no such thing as evil apart from the existence of God. Why not? Without God, without a moral law giver, we would not have any objective (real) standards (laws) by which we might deem something to be evil. We would not be able to conclusively say, “Kidnapping children and murdering them is evil.” We could say, "We don't like these things." But we could not call that kind of behavior evil (that which is morally wrong). It would just be a matter of opinion (one man's opinion against another's).