Atheists are Being Intellectually Dishonest with Themselves

It seems as though Atheists are being intellectually dishonest and thus robbing themselves the opportunity in believing, there is a God.

Atheists seem to be using some kind of pseudo reasoning pertaining to anything related to God or His Existence.

I find it odd that posters write about logical absolutes as though they were a physical entity. Logical absolutes exist in the mind and only in the mind (conceptually) of the one who believes them to exist or is being applied in their reasoning process. What would be the advantages of logical absolutes in reasoning to someone who does not believe they exist or does not apply them in there reasoning? None, they do not exist to them, because they are not being applied. In the question of does “God exist anyway.”

This is a reason why we have different worldviews. In the Atheist worldview they do not exist so they do not exist to Atheists. But ask yourself, how would you be able to conduct your life without logical absolutes in your reasoning process?? Not just in the question of does “God exist” but any and all reasoning. Think about it.

Nothing forces us to believe they exist. Only when one who believes they exist and applies them, do they exist, and it is reflected in the way the believer reasons. They reap the benefits of this reasoning.

A part of the reason I believe that God exists is because I believe that there is logical absolutes, thus I get the benefit of this reasoning because it leads me to believe, “God exists”. One leads to the other.

In actual fact everyone uses logical absolutes in their reasoning all the time, but Atheists do not want to admit it when it comes to where they originated from, because this question corners them in their reasoning. How can Atheists state only in the question, does God exist and say no, and then use logical absolutes in their other reasoning. Atheists are not being honest with themselves.
Logical absolutes seem to be impossible to get away from in our reasoning process... If Atheists believe they do not exist, then try doing all your reasoning without them.
I believe that they exist because they reflect the mind and character of their Originator. They seem to be conducive with honesty and the prevention of distortion of Reality, and thus in doing so reveal the character of their initiator.

It is extremely interesting to be able to observe patterns in our reality but I’d say that the better word that describes what we call patterns is “Order”. The word pattern implies no progression but order does. And we do observe progressive order.

Do these patterns or (order) exist then only because logical absolutes exist?? These patterns (order) do exist, so it leads us to believe that logical absolutes exist. It is progressive; one leads us to believe the other.

Christians believe that the universe as a purpose. It exists so we may exist. It is created for this purpose and does support life conducive to our existence. Atheists seem to be asking themselves the question, “How does it exist”? They look down (to the smallest element) for the answers. But Christians ask, “Why does it exist”?? Christians look up (to the biggest element, to the Originator). Christians believe everything as a purpose.

If an Atheist said. “I do not believe that God exists so to me God does not exist”. I would say that I think they are making an honest statement and they believe this to be true to them.

To believe anything to exist, humanity must first experience it.

I can say to you that “my dog is in my office lying near my feet.” Why do I believe this?? Because I can see him, reach down and touch him etc. I am experiencing my dog. But if my dog were not lying there would I be able to make myself believe that he is there?? If I had my eyes closed and headphones on when he came into the room, would I be able to say that my dog is sitting at my feet?? No. If my dog were not lying there would I be able to experience (see or touch) him?? No. If I did not see, hear or touch him (no experience that causes me not to believe) how could I believe that he is lying there?? I could not. Take a quarter, place it in your hand and close your hand. Now tell yourself that there is no quarter in your hand. Do you believe yourself?? No.

This same reasoning is used in all reasonable perceptual and conceptual thought, how can you think (believe) or know anything exists until you first experience it?? You cannot.

We use this conceptual progressive reasoning in every other part of our life, why would Atheists choose not to use it to evaluate this question, Does God Exist? When Atheists do this they are being illogical and anti-intellectual.

Belief in God works the same way. You have to experience It before you believe It. There is nothing mystical about it, and to say otherwise is anti-intellectual or dishonest. Believing or knowing God exists is an experience, and is progressive in nature like all reasonable conceptual thought, you have to experience Him before you can believe in Him.

How can Atheists say “God does not exist”, when they have not honestly given themselves the chance to believe He does exist? I believe Atheists are being honest with Christians but they are being intellectually dishonest with themselves. Atheists are not using conventional reasoning when they are pondering this question.

“Does God Exist”??


Blessings.

The Logic of the Trinity

There has been great debate concerning the logic of the Trinity. It seems that the only way to comprehend what the Trinity is, are in the terms of an analogy. Should it not be what we already have observed to exist and is accepted?

If the Trinity is to be recognized as how God Is, should there be some evidence of this conceptually and perceptually in our world today?? Creation should logically mimic its’ Creator in some way, should it not??

Trinity Analogy

The following is referenced and accepted in the realm of science:

Space - which is made up of height, width and depth. height is Space but it is not width or depth. Width is Space but it is not height or depth. Depth is Space but it is not height or width. All three when separate, height, width and depth are Space and when combined is Space.

Time - which is made up of past, present and future. Past is Time but it is not present or future. Present is Time but it is not past or future. Future is Time but it is not past or present. All three when separate, past, present and future is time, and when combined is Time.

Matter - which is made up of solid, liquid and gas. Solid is Matter but it is not liquid or gas. Liquid is Matter but it is not solid or gas. Gas is Matter but it is not solid or liquid. All three when separate, solid, liquid and gas are Matter, and when combined is Matter.

Is it illogical then, when??

The Trinity – which is made up of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Father is God but He is not Son or Holy Spirit. Son is God but He is not Father or Holy Spirit. Holy Spirit is God but He is not Son or Father. All three when separate, Father, Son and Holy Spirit is God, and when combined is GOD. Thus the Order of God

Why is the logic of the Trinity rejected when the same logic is universally accepted by science when referencing space, time and matter??

It all comes down to the choices we make, when we are aware of the evidence.

Does Secular Society have what it takes to meet the Demands of Reality??

I am not here to convince anyone of the existence of a Creator. But I do ask that you would at least “think”.

Throughout the history of the 20th & the 21st century we have seen examples of Societies’ inability to deal with the demands that face humanity. Rather than to deal with the immanent dangers that is being inflicted on the world today, Secular Society decides to deal with these threats by using the new buzz (PC) words, like non-intervention (appeasement). Like this will make these threats to go away. But this is the equivalency of baking a cake for a tyrant (tyranny).

Have we not learned our lessons from history?? It seems not. When did appeasement ever work?? It has been tried but failed to resolve any danger. Most commonly, appeasement is used for the policy of accepting the imposed conditions of an aggressor in lieu of armed resistance. It means giving in to demands of an aggressor in order to avoid war. Since World War II, the term has gained a negative connotation, in politics and in general, of weakness, cowardice and self-deception.The most famous example is Neville Chamberlain's foreign policy also known as Munich Agreement during the period 1937-1939, when he pursued a policy of appeasement towards Adolf Hitler's expansionist ambitions. But he was rewarded by bombs on London.A short list of attempts at appeasement, present and past:

• Iran
• PLO (Yasser Arafat)
• Saddam Hussein (Iraq)
• Hezbollah
• Hamas
• Edi Amin
• Nazis
• Sudan

I believe there are reasons why Secular/Atheist Governments and Society believe that non-intervention and appeasement will work. For the most part secular society subscribes to Atheism. And it is for this reason I believe they will fail.

So, to determine why they would believe this even though history screams of it never working. I conducted some of my own research into why Atheists would be lead to believe that appeasement would be successful in dealing with a threat to society, even though it never as shown to have worked in the past.

To begin, I had to first of all, understand what Atheism is.
I went to many Atheist websites and Atheist & Secular Internet Forums and asked for input. Where I asked three questions:

Question 1. What is the definition of Atheism??
I got many attempts by Atheists to give me a definition. Such as, Atheism is like a child who as not yet been told about a Creator, so they experience non-belief or ignorance to the concept. Or compared their position to that of an inanimate object like a chair, using reasoning that a chair cannot believe in a Creator.
So, then I asked for an instance where this type of reasoning was ever used in a circumstance other than to define Atheism?? I got NO answer.

It seems as though why Atheists cannot define Atheism is, because they refuse to admit that they made a choice not to believe. They say there is no evidence of a God. But there is evidence of a God (and moral standards) but they choose not to believe it. Atheists say there is insufficient evidence, but there is still evidence. And they chose not to believe it. So in Reality, they made a choice not to believe. They refuse to admit that there was any type of choice involved, but this defies logic and all rational thought.

So, I am lead to believe the following;

Atheism is not a position but rather a condition.

It is a type of Psychological Self Preservation, and I define it as so.

Atheism, “a mind state of non-position or non-choice as related to the belief in a God or a concept of a God (theism).
When the mind is faced with an extreme confliction that it is unable to resolve.When faced with a decision of paramount importance to the person, the mind resorts to a state of non-position or non-choice in the attempt to subconsciously or consciously rid itself of responsibility of making the choice (a decision). An attempt to negate responsibility for the choice (decision) when one of the choices could lead to the unthinkable. A form of “psychological self preservation.”
Atheists believe by doing this, that if and when he/she as to face a Creator in judgment he/she will be able say to their Creator. “I did not know or I was ignorant to the evidence that a God could exist.” Thus, they think this would make them innocent before God.”

Question 2. What solutions do an Atheist (secular) country or for that matter any socialist countries have to fight off the new onslaught of Extremism??
Though I got many responses to my questions, I did not get one fruitful response from any Atheist or Liberal to deal with the subject. Many chose to accuse me of being a “racist”, “intolerant” and “inciting hate”. Recognize the buzz words?? They all refused to deal with the subject because it offended their sensibilities. Thus, I am lead to believe that the only thing that an extremist group as to do is “accuse secular society of being “racist”, “intolerant” or “inciting hate”. And secular society will bow (appease) to the accusations of these statements.

In 2008 we have a new threat, Islamic Extremism, which threatens the free world. Why do Secular Governments and Atheist society believe that non-intervention (appeasement) will work with these terrorist groups now??Does Secular & Atheist Society have what it takes to deal with this new Reality?? I believe that they DO NOT, because of the one thing that it lacks. They do not have a set of “Universal Moral Standards”.

Rather than Moral Standards, Secular & Atheist Society bases everything on “preferences”, and these preferences are determined by the individual. “If they want it and it feels good, then there can’t be anything wrong with it”. The problem is that thinking like this allows for the acceptance of anything and everything in the name of tolerance. When Standards are put on Secular & Atheist Society, their sensibilities are offended. The greatest fear that a Secular & Atheist Society has is that it be called Racist or intolerant towards others. Although, Secular & Atheist Society has no problem with criticizing or offending those who do have Christian Moral Standards.

These Standards strengthen governments and societies who choose to have them and incorporate them into their Constitutions. It binds its people together in a unity. When they are faced with a threat they can rally behind these Standards. After all, that is what unities them to deal with such threats. Such societies are ready, willing and able to say NO to any tyrant who may come on the world scene.

It is very hard to fight an ideology, but just imagine trying to fight one without your own ideology (Moral Standards). I would dare to say, that it is impossible to fight an ideology without Standards. But keep in mind; the extremist groups have their own “Standards” which binds them together in a fanatical unity, these standards are called Sharia Law. The only difference is, Islamic Extremists insist, can be forced up on us with violence.

The secular media fares no better but mirrors secular society. It hides behind the claim of “a blind unbiased reporting”. This media no longer cares for the pursuit of truth but rather the pursuit of sensationalism. It rarely asks for intent but flows with the stories which ever way and twisted they may be. There is no longer “right or wrong”, but just two sides to any conflict. They pay homage to tyranny, and bask in the deceit and evil intent of these tyrants. Secular media has paid society back for the freedoms they enjoy with nothing more than activist rants that do not serve free society well.

So, this is another reason I believe that Secular and Atheist Society is unable to deal with the Reality that is before us.

Question 3. Does Atheists Society have the courage to meet the demands of Reality??
“How will a Atheists society be able to be withstand any threat, with not even a meaning of who or what they are, do they not exist?? How will they govern without any Standards?? When they have nothing to agree upon. How will they be able to fend off any type of threat when they have no Standards to guide them and assure them of the right decision?? The Golden Rule, but that’s just Appeasement.

What if, another Hitler comes along and wants what they have?? What will they do?? The same thing that Neville Chamberlain done in the UK in WW11, a pretty word called, “nonintervention” (appeasement). But Thank God we had men at that time that had what it took to get the job done. Sir Winston Churchill and Pres. Roosevelt. Men that had the Courage the meet the demands of Reality. And BTW. THEY GOT THE JOB DONE.

The biggest hurdle Atheism seems to have is that “it does not have a Grasp on what Reality is” and their denial that it even exists. For the most part Atheists believe that Darwinian Evolution is responsible for all life on earth and thus believe that there is no true reality but only chemical reactions of a human’s mind and how he/she perceives their own reality. Thus reality is carried around by each human in their minds. But this is completely illogical. And how is it possible for all humans at the same time to perceive of the exact same thing (reality), this is impossible.

I will give an example.

What color are the roses in the below picture??

There are many different colors of roses. Then ask yourself, why are we all seeing the same color roses?? Would this not tell you that there is only one Reality??

I would contend that there is only one Reality, and that it is the one that our Creator has created for us. I also contend that humanity gets itself into all manner of trouble when we turn from this “Real Reality”.

This is the biggest reason I believe that Atheist & Secular governments and society believes that appeasement will work against tyranny. They are not dealing in the True Reality but choose to exist only in their own minds. They do not seem to understand that decisions made in their own minds (their reality) also cause external reactions to their decisions and all of humanity is affected by these decisions and reactions.

So, what should we say? Does Secularism & Atheism have what it takes to face the demands of the "Reality" that is before it??

I say NO, they DO NOT. Because they refuse to deal with “Reality” and admit that this Reality has a set of Standards that was created for the benefit and the well being of all humanity, for both believers and non-believers. And until this is acknowledged, they will subject themselves to a non-existent delusion.

Will the leaders that are required to deal with these threats come forward and have the courage of their convictions and stand upon their morals (standards)?? This is what I am interested in seeing. Or do these leaders even exist anymore?? We will see.

So, what do YOU think of our “Reality”??

Predestination Does Not Exist for Humans.

What the confused seem to think is, that predestination was created by our Creator. But this is NOT so. There is no such phenomenon called predestination. We think like humans because we are human and think in terms of a human who exists in this time and space. What some but not you, think predestination is, does NOT exist in our time and space. Some believe because that they are able to conceive of predestination it exists, but it does not exist in our time and space. Some are unable to perceive of this because they are unable to conceive of a God that is omnipresent.

Definition:
Predestination (foreknowledge) is a religious concept, which involves the relationship between God and His creation। The religious character of predestination distinguishes it from other ideas about determinism and free will. Those who believe in predestination, such as John Calvin, believe that before the creation God determined the fate of the universe throughout all of time and space.

Definition:
Free Will states that a person is restricted and affected by his nature and that his nature not only affects his free will choices, but also limits his ability to equally choose among different options of right and wrong, good and evil. The biblical position is this one. "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised,"

The concept we call “FREE WILL” seems to be very endearing to our Creator, even though our physical bodies long for sin our spirit can be unaffected by the sin. But if we allow ourselves to be subjected to evil things, in continual sinning our spirit grows weaker and our connection (Jesus and The Holy Spirit) between us and the Father becomes constricted. Evil can only get to us through physical means but it does weaken our spirit if we keep sinning. After all FREE WILL is the part of us that gives us the ability to find HIM and to be redeemed by HIM. FREE WILL is what HE has endowed us with to give us the ability to FREELY CHOOSE HIM.

How can we say that we understand God’s omnipresence and how God interacts with it as it relates to His creation, is this incredibly bold?? Humanity is incapable of understanding the attributes that God has given us, and we now understand an attribute we do not possess??

I believe the Predestination is a misconception.

Maybe it is more like this:

I will describe someone and their attributes and then show some of HIS.

Joe is loving, kind, sharing, forgiving and patient. (Sometimes) Joe

God is loving, kind, sharing, forgiving, patient but He has more attributes than Joe does. He is also omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnicompetent and omni-benevolent, omni-orderly holy, divine and CREATOR.

But He did not give Joe all of His attributes, but He did Joe us enough to say that Joe was made in His Imagine. HE did not create predestination but it stems from the conception of His omnipresence.

In the same way, Joe is kind because this stems from my ability to Love. Or Joe is kind because Joe is Loving.

In saying this, I still believe there are those that have a better chance than some others do. But all of these reasons are affected by other humans, such as the prayers of others, parents being Christians and past generations’ prayer for their future generations, just to name a few.
What disturbs me about this teaching is, there are non-believers who think that they cannot believe because they do not believe. Or they are not one of these predestined individuals (elect).

Dear Reader, We are all left in the same place and with the same decision (choice) that as to be made. Will we accept what our Creator as offered us or will we deny HIM.

Romans 6:6-25 Romans 8:2-10 2 Peter 3:8-9

Blessings.