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.
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.
