"I don't have a belief! I just reject your evidence for God"
"Atheism isn't a belief. It is a lack of belief!"
"I accept evidence and truth. So, I simply reject the evidence you have presented!"
"I don't know whether or not God exists, I just haven't accepted the God you've presented. This is atheism."
These types of conversations with weak gutless atheists can go on for hours if not days. In an attempt to completely reverse any responsibility or their belief in atheism, some modern atheists will attempt to redefine atheism to mean, "lack of belief." However, one must not allow an atheist off the hook of responsibility to provide solid tangible and falsifiable evidence for such a position. There are four charges I bring against modern day atheists attempt to redefine atheism.
1) It is academically irresponsible. An incredible christian apologetics website, beliefmap.org, provides solid academic definitions for atheism. Atheism is the disbelief in God(s). It is to deny the existence of God. It is to hold the doctrine, teaching, and belief that God does not exist. Check out the provided sources here.
2) It is philosophically irresponsible. If atheism is redefined as a "lack of belief" in God, then atheism becomes a default psychological condition. This would mean that babies and cats are atheists. Are atheists really putting themselves into the same category as a cat? William Lane Craig says of this redefinition, "It is simply irrelevant to justifying a redefinition of a term (like Atheism). What this would show if true is that atheism is a worldview that cannot be proved. It doesn't serve to redefine the term. It would just say it is impossible to have a good reason to affirm atheism – the view that God does not exist. So even if you granted that it is impossible to prove a negative, that's of no comfort to the atheist; that doesn't serve to justify redefining a word. What that simply shows is that the view of atheism is something that couldn't be proved" and furthermore, "Philosophically a belief is just a certain type of mental state which means you accept a certain proposition as true. So it is absurd to claim that you have no beliefs. That is itself a belief – the belief that I have no belief" .
3) It is professionally irresponsible. It is quite pathetic to reject the work of professional atheist philosophers to mere psychology. Many brilliant and professional academics have come up with what they believe to be philosophically sound arguments against God's existence. How pathetic is it for the Christian to teach the atheist about these arguments against God's existence? One may try to use the problem of evil, incoherence in God, divine hiddenness, or other arguments to formulate positive arguments against God's existence. However, these "new atheists" (simply internet atheists) like David Smalley have forsake their duty as atheists is shirking of their responsibility in giving good reasons for atheism. In order for theists, or agnostics, to accept atheism, Atheists should justify their beliefs for atheism.
4) It is historically irresponsible. Classical atheism has always been the rejection of God or the disbelief in God or the belief that God does not exist. It has never been understood as some default psychological state of mind 
5) It is morally irresponsible. It is a dismissal of agnosticism. Agnosticism is the belief, "I don't know whether or not God(s) exist." It simply doesn't make a decision one way or the other. The redefined term of atheism hijacks agnosticism and recreates FOUR categories of belief towards God.
Theism = "I know God exists"
Agnostic Theism = "I'm pretty sure God exists"
Atheism = "I know God doesn't exist"
Agnostic Atheism = "I'm pretty sure God(s) doesn't exist"
This is ridiculous. It does away with agnosticism all together. It incorrectly defines theism as the 100% belief that God exists with no possibility for doubt. It falsely creates a straw man to the theist to claim he or she knows 100% that God exists and has no doubts in their belief concerning this proposition. Furthermore, it attempts to let atheists off the hook by claiming "agnostic atheism." They don't know for sure, but they've simply rejected all the evidence thus presented.
How fair would it be to say, "Theism is the rejection of atheism. I simply don't accept the evidence presented from atheism and thus default to theism. I don't need to present evidence for theism, I simply lack belief in atheism." How would the atheists feel if a theist were to support such a claim to theism?
Redefining atheism isn't right nor fair. It is a coup to withdrawal from the table of conversation and sit back from the distance and criticize without any responsibility. Theists, True Atheists, and Agnostics should NOT allow those who claim atheism to default to such a position. It is disrespectful in the name of atheism and lacks any true character or truth we all (hopefully) are seeking to find.
If any of these danger signs are present in your church, you need to take note. They can signal decline, dead theology, or even death of the church.
Some highlights from today’s episode include:
A few years ago (2014) I had the distinguished honor of listening to a presentation by Dr. Spitzer (Philosopher, Theologian) on NDE or near death experiences. He presented solid information, clinical research, and solid philosophy to formulate a strong argument against naturalism and materialism. How? By confirming Near Death Experiences, out of body experiences, while the person why clinically dead. They were able to verify third party information, like an accident happening outside the hospital and down the street, while being dead. While I am certainly skeptical about all the information and certainly make of the conclusions, it is an interesting study and if true does deal a death blow to physicalism, naturalism, and scientism. To read more, click here or download here.
By Jennifer Hartline: (WARNING: Due to the nature of the Teen Vogue’s disturbing article, this response contains some graphic language.)
In this case, the predator is the fashion magazine.
Teen Vogue is preying on teenagers, particularly teenage girls, since girls are their primary audience. In a recent article, Teen Vogue gives coaching for “the beginner” on “how-to” engage in sodomy. The author of the vile piece calls it “Anal Sex 101.” (I will not link to it because it is predatory and disgusting.)
continue Reading here
I recently finished reading a book, "Mao: The Unknown Story" by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday. This incredible biography is presented as a Historical Narrative in which the authors reveal a historical perspective about Mao's life and monstrous immorality. The reviewers were correct, this was "an atom bomb of a book" (Time Magazine). It was also incredible to perceive how Mao's atheistic naturalism/materialism served as a moral bedrock for his atrocities. The dangers of atheism are too much to bear and should be rejected at all costs. Check out the "highlights" and details from the book: (all quotations are taken from the mentioned listed book)
Mao was an incredibly horrible person and absent of overall moral good and dignity. His atheism was foundational for his moral atrocities as documented by historians. His defiant disbelief in theism drove him to eradicate religion (specifically documented regarding Tibet) and led him to say, “Religion is poison” (453-454).
His immorality of torture, manipulation, deceit, selfish-ambition, hate, greed, and power-crazy tyranny forever defined the heartless Mao. He instructed his soldiers to burn female bodies alive with flaming wicks, specifically their privates, and cut their breasts with small knives (92). He directed the execution of his foes to be paraded as a deterrent to any local uprisings (94). Everyone lived in fear. Many had red-hot gun-rods rammed into their anuses as one of 120 different kinds of torture he would employ (94). Under Mao's leadership, he directed his army to cut open his enemies stomach's and scoop out their heart (94). When overtaking Tibet, Mao directed the Red Army to “drag corpses down from the Mountains” and force the Tibetan’s to “‘Dance on the pit of the corpses’” (448). Mao directed the army towards Mongolian Muslims with, “(one) woman having her teeth pulled out by pliers, then her nose and ears twisted off, before being hacked to death.” They write, “One man had nails driven into his skull. Another had his tongue cut out and then his eyes gouged out. Another was beaten with clubs on the genitals before having gunpowder forced up his nostrils and set alight” (535). Believe it or not, Mao did worse than what was mentioned here.
Regarding this Social Reform he believed the women were capable of doing as much heavy labor as men and was a strong advocate to, “Rely overwhelmingly on women to do farm work” (104). He didn't promote this because he was a feminist, but a selfish tyrant who would stop at nothing to quench his thirst for power. Because all the men were forced into the army, he directed the women to tend to the fields for his own financial gain. Additionally, while taking personal doctors from Russia and nurses from China, he eradicated the Red Cross from his country at the beginning of the Sin-Japanese War and rumored “medicines were poisonous, sent by the Nationalists to murder the Communists. He said the Nationalists also tried to poison the water and spread germs through medicine” (235). He built a base of power through terror. He not only tortured both Communists and Nationalists, but squeezed out every drop of information regarding the Nationalists (opposing political/military force in China).
He also removed any element of privacy in introducing “Social Relationship reform: Tell everyone to write down every single social relationship of any kind” (245). Doesn't that sound like Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, and modern day social media? He also banned firearms and withheld adequate clothing, food, drinking water, and doctors from the people. Furthermore, is it a coincidence that there is a modern attempt to ban guns? Is it a coincidence that much of natural healthy food has been replaced with processed, fat fried, and GMO foods? Our water is polluted with fluoride, or in Flint, Michigan's case outright poisoned. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but our current condition in the 21st century has some of the same tendencies as Mao's Communist China. Many in China died from being unable to protect themselves from wolves freely roaming the hills. Meanwhile, many were forced to “volunteer” their firewood, vegetables, pigs, sheep, and what gold they had which was often their life savings (272).
POWER & CONTROL THROUGH DEATH
Mao was incredibly selfish as Wang Ming said of Mao, “Everything he does is for himself, and he does not care about anything else” (248). He exchanged the wealth and food of the people of China for death and poverty (while he himself lived in luxury). He guarded his stolen food, with armed soldiers, and allowed it to rot while the people turned to cannibalism (63 cases). One specific horror occurred when two parents strangled and ate their eight-year-old son (429). “People were just driven crazy by hunger” (429) and 38 million people died of starvation alone during the Great Leap Forward. Mao said, “There should be celebration rallies when people die” and “death is to be rejoiced over” (430). He cared nothing for human suffering as he said, “Let’s contemplate this, how many people would die if war breaks out. There are 2.7 billion people in the world. One-third could be lost; or, a little more, it could be half…I say that, taking the extreme situation, half dies, half lives, but imperialism would be razed to the ground and the whole world would become socialist” (410).
The biographers write, “Even the Stalinist French were appalled. Mao dismissed concerns about improving living standards: ‘People say that poverty is bad, but in fact poverty is good. The poorer people are, the more revolutionary they are. It is dreadful to imagine a time when everyone will be rich… From a surplus of calories people will have two heads and four legs” (410). Moa supported poverty and suffering that led death. In fact, he regarded the failure of Eastern European countries as a lack of willingness to kill, “We must kill,” he declared, “And we say it’s good to kill” (416). Mao didn’t believe in the God of life, but “dialectics, and so we can’t not be in favor of death” (430). It was his materialism and dialectic philosophy that CAUSED his favor towards death and suffering. “He saw practical advantage in massive deaths, ‘Death have benefits,’ and 'They can fertilize the ground'" (431). The death of others meant power and control for himself. This reminds us of another threat to Mao, religion.
WORLDVIEW - ATHEISM
As previously mentioned, Mao wanted to destroy religion. When invading and destroying the Tibetan’s way of life the biographers note, “Mao was bent on destroying religion, the essence of most Tibetan’s lives” (448). The Panchen Lama wrote, “Holy Scriptures were used for manure, and pictures of the Buddha and sutras were deliberately used to make shoes” (448). Mao’s worldview was more than obvious a naturalistic anti-theistic one. He tried to eradicate religion when attacking surrounding countries and also said “Religion is poison” (453-454). On January 31st, Mao wrote to his two sons An-ying and An-ching in Russia, “… Seeing what progress you have made, I am very happy…I have only one thing to suggest to you both: while you are young, study natural science more, and talk less politics. Politics needs to be talked about, but at the moment you should set your mind on studying natural science… Only science is real learning, and will have boundless use in the future…” (227). His belief in "scientism" is a telling sign about his belief in God, mainly, there wasn't one and therefore one shouldn't waste their time trying to gain knowledge outside of natural science.
What did his materialistic naturalism cause? DEATH. Reports showed that people were dying because they didn’t have food to eat or clothing to wear. His “senior officials who invoked that traditional concept of conscience (liang-xin) to beg him to go easy found themselves being slapped down with remarks: ‘You’d better have less conscience. Some of our comrades too much mercy, not enough brutality, which means they are not so Marxist.’ ‘On this matter,’ Mao said, ‘we indeed have no conscience! Marxism is that brutal’” (387). When the nineteen-year-old Dalai Lama went to Peking, Mao was patronizing and bullying, berating the Dalai Lama for not accepting that “religion is poison” (453-454).
In rejecting God for naturalism, Mao had seemed to become his own god to those whom he ruled over. Mao believed his writings, the Little Red Book, belonged in the company of the Bible, Confucius’s Analects, and the writings of Buddhism (443). Helen Snow, wife of Edgar Snow, told biographers in that, “in 1937, when she was in Yenan, people could still say things like ‘There goes God’ behind Mao’s back. But seven years on, no one dared to say anything remotely so flippant” (242). “Vietnam's ‘poet laureate,’ To Huu, hymned Mao's role in surprisingly frank doggerel:
Kill, kill more…
For the form, good rice, quick collection of taxes…
Worship Chairman Mao, Worship Stalin…"
He was a true Communist built on the Marxist atheism of Stalin as Mao said, “Is Stalin the leader of the world revolution? Of course he is,” and “Who is our leader? It is Stalin. Is there a second person? No.” Finally, “Every member of our Chinese Communist Party is Stalin’s pupil” and “Stalin is the teacher to us all” (276). Mao's recognition of his true father, Stalin, didn't stop his ambition to “control the Earth!” (398). He denounced “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity” as “anti-Marxist” (440) and tried desperately to rule the world. Thankfully, he failed! Mao, built on atheism, was a moral monster. This is somewhat the true and unfortunate reality of atheism, naturalism, physicalism, and materialism. If objective moral and values do not exist, God does not exist. However, objective moral values and duties do exist. Therefore, God exists. Despite what Mao said, did, and brainwashed his followers to believe, his immoral values and duties were truly wrong. Even if Mao did control the earth and brainwashed everyone to believe killing in the name of Communism was right, his moral values and duties would still be objectively wrong. This is why objective moral values and duties serve as a testimony for the truth of God.
As you read this blog post, I hope you are encouraged to fight the good fight for the truthfulness of theism as supported by Christianity. I hope you equip yourself with sound theology, philosophy, science, and as much knowledge as you can grasp. Don't let atheism win in your families, with your friends, in your schools, or in your own mind. Atheism is foolishness that leads to death.
Katy Perry’s back on the charts with her brand new album, Witness, which will debut straight to No. 1 tomorrow on the Billboard 200 Album Chart.
What will our kids hear from Katy this time around? More importantly, how can you talk with them about what they hear?
In 2013 I asked the same question about her album Prism when I wrote the article, “Dad, Can I Download Katy Perry’s New Album?” In that album we saw Katy get honest and talk about fighting depression, but we also saw the typical themes of partying and sleeping around. This time expect a little more of the same—some vulnerability, and some DGAF mindset (don’t give a…).
For example, in her song Roulette we notice
Continue Reading More…