The "Atheist Experience" Interview Ray Comfort (2011)

WHY I THOUGHT MATT DILAHUNTY was wrong!!

THE ATHEIST, MATT DILAHUNTY GIVES US AN EXAMPLE WHICH FAILS ON A BASIC LEVEL FOR ANY REASONABLY INTELLIGENT PERSON... WHY DONT ATHEISTS SEE THAT, OR WHY DONT THEY CALL HIM OUT FOR HIS COMPARISON?
HE SAYS SAND DUNES LOOK ORDERED, BUT THEY ARE JUST NATURALLY OCCURING LIKE THAT.
I WOULD SAY THAT SAND DUNES ARE INDEED BEAUTIFUL BUT NOT ORDERED, AND THEY ARE NOT
THE PRODUCT OF A MIND BUT OF NATURE, EG. THE FORCE OF NATURE CALLED WIND.
THEREFORE, IT IS ONLY WINDS, WHICH DON'T INTENTIONALLY "ORDER" THINGS LIKE SNAD DUNES, OR PLASTIC BAGS THROWN AWAY IN THE STREETS FOR THAT MATTER, 
BUT WINDS ARE "SENT" BY GOD sometimes. AND USUALLY, WINDS BLOW BECAUSE THEY DO THAT, AND THEY CAUSE AN EFFECT ON OTHER NATURAL OBJECTS OR SAND DUNES, OR EVEN MAN MADE OBJECTS LIKE PLASTIC BAGS, OR EVEN CARS,  BUILDINGS AND MORE.
ONLY A "CRAZY" PERSON WOULD BELIEVE THAT TRASH BAGS WERE ORDERED, OR SEE A PATTERN IN THE WAY TRASHBAGS ARE STREWN ABOUT IN A BIG CITY, AND SAME WOULD BE SAID OF A PERSON WHO SEES A PATTERN OR SOME MESSAGE
IN THINGS WHICH ARE JUST AWE INSPIRING NATURAL PHENOMENON, LIKE A FOREST OF TREES IN AUTUMN, OR A RIVERBED OF SMOOTH STONES.

BUT, THERE ARE PROOFS IN NATURE FOR GOD. ESPECIALLY WHEN THOSE THINGS ARE SPOKEN OF IN AYAAT OF THE QURAN, SUCH AS THE BARRIER BETWEEN TWO SEAS (IN THE ANCIENT ARABIC, 'BAHRAIN' COULD MEAN TWO SEAS, OR AN OCEAN AND A SEA, MAYBE EVEN A SEA AND A LARGE RIVER OR IN OTHER WORDS, ANY TWO LARGE BODIES OF WATER; WHEN THEY MEET THEY ARE THE HALOGENES OR OTHER PHENOMENON WE CAN OBSERVE WITH INSTRUMENTS, ARE ALSO CALLED 'BAHRAINI')

GOING  BACK TO THE POINT MATT WAS MAKING, THAT SAND DUNES ARE NOT ORDERED BY ANY LIVING OR THINKING BEING, IS TRUE, AND WE DON'T ARGUE OTHERWISE.
BUT TO COMPARE THAT TO AN 'ORDERED UNIVERSE' IS NOT CONVINCING, BECAUSE THE UNIVERSE, OR OUR SOLAR SYSTEM ALONE, HAS PLANETS AND STARS WITH VERY INTRICATE AND MEASUREABLE PATTERNS THE WAY THEY TRAVEL, FOR EXAMPLE.

IT'S NOT A GREAT LEAP OF FAITH, OR EVEN INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST TO SAY THAT THE MOVEMENT OF  PLANETS, THE ORBITS OF PLANETS, STARS OR COMETS,
THE COURSE OF THE MOON AND SUN (AND OUR EARTH'S POSITION IN THIS SCHEME OF THINGS) SPECIFICALLY DO POINT TO A CREATOR WHO ORDERED THEM SO WE COULD LIVE ON THIS PLANET OF OURS AND EXPERIENCE NIGHT AND DAY, THE PATTERNS OF STARS AND COUNT THE MONTHS, OR TRAVEL TO DESTINATIONS ON THE SEAS BY LOOKING AT THE CONSTELLATIONS AND LOCATING SPECIFIC STARS, LIKE THE NORTH STAR (SIRIUS) OR OTHERS. THE SUN INTSELF IS A NECESSARY SOURCE OF ENERGY AND LIGHT, WARMTH AND BRINGS US GLADNESS!

WE NEED THE SUN, AND IT DOESNT NEED US, BUT IT DOES SERVE US, WHICH IS A BLESSING FROM GOD WE CAN NEVER EVER REPAY, EVEN IF WE HAD A HUNDRED LIFETIMES! 

BUT HUMAN BEINGS ARE PRONE TO BE UNGRATEFUL! 

IT MAKES MUCH MORE SENSE TO SAY AS AN ATHEIST, "WE DON'T KNOW" WITHOUT SUCH COMPARISONS WHICH LACK REASON AND ACTUALLY MAKE THE THEISTS OPINION ACTUALLY MORE ATTRACTIVE.
THEN IT'S UP TO THOSE WHO WANT TO BELIEVE IN GOD, WHO DO HAVE FAITH IN A CREATOR TO STUDY ALL THE WORLD RELIGIONS TO FIND WHICH ONE OF THOSE IS THE MOST
LOGICAL AND CONVINCING, WHICH PROVES TO FURNISH MORE EVIDENCE THAT IS SCIENTIFICALLY OR AT LEAST INTELLECTUALLY MORE SOUND, AND EMBRACE THAT. THIS IS WHY WE HAVE MANY PEOPLE CONVERTING TO ISLAM. IT ISN'T JUST ABOUT THE NUMBERS BUT ABOUT THE FIRMNESS OF BELIEF IN THE HOLY BOOK AND ISLAMIC TEACHINGS WHICH TELLS US THAT THESE PEOPLE HAVE FOUND SOMETHING THEY BELIEVE IS BEYOND HUMAN EXPLANATION ONLY.

MUSLIMS KNOW THE QURAN WAS REVEALED BY GOD TO HIS MESSENGER MUHAMMAD, PEACE BE UPON HIM.
IT CAN'T BE, THEY SAY, THAT IT WAS OTHER THAN A DIVINE MESSAGE FOR HUMANITY.


Ray Comfort Interview On The Atheist Experience (2011)
(click  the above link, share or subscribe to my YouTube channel as well!)

WHETHER EVERY MUSLIM CAN ARGUE LOGICALLY OR NOT, DOESN'T DISPROVE THE TRUTH OF THIS BELIEF OR A REASONABLE JUSTIFICATION FOR PROPAGATING THIS FAITH (ISLAM)  WITH KIND AND OPEN PREACHING, OTHERTIMES WITH FIRM EXAMPLES AND PROOFS, TO LEAD OTHERS TO THE BELIEF IN AN  ETERNAL SOURCE OF LIFE, WE CALL GOD OR ALLAH.
.
EXAMINE THE QURAN FOR YOURELF, TO KNOW WHAT GOD WANTS FROM YOU BECAUSE IT IS A MATTER OF YOUR ETERNAL PEACE AND HAPPINESS.

"A THEORY IS THE BEST CURRENT EXPLANATION POSSIBLE" ATHEIST MATT DILAHUNTY

HAVE A GOOD WEEK!

SUBSCRIBE to my blog, or share this information with your friends and family!

                                                                                       
 YOURS, JANE.

YOU'RE A STRANGE ANIMAL, THAT'S WHAT I KNOW

This marks the beginning of a series of "short posts" Hope people enjoy reading. You can share this and any of the writing you believe others would like or appreciate.  Also follow me on  Twitter or Facebook. You can subscribe to  my blog, or email me. Some of the sharing apps or buttons are not working now, I think you can still share any individual page on your Twitter, Facebook and G+. You can share the blog using the G+ button at the top.

 Lawrence Gowan, is a Canadian musician, performer.

Strange Animal, one of the most popular songs by Canadian (Scottish born)rock-star, known as Gowan,  in 1985 he shot to fame with (You're A) Strange Animal, Gowan being his first album, of 'progressive rock'. I saw him in concert, and watched his videos on MTV. He entertained many people with his great voice and lively, athletic stage performances. I'm most inspired today by his lyrics ...  Another one of his chart topping hits was "Criminal Mind". I think he is still a 'hero' for people today especially in his native Canada. Gowan became lead vocalist and keyboardist of the group Styx in 1999. He also had a couple of movies.

This is my blog, please enjoy browsing and comment, or share.

The American- born Jew who owns a penthouse in upscale whatever, New York, has no business going to Israel to settle. The black African American likewise has no reason to go there, even if there’s irrefutable evidence that he is a descendant of Jacob. 

NOT IF he wants to occupy the Palestinians’ land. In that case we must absolutely reject any such claim to a “right of return”.

But many of the so-called Jewish ‘Diaspora’ would gleefully (as do many Israelis) take the place of Palestinians, who have always lived on the land they occupy and own for centuries. The Arab, while he sits on the rubble of his newly destroyed home, a distinctively humble dwelling, no longer worth the bricks and mortar with which it was built, unrepresentative of his natural pride, representative of lost hope and the all too common weapon of collective punishment used by the foreign occupiers, is struck down, not only physically wounded, unbelieving perhaps, but in obvious shock at his recent fate.

Is this what the non-believers ignorantly defend as “survival of the fittest”?

It is the kind of thing that makes a distinction between man and animal less possible. If we behave like beasts do we merely choose to be like them, or do we dare to evolve into a new kind of animal?

God, Hitchens, and the Harry Potter stories

Reality is Never an Illusion

A person argued on google said, “One person’s reality is another person’s illusion.”
I said that’s nonsense.

Proof –

You should really have proof for whatever you say, unless of course you’re writing fiction. Even in a fiction story, the reader will only swallow one “unbelievable” or “incredible” idea. (This isn’t my idea, but I had read it somewhere, and the credit is due to whoever said it or teaches it. Probably it is something taught in writing school, too.)

In Harry Potter stories it is that magic is real. If you added other incredible things the viewer or reader must also believe, the story’s plot and twists becomes burdensome or disappointing. The setting and characters, though not real, are part of the story, and prove the main idea, so are not a problem; we know such things don’t exist, but in the story they do, so they enhance the idea about magic being real (in the stories at least).

Superman’s only weakness is “kryptonite” (okay, and maybe Lois Lane, but that’s not an incredible leap of the imagination, or something which takes away from the storyline)

Can you think of other examples?

People can fly, with pixie dust, in Peter Pan. Or, a man shrinks his kids with an invention, in “Honey I shrunk the kids”.

You get the idea.

Even in real life, how many lies can someone swallow, before they have to admit that something is not right? For example, couples fight all the time, especially if one of them is being unfaithful. Exposing infidelity is likely the “straw that [breaks] the camel’s back”, in many relationships.

Defrauding the company, or insider trading, will get one fired, at work, or arrested in the real world; also in movies.

I was really happy when the guy (The Informant) played by one of those famous actors (think he was one of the earlier “brat pack” of the 80s) who was insider trading and claimed to have bi-polar syndrome was imprisoned. The judge didn’t believe that having bi-polar syndrome would cause someone to defraud his company, steal and cheat, or work as an informant for the FBI, lying to them as well as his company (and his wife) also ruining the good reputation of an FBI agent.

Reality is reality, illusion is illusion. There is no in between, either.

********

‘The man of her dreams’

A woman might search for the man of her dreams but she doesn’t know if he really exists.

I watched movie, years ago about a man who finds his true love, only to learn that she is a ghost, and in another one, a woman finds her true love, only to learn that she is dead, or something like that.

********

In the novel by Frederick Forsythe, “The Day Of The Jackal”, he wrote on pp. 25-26, “It occurred to [Rodin] as he trudged back to the humble rooming house that some might think he too was chickening out, disappearing from the threat of kidnap or assassination by the Action Service. He shrugged to himself. Let them think what they wished, the time for lengthy explanations was over.

He lunched off the boarding house Stammkarte, the meal of the day…By mid-afternoon he was gone, bags packed, bill paid, departed on a lonely mission to find a man, or more precisely a type of man, whom he did not know existed.”

Rodin wants an assassin, but for his plan to work, the man can’t be just anyone. His mission is so important to him he doesn’t include anyone else or even care what others think. But he believes he will be successful. Whether or not he will find a perfect assassin or ‘the perfect man for the job” is not at all certain, except we know that man is already boarding a plane, on p. 26, in the following paragraph. In books, if you have patience, everything will be revealed. Sometimes, in life that is also possible. At least, many people believe they know everything, or the most important things.

********

When Allah wanted a prophet, He chose from the best type in the era or place He knew that person would be victorious, or who He wanted to single out for this specific favor and honor. Not all the prophets’ missions were highly successful, but they were good men, the right man, and it was only the lack of good people they sought, calling to the true religion, who were hard to find. Some prophets had many followers, Musa, A.S. did, others had few, or even none. Muhammad, pbuh, said he would have the most followers on the Day of Judgment. It appears that prophecy is coming to bear fruit, and God knows best.

I realize it is annoying to many people that religious folks think they know it all. Well, they don’t know everything do they? No. But maybe many of them have a pretty good idea of what reality is? Since this isn’t something any one can prove with an easy litmus test, that’s why belief in God is called “faith”. But it takes real study to be firm in one’s belief or convinced of one religion’s truth over the others.

Many Jehovah’s Witnesses are leaving because they have learned unsettling things about their religions’ teachings or other things. There are channels on YouTube devoted to the Jehovah’s Witnesses or exposing wrongs in the Witnesses’ teachings or community.

Debating God:

In the video debate between Christopher Hitchens, the late, and William Lain Craig, Hitchens doesn’t want to say he’s an atheist, because he knows the burden of proof will be on him, to prove that God doesn’t exist, just as the burden of proof is on William Lain Craig to give “sufficient” evidence that God does exist.

In the subbing for the video I watched, which is on YouTube, and I added to a few of my playlists, like “Debunk This”, Hitchens says that Lain Craig’s proofs must be “magnificent”, but that isn’t true.

By a simple equation we know why, “Atheism = true”, “Theism = false”, and “Theism = true”, “Atheism = false”. Both have to prove their point sufficiently, in order to win.

Hitchens hems and haws, before he finally agrees to the statement “I am an atheist” because if he says he is only an “agnostic” he cannot argue strongly, if at all, for the side “God doesn’t exist”. He must argue against God, so he must say without hesitation (which proves harder for him than one might have thought, considering this is “The Hitch”. Anyway, he can’t do it with any great success and WLC appears to win the debate.

Many atheists thumb down the video, about one third of that thumb up the video, but as one comment points out, “thumbs down don’t prove that God doesn’t exist”, any more than Hitchens did.

Atheists and also agnostics, argue against God with logical fallacies, like “I can’t see or touch God” so He doesn’t exist, or “since cultures all over the world believe in God and their stories don’t make sense, or their beliefs don’t make sense, so God isn’t real”.

If I die tomorrow, and in one hundred years there is no record of my having been born or died, and no one remembers me or even heard of me, and no internet search even will show that I was ever here, does that mean I never existed? No.

The video gives a much better explanation of what happens in the debate, and I highly recommend others to watch it who are interested in “the God debate”.

Peace



Emails Asking About Islam -2

Does Islam Discriminate Against Women or Girls?

Re: Reply to your comment on: Douglas Murray - (SML) Are Muslims Too Easily Offended?

Hi again Jane.


Please feel free to use my thought on your blog. I would appreciate it if you would not change them, LOL.

I think you did mention something to the effect that the moral code outlined in the Koran might only apply to people from that day, rather than today. The Koran for instance seems to have no objection to slavery. I will admit that the freeing of slaves was a generous act, but the institution itself was practiced and seems to be condoned by the Koran and the Hadith. There are very few Muslims today who would agree with slavery. Unfortunately there still are some Islamic people and countries who have not outlawed slavery because of the Koran. There are also very few Muslim people who would marry prepubescent children. Unfortunately there are some who do.


I do believe that 4 witnesses for adultery and rape is unreasonable. I do believe that human beings can rationally determine whether adultery or rape has occurred without 4 witnesses.I also believe that a woman's testimony is just as valuable as a man's and a woman can decide what is appropriate for her to wear without asking her husband. I believe that woman can walk around society unaccompanied if she chooses. I believe it is never appropriate for husband to strike his wife.I believe that stoning to death for adultery or apostasy is immoral.

I also believe it is quite fine for Jews and Christians to have political power over Muslims if they are best at the job. There should be no prohibition based upon religion. I don't believe in the modern world, polygamy is unacceptable.

I don't believe that you do know where you stand with respect to a huge number of moral issues facing human beings today. I don't believe that Islam has worked out a universal moral stance to global warming, taxation, women's rights, polygamy, defensive war, Gay rights, Dhimmi rights, Jihad, apostasy. There is a great deal of interpretation that goes on with respect to these things and they are basically the same things we have to work out in the Western world.

Wrt torture-I generally agree that torture is unacceptable, however since I have a very good imagination, I can imagine some instances where it might be acceptable. This is the problem with holy books giving universal moral prohibitions. Morality actually requires an assessment of the particular situation.

it may be that there is some evolutionary value to belief in a God or gods or spirits. I wonder though, if we are evolving away from that. I think that atheism or nonbelief or at least a minimum belief is far and away the fastest growing. If religion is truly a man-made invention, then I would expect there to be a number of different beliefs depending upon culture. I would expect that there would be great confusion about it, even amongst people of the same religion. I think this is exactly what we find.


Does Islam Discriminate Against Women or Girls?

As promised, I haven't changed any of the email or ideas one iota. I have had a lot of enjoyment reading peoples emails, particularly this one, and it's because of freedom that we can exchange views. So here is three cheers for freedom: Hooray for Freedom, Hooray, Hooray.

That was a bit weird, lol.

 

My reply will follow in the next post, It's ready, but to build up suspense, I'll be posting that tomorrow. (see below for more of my thoughts on Allah, Islam, faith and religion)

Allah has revealed to us 99 names and there are other of His names we don't know. We also can learn about His attributes, which helps us to know Him. That's one means to knowing Allah, and then there are His signs in nature, etc.

Many people say they have changed certain habits and so on, but I don't believe most people change as far as who they actually are. I think most people know themselves pretty well, it isn't about changing ourselves but our actions, which is a big part of Islamic conversion and the time that takes could be short or long depending on the person and his/her background and problems, etc. Some people find the conversion almost nothing to complain about, meaning it is rather easy for them. I didn't struggle myself with wearing hijab too much, though it took me 3 months to get up the courage when I was living at the time in a non-Muslim environment, but that is my personal experience and others have a different one.

I believe I am still the same person my parents raised and they recognize that most of the changes about me have been outer ones and others are more private, such as my thoughts or beliefs on things, which I don't always express to my family for reasons I don't go into here. But they know who I am, that I am basically the same daughter they raised and will always have my special personality and quirks.

I am a more God-conscious person however, and that is something which has been ongoing since I converted rather than something which came and went when I was Christian. It has something also to do with the society I choose to live and the company I choose to keep.

I think you have a lot of preset ideas about Islam and Muslims which makes you say the things you do, in a kind of judgmental way.

No problem, it's been interesting as usual to read your reply.

Some Points:
 

 adultery is proven with four witnesses, otherwise it can't be proven, nor can anyone's reputation be spoiled by talk of infidelity without clear evidence and witnesses  this gives opportunity for the sinner to repent of his or her crime and to stop the adulterous behaviour without being dragged through the mud, as is done in western and european nations whenever a hint of "infidelity" occurs.

It is to preserve honor and life that Allah has made it a difficult task to prove adultery by ordering that four witnesses (they must be male, even in this day and age). This requirement means that convictions don't happen a lot, unless the people themselves turn themselves in to receive the punishement (a worldly punishment will ward off the one in the hereafter). Also, if women were to be witnesses, that would maybe make it easier to find four people to testify, than if all four must be men. What adulterer is going to let people find him in a situation like this? It might not happen every one hundred years, but is a good deterrent anyway, when punishment is a possiblilty.

stats on Muslims show that their divorce rate is rising in general. This means that there is more unhappiness or instability inside marriages today,which is due to many modern reasons. We can reflect that women also seek divorce more often in shariah or family courts (in the ME) or in the West and Europe through lawyers or divorce court. But Muslim marriage is still more successful on averrage than other marriage. Infidelity is also not as much of a problem as in non-Muslim societies, in my opinion (probably stats back this up).

Rape, is another issue and viewed with great gravity by the society and earns the displeasure of Allah and is not condoned in any case. It can be easily proven by a physical examination of the victim; it isn't necessary to have even one witness if DNA testing can prove the criminal without any doubt. It is better to have witnesses to corraborate the woman or child's testimony, or in the case of men also, there is the same recourse to medical witness of a doctor or health professional, and first person accounts of witnesses and so on.

(revised June 9th)



How Christopher Hitchens Inspired Me

One Truth – many ‘realities’

How he would flap on and on; sometimes going off into small roads of intellectual monologue, which we should inevitably try to understand, if it were really relevant to the whole discussion; did everything he ever said in a debate, have importance to the wider discussion? He was well read, and also intelligent, but he was not right.

Seeing him in a debate in which he still had hair, and then what he says about Australian writer, and the film On the Beach, served to highlight for me what the writer of On the Beach and perhaps director of the movie showed quite well with the sign that reads, “There’s still time to repent, brother” which belongs to the church at the end of the apocalyptic final scene, after the beaches are empty and the sign is left (for no one to read or answer its call) blowing uselessly in the wind, for no one is there - that message is that we are all dying, and our own end is perhaps very near. It doesn’t have to mean how Christopher Hitchens interpreted it, that the sign was completely useless all the time, but that its uselessness came (in the movie) and religion’s usefulness ends when we end. Yes, God gave us religion to serve us in this world as a guide by which to live. But once we are gone, religion is in fact not for this world any longer. That doesn’t negate religion’s importance to us today.

Religion is the most important fact which we cannot just ignore, or carelessly interpret based on the final ending to a movie, which perhaps the writer didn’t even intend to be interpreted so vehemently against religion or faith in God or the Supreme Being. We find that many writers are actually quite religious and have strong belief in an Afterlife, or at least in the sacred and religious for living according to a moral code, which is necessarily based on respect at least for religions. I know Christopher Hitchens says the exact opposite and many atheists of course also have that opinion. But to say that it is the only way to go is complete and utter arrogance.

For example, does the Astronomer Royal, Sumatria, whom Hitchens quotes, who seems to be a staunch “evolutionist” believe that when the Sun dies in 6 billion years, and we are no longer here, that the human species (not race, Christopher, or whoever reads this) will have died long ago or that we might be replaced by other life forms - certainly, this doesn’t prove that God intends for this, our species, or any other species on earth even, to evolve into different forms through evolution? These are too many assumptions or too much speculation. No one, except God knows what He plans for this planet and creatures in the next few “billion years”, if anything besides climate change and eventually the Day of Judgment when we humans will all be raised up to face our Creator and account for our actions in this earthly life. Too many assumptions don’t make a convincing argument, to me.

Just the use of the word “experiment” to describe this life, means that Hitchens in his heart of hearts, even without knowing it, supports the idea that there is an “experimenter”, that someone or something besides us in the Universe, or probably beyond (religious ppl think, beyond or outside of, not in - though they cannot explain the “how”), suggests skepticism in his own position, by the use of this very telling word, without his conscious realization. I know many Hitchens fans would be angry about this analysis on my part. But that’s just too bad I guess. If he had wanted to, or thought of it a little bit, he could have avoided using that word “experiment”. Did he secretly believe in aliens but was too respected to tell anyone? I don’t believe so, but one never knows what happens in another person’s mind, without evidence. His use of the word “experiment” does point to something, even though it was done subconsciously. I don’t believe he was a mere follower, and only said or used diction that others commonly use - or was he trying to talk down to his audience? Was this one of the common characteristics of his in his speeches? I don’t believe that either, but being quite arrogant, one cannot rule out he would perhaps have done such a thing.

Truth cannot come from “desert revelations”, he ‘jokes’ or from “epileptics” or “schizophrenics”. I don’t know which Prophets or Messengers of God he is referring to (except for the obvious “desert” attack) but his humour to me is racist, and totally unfounded - unhealthy, even. Perhaps he was laughing at himself; wishing that if it weren’t for his mere completely fallible and weak human nature (some people are not weak; they have faith which grounds them, they don’t go off on drinking binges, or sexual orgies and then try to repent - to their legitimate wives, not God), he could have been a “superman”. Admittedly, Christopher Hitchens wasn’t a person grounded in religion, only whatever he chose to believe dictated to him what to do or his feelings; if he felt something evil in the pit of his stomach, he wouldn’t do some of the really “bad things” that many of his less than “grounded” human followers or the majority of atheists and agnostics might do. To rely on mere “feelings” or logic, like the fear of eating a poisonous root, such reliance on “whatever happens” or “probabilities” alone, heretics might fear more than anything like a lightning bolt from on high directed at their black souls - to ruin oneself by the wrong choice, or “chance” (another of those words that means something, but isn’t supposed to mean “God” is involved in any way, though it quite does). No wonder that the more atheists alive on the planet today, the more mental illness is ruining peoples’ lives and utterly controlling them. They need pills just to survive; the evolving mind Hitchens speaks of might not advance his theories further, if a majority of the species will be all but addicted to the advanced drugs for depression, bipolar syndrome, psychiatric disorders, mental illnesses, and other. Not to mention the physical ailments and drugs for these, which no doubt will arise sometime in the future. We are possibly making our last stand, within this and the next century, as Homo sapiens. But we will not evolve into other forms.

Belief systems

The banners, the religions are calling as always, it’s not too late, brothers and sisters. What is the real “chance” that God does indeed call you to something better than what atheists are calling you to? As the atheists always like to point out, the numbers of followers doesn’t prove that what they are following is correct. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world today; this shows something about the nature of Islam, as opposed to other religions. For Muslims Islam is the Truth, without a doubt. The great number of atheists today shows something about societies today; the fact that many people believe science can tell them anything if they can just hang on for the answers. This unfortunately is the most dangerous assumption that they stubbornly hang onto. Faith in nothing is the absence of faith. Everyone’s time is coming, but the science which atheists and agnostics rely on changes with time and there are no assurances. Science is a study, it is not anything other than collective wisdom, and many more theories or hypotheses which have yet to be proven by people. People are the recipients as well as the proponents of always new theories in the different scientific studies; therefore they are relying on their own selves to prove the meaning of life; or the absence of any meaning. Life is just to be here, and then we die, they say. If the brain has not yet evolved to a better state, or improved, even maybe leading to perfect brain function, since we now use so little of our brains, according to scientists, then how long before we finally get to know the “final truth” of what we are supposed to know?

The Best Option

What if evolution never gets that far? What if we die before then, as most of us will, who are here on the planet now, according to analysis of changing weather patterns and the fact that society has people, such as atheists, who see the “other” as a grave threat and might not allow Muslims, or others the right to speak their minds for fear of extermination in this century, or half century. They are even sometimes referred to as militant atheists - which is a label not altogether peaceful sounding. Well then, science will have not proven or disproven the existence of God, as it was never equipped for that; most rational people even the atheists realize this; if you just read their comments and the language they use on YouTube, or other places on the net, they admit that the onus is on the believers in God to prove that God does exist. They are admitting that they cannot disprove God, or that there will be an Afterlife - is the next part of that statement. It almost is admitting that they don’t want to think about it, though they are always saying that we must “think” for ourselves. I want them to also think for themselves. An informed choice is better than relying on speakers like Hitchens to mesmerize you into atheistic compliance. A person who doesn’t think for her/himself doesn’t really deserve the brain that s/he has got. Nor does s/he show any sort of thankfulness (there is another word which all people use, it represents the notion that we owe something to “someone” or “something”, or a force, even an event, or an idea.) where do we get thankfulness, and where is it really directed? Or where should we direct it? Even human speech and symbols thus far evolved, still point to the Creator. Our intellects have not evolved past the point of using language which contradicts what we (or atheists) mean to say; one’s own heart or mind sabotage “disbelief”; the part of us which forces the belief in the immensity that there is a reason we are here. The idea that we are here only to evolve, as the atheists promote, is always less than satisfactory to everyone who ponders the cosmos with an open mind to the greatest of possibilities. Theists know this to be true. Atheists feebly deny this by mere contradiction with the theists. Merely contradicting long held and universally known beliefs don’t negate or weaken those beliefs. As I said, in another space, atheism cannot weaken one’s faith, religious people doubt their own faith in their chosen religion, and then sometimes they convert to another religion they believe is better. But theists never jump from “red hot” belief in God to “ice cold” disbelief, or atheism. It is one’s own disbelief in his religious scriptures or explanations of scholars, usually Christianity is the example we use, or the Bible and Biblical exegesis, or religious leaders i.e. the Pope, or church leaders, whether Protestant or Catholic, etc., which causes doubt in that particular scripture, sect, or religion, but not in the greatness of the belief in God Himself; that is almost never the way disbelief in God begins. Then we find many people disbelieve in God because they cannot themselves reconcile their loss of faith in a scripture or church dogmas, etc with the reality that they haven’t yet found God. He has not “shown” Himself to them.

When I have seen conversion stories, some are long tales of woe, wherein the person looking for God, first goes through periods of doubt, even sometimes disbelief in a God, then turns back to God, or sometimes, always searches for God, in different places (often others’ places of worship)until s/he finds a satisfactory answer to her/his questions. Maybe people sometimes also settle for a less than perfect answer, because it is better than being with no answer.

But I believe God would guide people to Him eventually if they remain steadfast and honest in their desire for Him.