The Atheist Hypocrite

Here are a few questions you can throw at the atheist that might just take them a little off their game. I won’t be so arrogant to claim that these are all evidences of God but they are certainly food for thought.

1.  Why do we have a seven day week?

A Google search here will turn up the expected suspects, The Romans, The Greeks. With a little luck you may stumble upon the earliest recorded instance of the seven day week. Genesis.

2.  What about the moon dust?

When NASA were planning the first moon landing they were concerned that the lunar module would sink into metres of dust. This is because it is known just how much dust accumulates and therefore, it can be estimated just how thick the layer of dust on the moon’s surface should be – assuming the moon is billions of years old as is the secular standing.

Of course, the moon dust was not metres thick! Instead it was only a fine layer. This discovery supports the creationist and a young earth. So naturally, the secularists changed the science:

You will now be referred to an article published in New Scientist In 1976, by D.W. Hughes. Hughes claims a volume of space dust 1000 times smaller than that previously thought, a figure small enough to deposit a layer of a few centimetres over 4.5 billion years.

(Please note the date of this study, 1976. Since 1976 science has made leaps so great as to be almost immeasurable. The digital age has dawned. We have seen technological advances become so frequent that the astounding is now commonplace. Young people barely raise an eyebrow when confronted with the next ‘miracle’).

I mention this because the same site that I sourced this information from, The Secular Web, accuses creationists of being out of date, and of doing no outside research.

Yes, this, and they quote an inside source from ’76.

Oh, and these fools still bow and scrape at the altar of Darwin! 150 years on, disproved and discredited. Perhaps there has been too much time in the field.

Way Off the Track:

Nothing burns me up more than someone criticising me for doing something that they themselves, are guilty off.

Hypocrisy! I absolutely detest it! Our Lord Jesus also held hypocrites in a dim light.

Matthew 15: 7-9

7 “You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

8 “‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9  They worship me in vain;
Their teachings are merely human rules.’”

It’s okay for an atheist to accuse me of not knowing what I’m talking about but apparently they feel it isn’t necessary for them to do the research.

Recently I challenged an evolutionist on how new information managed to find its way into the DNA of a more highly developed specimen on the evolutionary tree. It seems like a reasonable question to me; if a creature grows an extra set of legs, an opposable thumb, lungs . . . where did this genetic information come from? To the best of my knowledge we have not yet discovered a gene that allows its owner to grow new genetic material. So, I asked the question.

I was told – in language that leads me to believe this atheist studied their craft in a waterfront bar – that I ought to buy a book and learn just what evolution is. ‘kay?

The 21st century definition of evolution has the hidden tagline . . . only valid when unquestioned. Trying to validate the claims is a crime unto itself. This pseudoscience is to be accepted without question.

As is that of the Big Bang Theory. How dare I mention evolution and the Big Bang Theory on the same page. In the same sentence no less. This is sacrilege. And what do the three, atheism, BBT, and evolution possibly have in common? Yes, I have been asked that very question. More often though I am simply asked, What does BBT have to do with it (evolution). Somehow the atheist evolutionist has managed to draw a divide between that and the Big Bang.

It would seem to the most unimaginative mind that the two are inexorably connected. In its wake, the Big Bang left one of the three following possibilities:

1/ That the earth was a barren chunk of rock upon which, due to a fortuitous mixture of chemicals, temperatures, and substances/circumstances unknown, simple life commenced, and, through further substances/circumstances unknown, developed over the years into the high tech beings we know and love today. Furthermore, said development took place leaving no trace or link between the former and latter selves. Subsequently referred to as Missing Links. Their non-appearance being a disappointment to Mr Darwin himself, who said inasmuch that this would disprove his touted theory.

2/ A chunk of rock that was visited by travellers from another solar system. These folk deposited some of their number on this planet and sort of hung around for a few billion years just waiting to see what happens.

3/ A formless chunk of rock upon which God created every living thing as we know them today and the conditions favourable for them to thrive and reproduce.

The first two do not answer the question:

Where did the first atom come from? It’s all well and good to accept the Bang but what went bang? Here the atheists get cute. They usually begin their answer with something like:

“Like most uneducated creationists . . .” They go on to say it wasn’t actually a bang, an explosion, but an expansion of a singularity.

A singularity? Can we be more vague. Time and energy, we are told (oh, yes. There was plenty of energy before the singularity), expanded spectacularly creating everything as we know it. This super dense singularity probably existed in another universe and when it expanded – for no apparent reason – it made everything.

Simple. Why can’t we idiotic creationists get it through our thick skulls?

But where did this super dense singularity come from? Where did all this energy which preceded the expansion come from? These are fair questions but they are invariably met with a kind of smug hostility.

The truth is they cannot answer these questions.

If they were capable of being entirely honest with themselves they would admit that they cannot answer these questions to their own satisfaction either.

But I digress. I did propose some questions to give your pet atheist a grilling. That couple can go on the list. Have a look at these too.

3.  Why are you so antagonistic towards Christianity?

There are a 1000 religions that the atheists could single out but Christianity seems to come under the brunt of their attack. It follows to ask – Why? Not believing in something hardly seems to be a position worthwhile investing any energy to advance.

The truth is that Christianity is The Truth. I believe that whether they recognise it or not that this Truth is visible through the clouds of smoke and mirrors put up by the atheists. The only valid reason for attacking Christianity is that they see the Truth and it is a threat.

Islam is not attacked because it is a lie. Likewise with Hinduism, the Moonies and so on. Christianity is the only religion that threatens their perilous worldview.

4. Why make the assumption that Christians or Creationists are uneducated?

This is one that really gets my goat. The smug attitude of these people. Really, I’m certain they believe that they’re the only breed who have cracked a textbook. But worse is their unquestioning adherence to the belief that the college professor has it right. They taught it at university so it must be right. Then the atheist will turn to the creationist and say, “Uneducated fool!”

Yet as a group, atheists don’t practise what they preach: frequently I find that they haven’t read the Bible, or those that have did so at a Catholic school and had a study and worship regimen forced upon them. This is often the sole source of their scriptural enlightenment (and frequently their resentment).

So often the atheist who is telling me to study evolution, learn what it is all about, are totally ignorant.

I was recently told, “Why should I read a book that says the earth is flat?”

For the record. The Bible does not say the earth is flat. Nowhere in its pages does the Bible even remotely suggest such a thing. To the contrary, the Bible tells us in Isaiah 40:22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth . . .

There are many such quotations. Furthermore Jesus tells us in Luke 17: 34-36

34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.

35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

Note that while 2 sleep, presumably at night as the 24 hour shift way a long way off, 2 were at work in the field. Jesus was telling us many years before the astronomers learned of it, that the earth is a sphere. How could part of a flat earth be day, and part, night.

And the Old Testament tell us that the stars are infinite. This, when science was telling us that they numbered 5,000.

In Conclusion.

I really wanted to present a one-sided argument. That is the way in which Christianity has been, and is being, attacked. But in all fairness I couldn’t. Science has brought us so many wonderful things. One day we will have a cure for cancer. I don’t doubt this for a second. I’m just as certain that when we get this cure it will come from the scientific establishment. There will be a Mars landing, and a cure for HIV.

Science has given us air travel, antibiotics, vaccines. The list is almost endless. But let’s not forget that these are the people who not so long ago gave us Thalidomide, the wonderful morning sickness cure, and the atom bomb.

We must be careful to avoid the trap of thinking science is the solution for all of humanities ailments. The high, and ever increasing rate of crime, will only be solved with the application of time honoured spiritual principles. A glance at the causes should lead us to the solution. Even the most jaded atheist would not deny that there has been a major breakdown of morals over the last 50 years. They will argue that this is in response to the religious boot being lifted from humanity’s neck. But it doesn’t matter; the end result is that people are not getting their morals from the church anymore. Free will has spoken. Science, in this case the Social Sciences, has come to the rescue.

It is ironic that the very science used to refute Christianity, also supports it. This isn’t shouted very loudly, and I am certainly not knowledgable enough on the subject to add much to the argument. I have heard some wonderful scientific arguments for Christianity from some of the worlds great preachers. I’m sure most who read this have also and I’d invite you to leave any scientific arguments for Christianity and Creation in the comments.

This is an area of my own education that I would like expanded.

I leave this with a wonderful quote. Unfortunately I don’t know who it’s attributed to, nor do I remember where I heard it. It’s one of my favorites.

Once upon a time a scientist was asked if he believed in God.
“Of course not,” he responded. “I am a scientist.”
After some years and many long hours of study had passed, he was asked the same question.
“Of course I do,” he replied. “I am a scientist.”