Epitaph for an Atheist

Here lies James Voltaire, atheist, all dressed up and no place to go.

Arguments with Atheists 2

BCReason: What most Atheists really think is: I see no evidence for the existence of gods (and much evidence to the contrary) so why devote my life to the worship of something that
most likely does not exist.

Charles: Many ways to go here.  “I see no evidence....” See My article on Arguments with Atheists page.... Just because you have not seen a platypus, or a game of cricket or a coelecanth does NOT mean they don’t exist. In fact THEY ALL DO!

* When my daughter used to put her hand over her eyes and say “You can’t see me! You can’t see me!” did that mean that I was not there? Of course not.

* We always see what we want to see or ignore what we want to ignore. Witnesses at crime scenes are notoriously bad describing  the bank robber.

Atheists are not looking for God but looking for a “NO GOD”, and they find “NO GOD” EVERY TIME.

* Not looking for a platypus or God does not mean it is not there. It just means YOU DID NOT find it or Him.

You definitely should not devote your life to worshipping a God that you do not know. However what are you going to spend your time doing? At birth you are given on average as a male, 29, 200 some days. Yes that is all. 80 years. Will it count for something?

 
To quote a famous person:“Then they will call to me but I will not answer; they will look for me but will not find me.”

If you lose your keys and look hard for them 99% of the time you WILL find them. You are not looking for God, so you may never find Him. I hope you do but you may not.

 
BCReason: It is meaningless to suggest we should believe in anything and worship it just because in the 99.99999999% of knowledge we do not have there might be some evidence of it.

Charles: The last thing you should do is worship somebody you have not found. However there is so much evidence it is overwhelming. But if you look for the sky by looking down, will you ever find it? Not much chance is there?

BCReason: Is it reasonable to devote your life to something on the chance that somewhere in the universe there maybe proof that it exists? We do not have knowledge of God therefore the only reasonable position is to assume none exists.

Charles: When you say “we”, you mean yourself and other atheists because millions of people have found God. Very reasonable because if you actually care to look, He can be found unless you are much blinder than the millions who have found Him. The problem seems to be that you want to assume because YOU have not found something or someone, that it does not exist. Look back at the Coelecanth Brian.

“Is it reasonable to devote your life to .....” . Have you ever read the stories of atheists who found God? I listed them. However I do not believe you have even looked.

 
Yes it is as reasonable as Bill Gates, Thomas Edison, Warren Buffet, Steve Jobs, William Dell, Thomas Zuckerberg and millions of others. They all had a dream that they devoted their time to and it came true. That is why there are so few real entrepreneurs, because most people give up and do not try. That may also be you too.

BCReason: We can only work from the knowledge that we do have. This doesn't make me God only human.

 
Charles: Of course, that is why I hope you can admit that your idea structure has cracks because of who you choose to listen to and who you look for. You have read Dawkins BUT you have not read Dinesh D’Souza’s “What is So Great About Christianity”.

Why? Because you are not looking for God. [One might even say you are not looking for good.] You want to ignore the possibility because you may have a responsibility that you do not want to accept. So don’t look. That solves that problem.

MY life if full of meaning Brian. I see only for short periods of time, but I see what I am supposed to be doing. Then as I do it, I discover it wasn’t just a feeling it was THE right thing.

Example: I have been teaching classes about the principles of money. I wish I had known when I was your age or when I was in my 20’s. But I didn’t. However so many people have trouble with money and I have the privilege of giving them principles that will get them back on the right track, will help them get out of debt, will give them a fund for retirement and most of all financial peace. Stress is eliminated.

What a privilege I have. [Financial Peace Now at http://financial-peace-now.blogspot.com]

 
I could tell you stories with no names of course of people whose lives have been changed because they have had a chance to attend Financial Peace University or Crown Financial.

That is meaning and worth devoting a life to. As have many other activities which bring about change for the better in people’s lives.

Your further comments: The reason I have not published them yet is because they require an answer which I was not ready to give. I usually think about publishing before I do. 

The main problem is that you are flaming me for not publishing them and then going off on a rant about religion and censorship because you made AN ASSUMPTION. Sometimes making ASSumptions makes you into an “ass”. We have all been there. Almost everything you have said in that comment is not true.

You rant about religion and censorship when it is actually usually totalitarian regimes having nothing to do with God that have the greatest censorship. Yes there are exceptions but we are talking main concepts here.

Hitler, Idi Amin, Robert Magabe, Pol Pot, Stalin ... are only a few and they had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with religion. The Chinese communists and so on all apply here and that is with little or no thought required. There are many others, mostly non-religious. You are looking at a “bad cherry” in the bowl and saying “See all cherries are rotten!” You know better than that Brian. That is one reason I do not allow ranting.

 
Have religious people ever censored anything? Of course, but you ignore the greatest censors, the totalitarians and some liberals who are not “liberal” any more in that THEY want to censor what THEY do not like, like talk radio, and you Brian who did not want Sun Media [Quebecor] to establish a conservative voice in Ontario. And YOU talk about OTHERS censoring???

Come on Brian you were ranting in both cases and rants are not excusable on my blog. Sense and reasoned argument, yes. Emotional rants and ravings, NO!

 
Allowing emotion to control reason allows a lower power to control a higher power. Not a good idea.

More later.

Have a Good!

Charles

More Arguments with Atheists

BCReason which seems to be Brian Crockett reasoning says:
"By the way please don't censor my comments. It's hardly fair that you give your readers only one side."

Charles: Brian I know I taught you science but obviously not logic. I am sure you are not taking my teasing as insults as I do not mean them that way. My teasing is good-natured to illustrate a point. 

It is ultimately fair that I give my readers one side as that is what YOU and DC are doing. Are you presenting both sides? NO! So of course I must give the other side which you are not cognizant of. That is what brings balance. Both sides.

BCReason says that we should substitute other words like "fairies" or "zeus" and the argument still works.

Charles: This argument of course simply avoids answering the question.

[Note: You will notice that there are at least two forms of argument that some use which are NOT actually arguments but RED HERRINGS. In other words there are AVOIDANCE  methods to try to change the subject.. The two main methods are below:

• Avoid answering the question. Both DC and BC have both demonstrated that remarkably well.
• Flame the individual [s] making the remarks. [It is admirable that neither DC nor BC have done that.] Emotionalizing an argument also AVOIDS answering the questions posed by pointing the finger at the individual making the argument.] However I have heard and seen Richard Dawkins stoop to mocking and am told Christopher Hitchens does the same even tho I have not seen his videos yet.

Substituting words does not answer the basic questions asked. Substituting words only serves to cloud the issue so the individual does not have to answer.

One can only say about substitutions is not that they exist but that they MAY exist. Unless one can prove they do not, then the reasonable mind says, maybe.

However believing in fairies or Zeus do not seem to have an enduring following today so is there any point in discussing them? I think not.  

However there IS an ENDURING following for those that believe in the Judaeo-Christian God. 

There are many particles which make up an atom. Years ago, scientists thought there were only 3: protons, neutrons, and electrons. Then science was able to discover that their knowledge was lacking and found other particles with the advent of electron microscopes and other measuring devices.

If any scientist had said, anything like "WE HAVE FOUND EXACTLY WHAT AN ATOM IS MADE OF AND THERE IS NOTHING MORE THAT CAN BE DISCOVERED ABOUT IT." he would have been absolutely arrogantly wrong!

Would that not have been an arrogant statement? It is also arrogant to say that NO GOD CAN EXIST when one does not have 100% knowledge.

There are many evidences FOR God existing. One of the main reasons would be the change that can develop in a person's life when he/she experiences God for the first time.

Two examples that come to mind are:

• John Newton who was a slave trader but experienced the knowledge and/or presence of God and quit slave-trading and spent the rest of his life trying to make up for the evil person that he was in his past life writing the well-known song Amazing Grace. See below.
• Amazing Grace: The Story of John Newton
    and 
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazing_Grace to mention only two links.
• Paul the apostle was a "Hebrew of the Hebrews", a top class Jew who was aiding and abetting in the killing of Christians. His amazing conversion by hearing the voice of God made him INTO the very THING that he HATED and persecuted.

In his blog called 

Pious Fabrications the author below explains why he is no longer an atheist.

Another fact that points to the existence of a God is found in this article by a former atheist telling why he changed his mind,  

However this blog is NOT about the existence of God. It is about the unreasonable non-answers of so-called atheists who claim there CAN BE NO GOD. How arrogant to assume that! The immediate question is WHY DO YOU THINK THAT? It may be hard for any atheist to even know that himself let alone explain it. 

However I have noticed a very sad fact related to this in 3 famous atheists:

• Madeline Murray O'hair who even Phil Donahue and her son William said was VERY unpleasant to be around. I saw her on the Phil Donahue show and she was angry and sarcastic and toxic toward anyone who had any belief in God. In fact she was so toxic that her son William became a Christian to get away from so much hate
• Richard Dawkins: I watched some videos of him talking about Christians in a sarcastic belittling way as if he was so smart and they were so dumb. If he actually WAS so smart, why did he not use logical argument rather than the emotional attack or sarcasm and belittling?.
• Christopher Hitchens whose brother I am told is a Christian apparently lashes out with hate at Christians as well instead of simple logical argument. Anyone that has to stoop to sarcasm and mocking has no valid argument or he would use it. 

I am sure there are reasons why each of these famous would-be atheists is so unkind, cruel, vitriolic and sarcastic, but they certainly can not convince reasonable people by stooping to the lowest forms of human social interaction.
[More later]

Which monkey is acting like an animal and which is acting more human?

The monkey that is mocking other monkeys is acting like an animal; the monkey acting human is listening and not mocking. I will leave you to decide who that may be.

Discussions with Would-Be Atheists

I have chosen to take the comments apart one idea at a time and answer them. I did that in the first comment from DC. It is easy to string a lot of words together and make something sound reasonable, even if it is not.


Many salesmen do it all the time. TV commercials do it. 


However when put under a microscope or looked at part by part, the arguments of atheists do not hold water. Also in my experience they always avoid answering the critical questions which would make them admit that there could be a God and they just do not know it. 


To the uneducated eye, their reasoning, like the hoax letters we all get in email are believable to many. That is why hoax letters continue to circulate, get changed and every few years come back in a slightly different form.
Just like the answers from atheists. They are trying to convince believers of their hoax. (:-)

I want only one thing from any honest atheist: An honest answer.


We all have the right to believe what we want. We can ignore the knowledge of some and hold to the knowledge of others. We all pick our "Superior Beings" whose knowledge we believe unless we happen to believe that WE are that "Superior Being". 


Right now the god of atheism is in the form of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. We all wish Christopher well in his battle with cancer. And even if he would not desire it, I pray that he will get better and beat the cancer.


So the Supreme Beings right now, are Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. There may be others but those are the Supremes.


So atheists believe Richard and Christopher, while I and many other Christians and Jews believe God as our supreme being.


So therefore regardless of what any atheist says, their religion is to believe Richard and Christopher and deny the intelligence and knowledge of those others who are part of the 99%.


So if you follow my argument, all ATHEISTS have a religion, it is to BELIEVE IN WHAT RICHARD AND CHRISTOPHER WRITE AND SAY.


On the other hand Christians and Jews and of course others, BELIEVE WHAT GOD SAYS.


In the next post I will give you what other atheists have commented. Of course answers have to be somewhat brief as whole chapters could and have been written on each of these subjects.
-Charles

No Respect for Atheists: Revised Version

To put it simply, I have NO respect for atheists! Why?

You may think it is because:

1) I am a believer

2) My brain is seized up

3) I am stupid

4) I am a conservative

5) I belong to the religious right [as opposed to the liberal left?]

6) I am an evangelical Christian. Therefore I cannot think.

7) I am not open-minded

8) I believe that Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens do not exist.

Some or all of the above may be true of me. However some are also true of atheists! Why?

Would you agree that an atheist is a person who adamantly declares that there is no supreme being, no superior force, no God?

Now an agnostic, I believe is honest. What is wrong with saying, "I don't know if there is a God?" Nothing! It is the honest statement of your thought processes.

However an atheist believes in no absolutes except the absolute belief that there is no superior being. He cannot see a God; therefore there is no God.

I cannot see Rome but somehow I still think it is there! I cannot see electricity and many have faced calamity for that very reason! I cannot see air but that won’t stop me from breathing it!

I could say that I have never seen Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens. Therefore they do not exist! Does that make sense to you?

Isn’t that a little like the game I used to play with my daughters putting my hand over my eyes and saying, “You can’t see me!”

Why is the atheistic position untenable?

I ask you, the reader, atheist or not, "What per cent of the world's knowledge do you have?"

Do you have less than 10%? Less than 5%? Less than 1%? I am sure you would agree that anyone who says they have more than 1% of the world's knowledge has already declared oneself as a supreme being and therefore it is not possible to have discussion with that one! He has already declared himself to BE God!

Let us agree that anyone reading this has less than 1% of the knowledge available in the world. Okay?

Then there is 99% of the world's knowledge that each of us does not posssess? Isn't that logical straightforward math? 100% -1% = 99%. Right?

So is it possible that God exists in the 99% of knowledge that you do not have?

Do you know what every atheist I have ever talked to or communicated says? "No!" They say it is not possible that God exists in the 99% of the world's knowledge they do not have!

Isn't that a rather arrogant attitude? You do not have ANY knowledge in that 99%, but you declare with no hesitation that you KNOW no God can exist there!

That is the equivalent of saying, "I know NOTHING about Australia and have never been there but I KNOW that Sydney does NOT exist!"

That is why I have no respect for atheists. They claim superior knowledge to everyone else, especially those who do believe in God. They have declared themselves to be the superior being because they KNOW there is no God and they KNOW there is no God in spite of the fact that they possess less than 1% of the world's information!

That is ridiculous! It is also not deserving of respect. Anyone who says that has closed his or her mind to logic.

It is impossible to declare that you know something about knowledge you do not have. But that is exactly what an atheist does.

Atheists Statement of Belief: I was conceived from the materials of the earth, born, grew up, got married, or not, but I did this all on my own. You see, I have NO parents. Apparently neither do my children. “I did it My Way” (:-) - CGP

Note for Clarity: While I have NO respect for the impossibility of atheistic beliefs, I have every respect for the atheist as a person. All people, black, white, red or in between deserve respect because they are the creations of God whether THEY recognize Him or not.

With Respect To Tarek Fatah

Tahira Saliha wrote a letter to the National Post on Monday, October 18.


She says


Re: Fourteen Centuries Of Hatred, Jonathan Kay, Oct. 12.
This column unfairly portrays Islam and Muslims as having a vendetta against the followers of Judaism. This is not true. Islam teaches peace. It lays down the foundation of peace between nations and this includes the Jews. It requires Muslims to respect people of all faiths. Moreover, Jewish individuals have been respected in Islam and Islamic communities. Indeed according to Islam there have been many great Jews including many great prophets that are respected and adhered to by all Muslims.
It must be noted that most of the prophets mentioned in the Koran were Jewish, such as Moses, Aaron, David, Solomon and Jesus.
Jews and Muslims should be bridging peace, not vilifying hatred against each other. The actions of a few, in the past, do not represent Islam and many other Muslims.
Tahira Saliha, Toronto.

Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/10/18/todays-letters-euthanasia-another-form-of-elder-abuse/#more-15097#ixzz12iOJ9HIv


However I must take issue with Tahira's postulation that "Islam wants peace". If Islam teaches peace then where is the evidence? I see much violence, murder, honour killings, rockets lobbed into Israel, Palestinian textbooks full of hatred toward Jews, cartoons depicting Jews doing terrible things to Muslim children and the list could continue.... See Questions for Islam blog.


For her to cite only dead Jews as being respected could lead one to believe that Muslims only respect dead Jews which seems to be at the root of the problem, not the solution.

I have great respect for Muslims like Tarek Fatah   [

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarek_Fatah]

I also have great respect for any Muslims who speak against violence, honour killings and murder as well as Palestinian violence against Israel.

The problem I have is that there is a principle in Islam which basically states that "a Muslim may lie for the cause of Allah". That is why I have a problem with letters like Tahira's or any that defend the violence I see anywhere in the world perpetrated by Muslims.

Salt and High Blood Pressure: What are the facts?

Go Ahead, Salt Your Food

For thirty years, people have believed salt should be avoided at all costs. It's time to put that myth to rest.

By John Mariani

Image Of A Salt Shaker In A Wanted Poster

iStockPhoto

For thirty years, salt has been Public Enemy No. 1 in the kitchens of the misguided and health-obsessed. Back in 1976, Jean Mayer, then president of Tufts University, called salt "the most dangerous food additive of all." Four years later,The New York Times linked excessive consumption of salt to high blood pressure, heart and kidney disease, and stroke. The die had been cast. Salt was an evil thing to be avoided at all costs.

Pardon the pun, but it's time that this long-standing idea was taken with a grain of salt. Science has proven that salt is an essential part of our well-being as humans and very effective in combating iodine deficiencies. At a time when nearly every old nutritional shibboleth is under new scrutiny -- including everything from red meat, eggs and sugar to fat, carbos and cholesterol -- the merits of salt has taken on a political dimension.

"Indeed, the controversy over the benefits, if any, of salt reduction now constitutes one of the longest running, most vitriolic, and surreal disputes in all of medicine," wrote Gary Taubes inScience. 


On the one side, says Taubes, are those physicians who believe caution is the best policy until the data prove one way or the other that a low-sodium diet is beneficial; on the other are those physicians who do not support the conclusions of current data and worry about negative side effects from a low-sodium diet.

Salt's demonization had its roots in the early 1970s, when studies seemed to show a link between sodium intake and high blood pressure. As a result, doctors made the general recommendation that everyone should reduce their sodium intake. 


But by the mid-1990s newer studies were calling those data into question, including the Journal of the American Medical Association's 1998 meta-analysis of 114 clinical trials that did not support a general recommendation to reduce salt intake.


Two years later, another study in the journalHypertension concluded that "no single universal prescription for sodium intake can be scientifically justified." In a more recent statement, the founder of the American Society of Hypertension, Dr. John Laragh, goes further: "Is there any proven reason for us to grossly modify our salt intake or systematically avoid table salt? 


Generally speaking the answer is either a resounding no, or at that, at best, there is not any positive direct evidence to support such recommendations."

"Better safe than sorry" is not science, but it may be fear-mongering, the specialty of the Washington, D.C.-based nutritional group called the Center for Science and the Public Interest. Over the last few years, the CSPI has taken on the evils of movie popcorn, called fettuccine Alfredo "heart attack on a plate," labeled Mrs. Fields' Cinnamon Roll with Cream Cheese Icing "food porn," and continues to insist that "a diet high in sodium increases the risk or severity of high blood pressure, which increases the risk of heart attack and stroke. Everyone should eat less salt." (They're so unrelenting on this point, they've even sued the Food and Drug Administration over it.)

This isn't to say that salt is safe for everyone. Studies show that 30 percent of the Americans who have high blood pressure would greatly benefit from a low-sodium diet. But that's about 10 percent of the overall population -- the rest of us are fine with sodium. And drastically cutting out sodium may actually hurt some people.

"Nothing works for everybody. Low-sodium diets can be dangerous," says Dr. David Case, a hypertension specialist at Weill Medical College of Cornell University. "Clogged arteries have nothing to do with salt intake, though congestive heart disease does. Kidney disease is affected by salt intake, but healthy kidneys excrete excess salt. 


The bigger issue is what happens if people do restrict salt, which may make them more vulnerable to hemorrhaging, diarrhea, and water loss. There were some tragic results when some mothers restricted their infants' salt intake, which sent them into shock. Some even died."

It's about time that common sense drove the arguments about salt, not one-size-doesn't-fit-all harangues about its insidiousness for all people at all ages. While American diets tend to be high in processed food, which usually have incredibly high sodium content, most people do not consume salt excessively. "The average adult American has no reason to limit salt in his diet," says Dr. Chase, which is a far cry from what so many have told us for so long.

So unless you've got high blood pressure, the next time you're in the kitchen -- don't be afraid to pick up that saltshaker. Your taste buds will thank you.

http://www.esquire.com/the-side/MARIANI/mariani-salt-essay