The Hunmanist/Atheist Scriptural Affirmation:
2 Tim. 3:7
“Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth”
One of the most amazing things about atheism and humanist thought is that they don’t believe that they are offering a religious view or alternative to Christianity or any other religion. They believe that their focus in strictly on humanity and solving their own problems through methods such as reason and logic.
Quite the contrary is true. In the world of atheism flesh replaces God, the Humanist Manifesto replaces the bible and apostles of their faith are men like Issac Asimov, Richard Dawkins, Paul Kurtz and vulgar women like the late Madalyn Murray O’Hair.
Back to the Critique:
(When speaking of sexuality Mr. Randolph says this,) “I don’t buy it because I know that pheromones or at least something that is given off by an individual has an effect on arousal.”
(Once again there is no moral culpability only material and matrialistic thought. Therefore men if your wife leaves the house and sleeps with another man, don’t get angry, just blame it on those darn pheromones. Women, don’t blame your husband it was the pheromones that got him….YEA RIGHT!)
- I challenge the whole concept of sin. I think it is a misunderstanding of evolutionarily developed behaviors and human biology that were not understood at the time the scripture was written. I say we are at least as ‘good’ as we are ‘sinful’ and in reality the lines of ‘good’ and ‘sin’ are blurred by context.
(I believe the author is more agnostic than atheist. While he says that there is no sin as a true atheist would do, he yet also says that the concept of sin is a “misunderstanding of evolutionarily developed behaviors and human biology that were not understood at the time the scripture was written” Since sin is a nonmaterial concept, I fail to see how it could be misunderstood if we were only material beings. I believe that the writer has the same dilemma in trying to relay nonmaterial concepts of “good” and “sin” or sinfulness. Nevertheless he tries his best to grapple with the evident flaws that he sees in our material world.)
- “but I say that the evidence is reasonably conclusive that there never was an Adam and Eve. The only evidence for Adam and Eve come from the bible, the Egyptian myth of the potter that makes humans out of clay, and the Sumerian myth of the god that was killed and his blood was mixed with the earth to make humans.”
(As I said earlier, “NO mystery religious story that parallels the story of Jesus and many other Bible characters. By virtue of this, the Biblical narrative remains unique among rivals. Secondly, most mystery religion narratives do not offer concepts of a singular creator over and of all things, didn’t offer sin as a problem between God and man,…” The story cited has no bearing on the Biblical account of creation or the creation of man. In Genesis God did not “die” in creation to create anyone by his blood. In fact the bible says that God is a Spirit (Jn. 4:24) and that flesh and blood cannot enter into his kingdom (1 Cor. 15:50) Further God breathed the breath of life into man to make man a “living soul”(Gen. 2:7, 1Cor. 15:45) There is no resemblance to the Genesis account of the creation of man and the story that the writer presents. It is rather a leap of “blind faith” to make a correlation here.)
- “If Adam and Eve did exist then for them to have conceived of choosing to disobey god, the mechanism to do that would have had to already existed. They would have already had to have the architecture in place to allow that to happen. If not, then God would have had to make a “Great Overhaul” of human and animal physiology to ‘curse us’. Alternately to say that Adam and Eve are just Metaphors for mans sinful nature is to admit that we were made from the beginning to “prefer sin” or somewhere along the line, we were perfect and then decided to sin and the “Great Overhaul” occurred, but anthropology does not support that conclusion in any measure.”
(Once again the author presupposes that Adam and Eve were created with the predisposition to sin. He suggests that they were fatalistically predetermined by inherent genetic makeup to do so. Nothing is further from the truth. In Gen. 1:31 God after viewing all of HIS creation declared it to be “very good” This phrase indicated that his creation was without, death, turmoil, degeneration or any negative factors or features down to it’s core and essence. Therefore, according to scripture, the only overhaul that man underwent was the overhaul due to the addition of sin to his physical and spiritual nature. The act of sin immediately separated man from God (Is. 59:1-2) started the process of death within the individual and creation itself. (Rom. 8:22). I would suggest that knowing the correct interpretation of the narrative, the author would rather suggest that the entire story is merely an allegory in order to maintain his fallacious argument. The author further equates human physiology to animal physiology. This will come into play a little further.)
- “Addictions are evolutionary processes running amok that never had the ability or time to compensate for error. To say that God sabotaged us to prefer sin is obviously a ridiculous charge against the Christian God, therefore the alternative is that he didn’t have anything to do with our creation.”
(WOW! Now to those who didn’t believe what I said earlier the truth finally blatantly comes out. There was no God in our creation to begin with. He follows after the pattern of Richard Dawkins in “The God Delusion” asserting that purely natural forces best explain apparent design at all levels. Further he insists that addictive behavior are just evolutionary processes out of control that need time to compensate for the error. The logical and reasonable question would be is that evolution progressive or regressive? Have we grown past addictive behavior or are we growing into addictive behavior? As one can see the atheist with a purely materialistic outlook as the writer claims has no hope in life period.)
- “The more of these organisms that survive, the more they reproduce and the more copies they make of themselves. Over time, survival strategies evolved naturally. Some of these were discovered after that “Beautiful Mind” John Nash created a mathematical model of economic behavior.”
(Once again, even the worst behavior known to man is somehow rewarded as being merely a survival technique of natural selection of the species. Following this logic, man will soon be displaying his most historically worst behavior in order to survive. I suppose this is our Animal physiology coming to the surface.)
- On his section regarding genetics Lee said this, “There are genetic factors that promote or detract from survival. Those genetic factors that promote survival will get more copies made. Organisms that survive will pass them on. A famous genetic mutation is Sickle Cell anemia. It evidently created an evolutionary advantage against malaria, but over time the need has diminished and now it is a disease because the context changed. Additionally, sometimes genes get distorted and a mutation occurs”
(In the atheist world, mutations are normal as the species is constantly changing to eliminate the weak and strengthen the strong. The weak are at the bottom of the food chain while the strong are at the top. The Christian world view offers a totally different picture of reality and introduces a nonmaterial concept of love which cannot exist in the atheist world view. Sickness and illness to the atheist are merely means to let the strong survive. This is in stark contrast to the Council for Secular Humanism’s view. They say the following, “We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather that guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.” Therefore the authors statements are difficult to understand because he does not offer any good values or outcomes as atheists and humanists are supposed to offer. Therefore his very own arguments are not only irrational, they are in stark contrast to even his own world view.)
- “Temperament is defined as the part of the personality that is genetically defined. Patterns of behavioral traits run in families”.
(Once again the author knowing that temperament or emotions are a non material reality tries to claim it as a material or “genetically defined” part of man. This is a fallacy necessary to promote the ultimate god that he worships which is flesh and material.)
- “As organisms interact in their environment, they behave according to internal factors, according to things they have learned and according to things they have stored in memory. They have the function of their internal processes influenced and shaped as time goes on. While it can be shown that a kind of xenophobia naturally results in the brain and the evolutionary advantage is apparent, people can reduce its impact by learning about the stranger and creating positive feelings about them”
(Lee uses this statement to explain racism, basically making it equivalent to a species survival technique of genetic application This statement is also motivated, however, by an implicit or explicit rejection of God as Creator and of humans as made in His image and hence distinct from the animal world. Founded both on sentiment and on several unexamined, unproveable, and, false presuppositions, it has attained considerable influence, defended by individuals of ability and passion. If carried to its logical end, it will do far less to ennoble animals than to debase man. This argument is an attempt to refute that man is made in the image of God and moreover equate the material of man with the material and substance of animals.)
Reasoning properly is not something we are born with.
(In a prior statement the author said that temperament is genetically defined. However here he says that “reasoning” is not genetically defined. We are not born with it. The question is where does reason come from? Is reason nonmaterial? Is reason based on laws of logic? Isn’t logic nonmaterial? If so the atheist has no argument against those who operate without or against reason.)
- “One bias is the famous “Pascals Wager”. It is a simple heuristic that is analogous to the survival instinct. It says “minimize risk”. While this is a sound principle, how one goes about is the hard part. We have to teach children to “reason away” the fear of something under the bed, in the closet or noises in the house. This is where the discipline in thinking comes into play, the inference from statistics, and learning the difference between correlation and cause and effect.”
(In the area of religion, Pascal is best known for his “wager.” Pascal, a Christian believer and apologist, argued that while God’s existence cannot be known with rational certainty, it is nevertheless prudent to believe in God. In his book “Pensées”, Pascal argued that either God exists or he does not exist. However, our present life, and possibly our future destiny, rests upon the alternative that we choose. Pascal reasoned that by believing in God (Christian theism), you have everything to win (in fact, you have eternal life to win) and nothing to lose. However, by not believing, you have nothing to win and everything to lose (in fact, you could lose your eternal soul). He therefore reasoned that if you consider what’s at stake, your best (or safer) wager is to believe in God. To wit — “Pascal’s wager.” He reduces this to “minimize risk”. Since the atheist does not believe in the nonmaterial world, what risk was Pascal advising non-believers to minimize? According to the atheist, was his statement even a rational one?)
- “How much freewill is left in the pie chart of decision making? It is said among Christians that God gave us freewill as a gift and we are supposed to use it to choose to love and obey him. They say that he won’t influence our freewill. If god will not influence our freewill, then it doesn’t follow that he made us. If he made us, he built in all kinds of factors that influence our freewill.”
(I said this in response to an earlier statement, “If as the writer suggests in the entirety of the writing that we are merely material beings, then it is his faith that “free-will” does not exist. We are merely beings who’s actions are “fatalistically determined” our choice and ability to choose are mere functions and factors of genetic makeup and brain chemistry, my decision therefore to write this article and your decision to read is not free, but is all fatalistically predetermined. )
- “To say, for example, that we are guilty of adultery for thinking about it (as Jesus did) is to say that there is no hope for redemption unless we are in a constant state of repentance.”
(This is a misrepresentation of what Jesus said. Mt. 5:27-28, “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” He said if a man looks upon a woman to lust after her. These actions are more than just a thought and can be done by even a blind man. Thinking about adultery was not the problem. Looking or regarding to lust was the problem. Thoughts come as the tempter comes but should not find anything in us (John 14:29, 2 Cor. 10:4, Rom. 8) Continued thinking suggests an inclination birthed within the heart of an individual.)
- “None of this is laid out for understanding in the Bible. It was all misunderstood. Western Judicial Systems are on the edge of a cognitive science wind of change about why we behave the way we do and thinking about our culpability.”
(This lays the foundation for the next wave of the humanist and atheist agenda. We note that material science will drive alternatives to the current Judicial Systems interpretation of crime and punishment. This is in addition to the current outcry for fair sentencing among minorities and other socially disadvantaged groups of individuals. I believe this is a dangerous cocktail designed to bring more anarchy within communities and create an atmosphere that has no moral restraints and is all inclusive of the complete criminal element.)