Skip to main content

Being an Atheist DOES NOT Make You More Scientific!

Atheists like Richard Dawkins keep claiming that to be truly scientific, one must become an atheist. To become truly free then one must become an atheist. The idea of a God ruling the Universe for them is repressive and dictatorial. They think that believing in God is disruptive to scientific progress and that they alone possess the keys to progress. But let's take a moment to think about what we can see through science.

Science shows us that there's nothing that was ever conceived by mere accident. Do you think it's just an accident that everything in science is so fantastically complex you need to have separate branches of science to study it? We have natural science, formal science, social science and applied science. Then under each science, there are still several branches of study. In natural science we have biology, chemistry, physics and astronomy and yet that doesn't cover anything. In the fields of science, there are several specialties. No one can truly and fully master all the fields of science. Science itself is such a broad spectrum of study that can only tell you that life is no accident.

The problem of becoming an atheist to become more "scientific" means one must deny the obvious. Atheists can go ahead and say that inventions weren't created by the wave of a magic wand in their quest to discredit the idea of creation. On the other hand, they fail to give a real explanation to why in the world does science have such order or like how even the most complex structures are so orderly done. Can unguided and random processes create order? There has to be someone involved. Besides, I think those theistic evolutionists are a little more intelligent than the atheistic evolutionists for acknowledging that a designer is needed in nature. Difference is theistic evolution isn't compatible with Christianity because it goes against God's character in Genesis.

The problem of becoming an atheist to become more scientific, one must also deny the contribution of scientists who weren't atheists. If they say no one can be a scientist unless one is an atheist then they must seek to disprove everything that non-atheists have contributed. It would be amusing to see them try to disprove Isaac Newton's physics to their own risk. It would be something if they tried to disprove every biologist who wasn't an atheist. In short, they're really going to make fools out of themselves as Romans 1:22 says that those who deny God profess themselves to be wise but are made fools instead.


See also:

Popular posts from this blog

Ken Ham's Illustrations on Spiritual Warfare Against Humanism

Dr. Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis made these beautiful illustrations to show what's wrong with the church today. Let's take a look at the two illustrations on how Christians engage their spiritual warfare. 
The first illustration reveals the following:
One member is asleep when he should be doing something.Another person is firing at the balloons because the person who's supposed to fire it is asleep on the job.Somebody is focused on deflecting cannon balls than hitting the source of the cannon balls.Somebody is treating the whole situation like a game.  
By doing so, humanism is victorious whenever the local church is asleep. This is the problem to why Christians tend to fall down in battle at times:
Ezekiel 22:30 And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before Me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none.
In short, if you're not going to stand in the gap on behalf of the land then who will? It's the…

The Ridiculous Roman Catholic View That Marriage Must Be Done Inside Their Church or It's Invalid

I remembered reading through the seven sacraments or ordinances of the Roman Catholic institution in a catechism. One of the teachings is that marriage must be treated as a sacrament. What it also implies is that if your marriage is done in a civil court that even if it was duly registered, that both couples were in a sexually pure union then it's not a marriage. So does that mean that a person can marry in a civil court, get divorced and marry his next spouse in the Roman Catholic institution?

Let's address the issue of civil marriage that is pure and holy. In short there was no incest, no adultery and it was between two people who are eligible for marriage. So why should the Roman Catholic institution even think that two people who got married with the sexually pure prerequisites in the eyes of God should be rejected. Is it because unless it's a priest who performs the marriage then the marriage can't be validated? It's a problem with how Roman Catholics have thei…

No Moral Absolutes Means No Human Rights

We have the truth that human rights activists are everywhere who reject the truth that there are moral absolutes. Many of them have their idea of "Judge not and you will not be judged." As for the atheistic human activists, they tend to carry out Richard Dawkins' quote from the River Out of Eden which says that there's no good, no evil but only pitiless indifference. They think that there are no such thing as moral absolutes. So if they believe that there are no moral absolutes then why are they fighting for human rights which requires moral absolutes to determine them? After all, Dawkins just said there is no purpose but only pitiless indifference.

Here's another problem with atheists' appeal to human rights. Why do they appeal to human rights when they claim that there are no moral absolutes and morality is relative? Human rights are determined by moral absolutes that God made. When God made His Ten Commandments and gave the whole Law - He made it as the st…

James 2 DOES NOT Teach Works Salvation

In a hasty attempt to defend works salvation, they would appeal to James 2.  It would be time to actually clear the fact that Paul and James DO NOT contradict each other. James 2 DOES NOT teach works salvation in which now can be clearly seen when this whole chapter is being dissected to show that James 2 does not defend the heretic crowd.  So let's try to check out what James 2 really is saying.
So first, it's time to think about these facts to debunk the heretical argument of using James 2:
1.) James 2:14-18 is not talking about works salvation but rather, again showing one's faith by one's works.  James 2:18 is a challenge to show one's faith.  Want to know about faith?  Hebrews 11 talks about the results of faith with some of the heroes of the Bible.  Try to coincide Hebrews 11 and James 2 and one sees the results of faith.  As said, when one says that a faith without works is DEAD because true faith produces good works to validate faith.  That's really th…

Does Salvation by Grace Through Faith in Jesus Christ Grant a License to Sin?

Here's a commonly heard argument saying, "Well salvation by faith alone in Jesus Christ is unjust and grants a license to sin." which is frequently done by most world religions.  They demand people must work for their salvation and for one, it's NOT even realistic or practical as it promotes the idea of a dictator God PLUS it's nothing more than asking for the impossible because God's standard of holiness is a LOT higher than all the good works man does.  Despite all the good man does, still they will fall into sin and the followers of almost every false religion this world has to offer shows that like how your average religious person attends religious services yet he/she falls into sin for the rest of the week, showing he/she is WEAK in the flesh.
Now it's time to really correct the whole erroneous argument as false.  Why?  The Bible says otherwise about what God's salvation by grace through faith really does- it transforms the individual to resist…

What Does Pisseth Against the Wall Mean?

It's really getting bad for some of my Independent Fundamental Baptist brethren to actually even take the words "pisseth against the wall" which appears at least six times in 1 Samuel 23:22, 1 Samuel 25:34, 1 Kings 14:10, 1 Kings 16:11, 1 Kings 21:21 and 2 Kings 9:8 where the King James actually has the words "pisseth against the wall".  Now I am a King James only-ist but I do not support the stupid interpretation of "pisseth against the wall" by some IFB preachers who have become in some way similar to the Catholic Faith Defenders that they argue against when they should spend their time soulwinning.  Actually I even heard that rather outrageous "pisseth against the wall" sermon by Steven Anderson that was so taken out of context.
So what does pisseth against the wall mean? Let us take a look at these six verses and take it on a exegetic view NOT an eisegetic (out of context) view:
1 Samuel 23:22- "And so more also do God unto the ene…

What's Wrong with the Ang Dating Daan Movement?

The Ang Dating Daan movement is by the Members Church of God International spearheaded by its pastor (and so-called "prophet") Eliseo Soriano.  While claiming to be an expositor of the Scriptures with his "Itanong Mo Kay Soriano" or "Ask Soriano" In English, this religious group actually isn't Christian as some of the ignorant would want to believe.  Though the group claims the Bible is their only authority (as some cults do) but the problem is that they believe only Eli Soriano may interpret the Scriptures.  This is utter heresy!  Not even a great man in the Scriptures, Charles Spurgeon ever made such a preposterous claim!  This is no better than the "true church" movement by Darwin Fish which is exposed by Pastor Phil Johnson as a heretical movement.  In fact, I'm not going to waste my time debating with ADD members, they are a total waste of my time as every other debate.
Unlike John F. Macarthur of Grace to You that actually encoura…