More Nonsense of The New Atheists
I hope the reader will bear with me as I share with you some nonsense about something that I’ve inherited from the new atheist. It is nonsense, which means that my response is also probably nonsense as well. At least what I have to say will give you something to think about, but I’m not completely certain because it is a non-belief and I’m unsure as to whether you can actually think about it.
The new atheist claims that they have no burden of proof because atheism is not a belief but rather a non-belief[i]. Right. Atheists, along with everyone else, can or cannot prove or disprove a non-belief. Nor can they argue for, or against, a non-belief. In fact, you could argue that you cannot even speak from a non-belief other than simply to say, “I do not believe it,” i.e. I’ve never made an argument for or against the existence of a spaghetti monster. If you’re talking about spaghetti monsters, the first thing you must do is define it, which no one has ever done for me, so I would have to say that when it comes to spaghetti monsters, I’m agnostic. However, I know of only a handful of atheists who refuse to speak about the subject of God and offer arguments against his existence. They must believe something about the God they are arguing against. Of course, the truth is they build a straw man God in their imaginations and then argue against it.
If you are arguing for or against something, you are not arguing from a non-belief because that is impossible. Moreover, when arguing against something, the argument “I don’t believe” is insufficient because that is an opinion, not an argument. If you argue, you must argue from some other position or ideology not a non-belief. You cannot as atheists do, argue against God and then claim atheism as a non-belief that you have no burden of proof to justify. Atheists must argue against God from either materialism or naturalist ideology, which are beliefs. In other words, the minute they open their mouths the burden of proof lies on the one trying to prove their unbelief by means of other beliefs. In essence, they have to borrow a belief structure from other ideologies in order to speak against a belief in God. If they don’t want any burden of proof, they should simply not speak and quit arguing from materialism, scientism and naturalism. Once they argue from these other “isms” or ideologies, they then have the burden of proof to demonstrate its truthfulness. 
[i] what is a non-belief? If I hold a belief in my mind that is not true is that a non-belief or is it a false belief? Actually, the only non-belief that a human being can entertain is that God is nothingness. Nothingness is the only non-belief that a human can entertain.
What About the Doctrine of Eternal Security?
The doctrine of eternal security was first taught by Augustine of Hippo 354-430 AD and was not readily accepted by the church at large; prior to him it is not found in any of the early writings of the church fathers. The next prominent one to teach it was John Calvin 1509-1564 AD.
In my thinking, the doctrine of eternal security is a “me” doctrine and human-centered. It is irrelative to the person who intends to continue with Christ and obey him. One of its roots is the lack of faith in the forgiveness we received by Christ and reflects anxiety over one’s salvation. It is a stumbling block for many because it destroys the tension between sanctification and justification, which is necessary for a balanced Christian walk. By its very nature, it inhibits growth and a striving for maturity and holiness in Christ. By this, I am not inferring that we can make ourselves mature nor earn our salvation by growing, but just like in the natural world where a child is expected to grow up, a believer is expected to grow up in their faith. We must continue to do those things that contribute to our growth. Things like fellowship, prayer, meditation and the reading of scripture. To neglect these is like a man that refuses to eat and yet expects to live.
 Here are some typical quotations from their writings: We ought, therefore, brethren, carefully to inquire concerning our salvation. Otherwise, the wicked one, having made his entrance by deceit, may hurl us forth from our life. Barnabas (c. 70-130).
Those who do not obey Him, being disinherited by Him, have ceased to be His sons. Irenaeus (c. 180).
It is neither the faith, nor the love, nor the hope, nor the endurance of one day; rather, “he that endures to the end will be saved.” Clement of Alexandria (c. 195). God gives forgiveness of past sins. However, as to future sins, each one procures this for himself. He does this by repenting, by condemning the past deeds, and by begging the Father to blot them out. For only the Father is the one who is able to undo what is done. …So even in the case of one who has done the greatest good deeds in his life, but at the end has run headlong into wickedness, all his former pains are profitless to him. For at the climax of the drama, he has given up his part. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195).
The New Atheist and Self-righteousness
There is a generation that is pure in their own eyes and yet is not washed from their filthiness. Proverbs 30:12
The new atheists think that they’re righteous because they have never really made an honest attempt to be righteous. You never know how weak you are until you try to lift something heavy. The new atheist believes that they are righteous because like many in the west they equate righteousness with believing the correct thing. In other words, if you have the right doctrine, you are righteous. They inherited this belief, that right doctrine equals righteousness, from evangelical Christianity which they so vivaciously hate. Like all Pharisees they hate what they are and they detest their own shadow to the point that they deny that they even have one.
One man said of the new atheists that their thinking was “…attitudes masquerading as ideas, emotional commitments disguised as intellectual honesty.” At first these remarks puzzled me and then I realized that the new atheist’s thinking did not have its origin in deep clear thinking and reasoning, but rather in attitudes and the emotions brought about by those attitudes. The attitudes that come to my mind as typical of the new atheist type are rebellion, hubris and self-righteousness, which are very similar attitudes as those involved in the social justice movement. All of these attitudes are commonly found among younger people, especially young educated males.
Like so many young people of today the new atheists seem to be angry, but why are they angry? They are a part of the most spoiled and pampered generation that’s ever been on the face of the earth. The majority of the new atheist types are college graduates that have grown up with comfort, ease and pleasure beyond another generation’s imagination.
What are they angry about? They’re furious that the world, and it’s God, is not to their liking. Yet they are frustrated that they don’t have the power to change it. They only have the power to destroy it, which is the reason they are called ‘deconstructionists’ by many. This deconstructionism can take many forms; it can be seen in the new atheist movement, the feminist movement and the social justice movement. All of these movements have their roots in atheism and in the denial of the divine. All of these movements are nihilistic in the end and create a people without God, without meaning and without any hope in the world. The only meaning they seem to have is found in their deconstructionism and their utopian world view. This can all be seen in the atheistic communist movement that destroyed everything in its path.
Are the new atheists righteous? Well, if there is a God, they are not righteous, they are evil. If there is no God it really doesn’t matter because the word righteousness would be just a word without any real content.
Let me end with one of my favorite quotes by an old type of atheist, an honest unbeliever. Dr. E. Wengraf once confessed, “Every piece of anti-religious propaganda seems to me a crime. I surely do not wish it to be prosecuted as a crime, but I consider it immoral and loathsome. This not because of zeal for my convictions, but because of the simple knowledge, acquired through long experience that, given the same circumstances, a religious man is happier than the irreligious. In my indifference and skeptical attitude toward all positive faith, I have often envied other men to whom deep religiosity has given strong support in all the storms of life. To uproot the souls of such men is an abject deed. I abhor any proselytizing. But still, I can understand why one who believes firmly in a saving faith tries to convert others. But I cannot understand the propaganda of unbelief. We do not have the right to take away from a person his protecting shelter, be it even a shabby hut, if we are not sure we can offer him a better, more beautiful house. But to lure men from the inherited home of their souls, to make them err afterward in the wilderness of hypotheses and philosophical question marks, is either criminal fatalisms or criminal mindlessness.” Are the new atheists righteous? I guess not according to Dr. E. Wengraf.