Author: Lyle Duell

Lyle Duell is a christian businessman, minister and author. He is the author of "From Jesus to Religion", which is available on Amazon.

An Article for Believer’s on Abortion

Posted on by Lyle Duell in Abortion, Morality & Ethics

An Article for Believer’s on Abortion

A Call for Repentance

The Bible says that God created mankind in his image and no one images God more perfectly than an innocent baby born or unborn.  Jesus said they always behold the face of the father. In view of this, I must take the position that abortion is an attack on the image of God. The scriptures portrayed God as a God of life who hates death.  Therefore, I find it incredible that people who claim to be believers can believe that it is God’s will to put a new life to death.

It is obvious to a clear-thinking believer that the men and women that commit abortions are ideologically possessed and cannot be justified for any reason other than the life of the mother is clearly threatened by the pregnancy[1].  In the Christian world view all life is sacred and the taking of any life without justification is murder and reflects the spirit of Cain who was a murder from the beginning. I hereby define murder as unjustified killing. Therefore, I must define the majority of abortions as premeditated murder.

Now, God has given the right to categorize all life[2] except human life which he specifically says was created in his image. To put human life in another category or downgraded it to a lesser form of life is stepping over the line that God has created, which is sin. No man has the authority to do this and that is exactly what men do when they start debating over when life begins and the right and wrong of abortion. Shortly after conception takes place the life of a human being is marked genetically as an individual and the image of God and therefore it is a grave sin to destroy it.

Moreover, there is absolutely nothing in the Bible to justify the idea that the unborn child is something less or different than a child after its birth.  Before the birth of Jesus, Jesus is referred to as a child and John the Baptist responded when still a fetus to the voice of Mary when still in the womb, demonstrating that even a fetus has a consciousness which is the main characteristic of God.

Some among us do not believe that an unborn fetus is a life, but if it’s not life what is it? Science believes it’s a life and Christians from the beginning have considered it a life.[3] All the women I have known during their pregnancy talk as though it’s a life so you could say language makes it a life. In most states, if someone murders a pregnant woman, they are indicted for two murders. So, in most states, the law says that the unborn are people that have a right to live. Again, If it is not a life what is it? Just a blog of cells and flash? If that is what it is the only difference with an adult and the unborn is the size of the blog of cells because it has all the same genetic makeup as an adult human being.  The only difference is its age and size.

When a people no longer can discern that abortion is contrary to nature and to the God of nature, there is something deeply wrong. In order to accept abortion, people must be ideology possessed[4] and demonically influenced. If God is to judge the world in righteousness and justice, there must be self-evident truths. His existence is self-evident and there are certain sins that are self-evident, otherwise God could not be justified in his judgment. I think it is evident that abortion is one of those truths that is self-evident because it is contrary to nature and to the God of nature. It is one of the natural laws that God has written on the hearts of all men.

This also raises the question of a corporate guild. Do people who support abortion share in the guilt of those directly responsible for preforming abortion? The indication from Scripture is yes.  The apostle Paul says, “Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.  They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.  Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them” (Rom 1:28-32).  “Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.  For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. But everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said:

Wake up, O sleeper,

rise from the dead,

and Christ will shine on you.”

Eph 5:11-14

If you are a believer and are practicing abortion or supporting it in any fashion, I would strongly suggest that you change your mind and repent.

[1] With modern technology and methods, it is extremely unlikely that a child would have to be aborted to save the life of the mother.

[2] This is what is depicted in the story of God bringing all the animals before Adam to be named.

[3] The early Christian father that wrote in the few centuries clearly state and shared the belief that abortion is nothing less than murder. Note “A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs” by David W. Bercot, Editor.

[4] Most people who claim to be Christians and endorse abortions have been influenced by materialistic humanism or the advanced liberalism of the West. Both these ideologies are grounded in atheism which is the denial of God.

He Came Down From Heaven

Posted on by Lyle Duell in Bible, Jesus

He Came Down From Heaven

“He who comes from above is above all. He who is of the earth belongs to the earth and speaks in an earthly way. He who comes from heaven is above all. He bears witness to what he has seen and heard, yet no one receives his testimony”. The Apostle John. 

In the above passage, John says there are two ways of seeing.  There is an earthly way and there is a heavenly way.  The earthly way views everything from the bottom up.  It begins with man and ends with man; man is the sum of all things.  From this point of view man begins with his own thinking, and in this, he creates his own world, a world filled with illusions.  He creates his religions, his science and his philosophy.  Then he falls down and worships them and in turn, looks to them for his salvation.

The other way of looking at things is the heavenly.  This point of view looks at everything from the top down and begins with the Wholly Other.  However, the problem is how can a human start with God?  It is obvious that he cannot.  The initiative must be of God.  God must make Himself known to man.  But how?  In the above words of Jesus, we hear him claiming to be that initiative.  In other words, God through and in Christ entered space and time to show us Gods viewpoint and to reveal the truth about God.  “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.”

This helps us to understand religion and revelation.  Religion is man trying to find God from the bottom up, revelation is God revealing himself from the top down.  In making this statement, I am not saying that man by his own effort cannot know anything about God, to the contrary man is a powerful being and a most remarkable creature that can and does create worlds and gods in his mind.

It also obvious, that God has given clues to his existence and his nature.  He gives these clues that men might seek him and find him (Acts 17:24-28).  However, man must interpret the clues and it is here where the problem begins, for in the deciphering of the clues, the divine often gets mixed with the human.  Only the Spirit of Truth can then separate the human from the divine (Heb.4:12).

This helps us to understand Scripture.  Scripture is both human and divine.  It is written by men, wishing to communicate God’s point of view to humanity.  However, they must use the medium of human language.  So, in Scripture, you have both a divine element and a human element.  You might say that God’s Spirit hides in the words of Scripture and is revealed and released by faith.

This may help us to understand the Old Testament God.  He revealed himself as the true God, the great “I Am” but the people viewed him and interpreted him from an earthly or human point of view.  Therefore, they saw him as a tribal God committed only to Israel and hating all other nations.  When in fact he wanted to use them to be a blessing to the other nations (Gen. 12:1-3). If the Old Testament Scripture could have given us a complete or even adequate view of God, there would have been no need for the Logos to take up flesh and give the Spirit to reveal the Father.  This is why John tells us that, “For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (John 1:17-18).

 

The Old Testament scripture was given as a mediator[1] between God and the Hebrews, and like most mediators, they both enlighten and darkened the thing they mediate.  The reason for this is that people tend to view or focus on the mediator instead of the thing which the mediator points too.  An old seer once said, “When a prophet points at the moon most people look at his thumb”. However, there is one mediator (Christ) who truly mediates the complete and full image of God, i.e. as much as humans can understand while in the flesh.  Of course, while in the flesh we look at everything as through a veil (1 Cor. 13:12).

How are Christians to view the Old Testament Scriptures?  Well, the New Testament tells us.

The Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy “that from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:14-17).  The purpose of Scripture here is clear, it is to impart the wisdom of God for righteous living that leads to salvation and eternal life.

When a Christian views the Old  Testament scriptures they should view them in faith and in the light of the words of Jesus and the Spirit of Christ, for He is the fulfillment of both the law and the prophet which in turn bear witness to him.  We also need to remember that as God was hidden in Jesus of Nazareth, so is He hid in scriptures to a larger degree.  As said above, in Jesus the Christ we see both the human and the divine.  However, for those who do not have the eyes to see the divine, he is veiled or hidden in his humanity.  The same is true of scripture, without faith a person will not see the divine in scripture.  Therefore, to the person without the Spirit, the scriptures are veiled and represent nothing more than a dead letter.

In Christ, the redemptive purpose of scripture is completed.  On the cross, Jesus said of the old covenant it is “finished” in the death of Christ the old covenant was fulfilled,[2] the shadow had become reality in the person of Jesus Christ.  In Jesus of Nazareth, you see a man of flesh and blood in all of its weakness.  Yet, in his Spirit, he was the power of God.  So, it is the same with the scriptures, in the written word we see all the weakness of any written word, but on a different level, the spiritual, it is the bearer of the Spirit and the power of God.  One proof of this is that all true Christians find that when they read and study scripture there is a ring of truth there that inspires them and stirs their spirits to be more like Jesus.

In Jesus, the Christ, the Word of God became flesh and blood (He came down from heaven) and it is to that Word (Logos) that we, and scripture, bear witness to.  In fact, all those who have the Spirit are truly becoming living scripture as their Lord was while in the flesh (2 Cor. 3:1-18).

[1] Gal 3:18,19

[2] Heb 10:9-10 “then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God. “He takes away the first that He may establish the second. 10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all”. NKJV

The Assumptions of the Atheist Faith

Posted on by Lyle Duell in Atheism

The Assumptions of the Atheist Faith

The atheistic faith is based on three assumptions that are either false or unprovable.  And yes, it is a faith because it is an ideal that exists in the human mind and is supported by other human beliefs.  The idea that it is a non-belief is nothing but atheistic sophistry.  Call it a nonbelief is like calling it a non-idea.  Just some more nonsense.

Let’s look at their assumptions.  The first is that there is no God.  No one can prove that there is no God[1] for in order to do so they would have to be everywhere in the universe at the same time and also outside of the universe at the same time for the very place that they were not, might be the very place that the Uncreated one is present.  They would also have to know everything in the universe; for if there was one thing that they didn’t know, it might be that there’s a God.  In essence, they would have to be God in order to say with certitude that there’s not a God.  The atheist always has to leave a small possibility that there might be a God, which the possibility in itself negates the very idea of atheism.  However, out of fear of the camel getting his nose into the tent many pretend to deny the possibility altogether.

The second assumption that I have found in most atheists is the belief that they are smarter than those that believe in God.  I have found this trait even in those who seem to be friendly towards religion.  Of course, this is an assumption that has no scientific basis.  In fact, recent polling of scientists indicates that the split is about 50-50 as to whether or not they believe in some kind of higher power[2].

When it comes to IQ some believe that The American philosopher,  psychologist and psychiatrist William James was the most intelligent man in recent times and of course he was a believer.  I have read estimates that his IQ was twice that of Einstein’s. The most intelligent living person is Christopher Langan.  He is considered by many to be the world’s smartest living person with an IQ of over 200 and he is a believer.

Of course, this doesn’t prove or disprove the existence of a God, but it does prove that the atheists’ second assumption, that they are smarter than believers, is not a scientific view and seems to be wrong.

The third assumption is that science has proven that there is no God.  This assumption is one of the most common ones among atheists and borders on ridiculous.  The following quotations speak directly to this assumption.

“Science doesn’t draw conclusions about supernatural explanations Do gods exist? Do supernatural entities intervene in human affairs? These questions may be important, but science won’t help you answer them. Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science.” Science Dept — University of California at Berkeley

“Explanations employing nonmaterialistic or supernatural events, whether or not explicit reference is made to a supernatural being, are outside the realm of science …. all of science, is necessarily silent on religion and neither refutes nor supports the existence of a deity or deities.” National Association of Biology Teachers

“no aspect of science can address supernatural questions …. supernatural entities by definition operate outside of natural laws and so [truly] cannot be investigated using methods of experimentation” — American Association for the Advancement of Science”

Some atheists, to justify their unbelief, will say that there are no scientific proofs for God, which may be true, but it raises the question as to why some of the same people believe in aliens and a universe that has a multitude of dimensions.  Where is the scientific evidence and proof of the existence of these things?  Moreover, where is the scientific evidence that the only proofs have to come from science?

[1] “Has anyone provided proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close. Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. Have our sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close. Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close, to being close. Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy in the sciences? Close enough. Does anything in the sciences or their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ballpark. Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.” David Berlinski, “The Devil’s Delusion”

[2] According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power, according to a survey of the general public conducted by the Pew Research Center in July 2006. Specifically, more than eight-in-ten Americans (83%) say they believe in God and 12% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. Finally, the poll of scientists finds that four-in-ten scientists (41%) say they do not believe in God or a higher power, while the poll of the public finds that only 4% of Americans share this view. Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted in May and June 2009

 

The Death of Psychology

Posted on by Lyle Duell in Biblical doctrines

 

 

The Death of Psychology

Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.  Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.  For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,  and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. Rom 1:22-27

Psychology[1] in specifics has helped a lot of people. However, in general, it has corrupted and contributed to the downfall of civilization. One example of this is it has turned taboos into taboos. This is especially true in the area of sexuality. In this, it has led to the wreaking of marriage and family, which are the basic building blocks of civilization. It’s done this through its constant attacks on what is normal sexuality; claiming like so many things that our sexuality is socially created. It has failed to see that the original taboos were there for a reason though sometimes exaggerated. Its whole view of sexuality is based on a materialist view of man as a purely a biological animal.

This can also be seen in their attempt to do away with the feelings we call shame or guilt[2]. Psychology’s highest goal seems to be helping people to feel good about themselves, even if they ought not to feel good about themselves and their behavior. This is even the case when it’s obvious that a person can get relief from their guilt and shame by quitting a certain behavior that they or society labels as wrong. Their answer to everything is destroyed or weekend the standard seldom is it to bring people’s behavior up to the acceptable standard. The root of this teaching is their denial of any normal standards and wholesale acceptance of moral relativism.

I grant you a  lot of this psycho babbling has been corrected by some of the behaviorists. However, the damages had been done and the myths have been established. So the mad Hatters of blunder land continue their destruction of the culture and the destruction of all norms in the name of feeling good.

Of course, the outcome of such behavior is obvious to a rational person and that is the dumbing down of our culture and morality to the point of nonexistent. And the strangest thing is that they’re doing this in the name of science[3]. However, in actuality, they are simply demonstrating the folly of human knowledge that has been detached from the reality of  God, morality and natural law.

[1] Most of my remarks are directed at psychology on the academia level.

[2] Guilt is the peg which a civilization hangs its hat. The standards of any civilization can be no higher than its guilt level.

[3] I have some serious reservations about calling psychology science. When examined it more resembles a pseudo-religion than science. Note Thomas S.Szasz “The Myth of Mental Illness” and “The Manufacture of Madness”

Is God Personal? A Letter to a Deist

Posted on by Lyle Duell in Deism, God

Is God Personal? A Letter to a Deist

It would seem it is quite hard to say anything about the deity seeing that the sizes of the universe demonstrate that God is far advanced over us mere mortals.  It would seem presumptuous of us to say anything about him, especially if those ideas lessoned his character in any way. Therefore, to say that he is personal or impersonal would be a presumptuous statement limiting him by imposing a human characteristic upon him. It seems it would be closer to the truth to refer to Him as trans-personal or beyond personality,  personality being a human characteristic. Jesus hints at this when he said that the deity knows every hair on our heads. This would indicate that His personal knowledge must be far greater than any human being. This might raise the question does not a personal knowledge of someone infer in itself a degree of a personal relationship?

The bigger question is, Why would one want to believe that the deity is impersonal? Would believing in a universe with an impersonal God be any different than a universe without a God? It surely is more convenient and comfortable to live in the universe with an impersonal God than a trans-personal one that might hold men responsible for their behavior. It does seem to me that belief in an impersonal God is not much different from atheism on a pragmatic level. The benefit from such a belief or non-belief would simply be to avoid any uncomfortable conclusion about God. It also would give one the convenience and comfort of avoiding some hard questions and decisions about life and death.

Of course, the truth is, if there is a divine trans-personal God like the Biblical God it really does not matter what we believe about Him. We still will be judged by His will and our decisions or even the lack of them. It will not matter whether or not we ignore or dodge the questions. The safe position is to believe in a trans-personal God. If there is no trans-personal god, it really doesn’t matter. Does it? However, if there is that would open the possibility that we share in some of his characteristics like anger and love. It comes back to whether or not you believe that man created God in his image or God created man in his.

Moreover, to say that God is impersonal is to say that billions of people that claim to have a relationship with Him are delusional or simply liars. Such a belief would have to be totally subjective unless you could get into the skin of every one of those people that claim they have a relationship with God. The most that any person could say is I personally do not have a relationship with God. Of course, because an individual does not have a relationship with God does not mean or prove that God is impersonal and has no personal relationship with any humans. It also seems that a lack of faith in a personal God would slam the door shut on having any experience with God. Why would a person want to do that? If a person has the choice of living in a universe where there is a personal God or a universe where there is no trans-personal God why would anyone choose the impersonal? We all have reasons for our beliefs and it seldom reason.

The Source of Homosexuality

Posted on by Lyle Duell in Homosexuality, Morality & Ethics

The Source of Homosexuality

Since the rise of modern psychology, there has been a debate over the source of homosexuality. This goes back to the debate on the source of most human psychological states. That is the debate between nurture and nature. In other words, is it environment or is it genetic or biological?

As far as I  know, there is no compelling scientific evidence, which proves that the source of homosexuality is purely genetic. In fact, studies with identical twins have demonstrated the very opposite. Most of the Science seems to point to the fact that genetics may give one a predisposition towards sexual orientation, but it does not determine it.  Genetics does not destroy free will. I find it strange how homosexuals and their supporters appeal to genetics and science when it serves their argument but reject them when it does not.[1]

Believing that homosexuality (which I do not) is purely genetic raises the question: Does being born with a certain appetite or disposition give one the right to act out their desires no matter how bizarre or extreme they maybe? Does being born with an overactive imagination about one’s attraction to children justify pedophilia? Does an extreme or perverted appetite for sex justify all sexual behavior, i.e. pedophile, orgies, debauchery; sex with animals, incest, womanizing, etc.  In essence, does ones appetite do away with the idea of normal sexuality?

It would also seem that natural law has a place in this discussion, in that nature has provided every species the biological body parts for reproduction. It would seem that the very purpose of sexuality is procreation. This would indicate that the urge or desire for sex is a part of the procreation system that was implanted in humanity by nature. When the drive for sexuality is removed from the procreation process, you have a perversion of the entire system. In this, sexuality is very much like any other instinct, it can be excessive and perverted just as selfishness and self-centeredness are the perversions of our survival instinct.

In order to discuss homosexuality rationally, people must agree on terms. First, they must be an agreement that there are norms and therefore, perversions of those norms. This is especially true in the area of appetite. In other words, is there such a thing as a normal appetite? If not the discussion ends. There must also be a definition of perversion. In my thinking, a perversion is having an appetite for the wrong object or an excessive appetite for something. Of course, it could also be the lack of appetite as in bulimia. Personally, I don’t see how a culture can continue where people are not expected to control their appetite and their perversions.

Can we learn anything from history about homosexuality? I believe we can. There is a strong indication that homosexuality seems to increase at the end of civilization never at the beginning. It never seems to be associated with the progress of a civilization’s morality but always a form of declension. It would also seem that it is associated with the unnatural lifestyle of large urban cities.

My personal experience with friends and family that are homosexuals is that the majority of them were abused as children by siblings or relatives. In counseling, I have found that it is extremely hard if not impossible to get some people to admit to a sexual encounter or relationship with family members because the shame is just too great. It is very easy to understand how early-childhood experiences, can shape one’s sexual understanding of the self. If you have sex with someone of the same-sex and your body responds to it, it would be understandable to think that a person might think that’s an indication of their sexual orientation, when in fact, it’s purely a biological response. Still another source of homosexuality is a young boy’s sexual response to his mother. Sexual attraction to one’s mother is confusing and taboo for most young men; some deal with it by suppressing their sexual desire for all women which surfaces in an over attraction to men.

Still, another very important possibility for the origin of homosexuality is what we might call a mind freeze. As human beings and somewhat depraved creatures we often have bizarre and crazy thoughts pass through our minds. Most of these thoughts are quickly expelled or forced to the recesses of our minds. However, in some cases, people get stuck in one of these thoughts and then begin to fixate on it to the point of being addicted to it. These compulsive thoughts can lead to behavior disorders and I believe homosexuality. An example of this is that in interviewing a number of men I discovered that a large number of them could remember in a very vivid way the first hard-core pornography they saw or held in their minds a vivid picture of their first sexual encounter. In theology, these mind freezes could be referred to as temptation.

I have one friend who in his teens believed he was homosexual and practiced it for some time and then realized that he was not gay and turned to a heterosexual lifestyle, and now he’s married and has a family. I have asked him a number of times if he is ever tempted to go back to homosexuality, and he says that it has no hold on him. He was abused by his father and was dressed up like a girl and taken to his father’s bar where he was ridiculed and mocked by the men.

The only reason I can see for accepting homosexuality as normal in any fashion is by accepting the spirit of the age without much critical thinking. To me, it seems that science, history, natural law and my experience with friends and family all seem to indicate that homosexuality is anything but a positive force in the world nor can it be classified as normal. How you classified it is another story.

The last point is that sodomy goes against the tradition of all three Abrahamic faiths. This means that it is at odds with billions of people’s faith and tradition. At first, this may not seem to be a powerful argument, especially in a secular age, but when you consider that there was a reason for these faiths taking their position against such behavior. The fact that civilizations such as Greece and Rome which embraced homosexuality ceased to exist is interesting. It is understood that correlation does not necessitate mean causation, but it well could. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah in scripture seems to link sexual perversion and declension.

Why the sudden change in people’s understanding of homosexuality? Some of it can be traced back to the enlightenment that created a bias towards anything religious and its association of morality with religion especially things having to do with sexuality. Sigmund Freud popularized these ideas and the general public accepted it with the belief that it was going to lead to sexual freedom[2]. What it led to was an obsession with sexuality. The pseudoscience of Freud was especially popular with men of the 50s and 60s who believed that their appetite was being suppressed by a rigid sexuality. Thus the popularity of Playboy magazine. There is also strong evidence that there was an effort by the elites in education and Hollywood to normalize homosexuality and classic hedonism in the last few decades which is understandable seeing they have nothing to live for other than feeling good and satisfying their appetites. The satisfaction of one’s appetite has become the par excellence virtue of Western culture. The only thing left for Western culture is for it to embrace its nihilism and die or repent of its nonsense.

[1] If homosexuality is purely genetic that would mean that it is simply a negative mutation which would make it difficult to put a positive spin on it. How could a gene be considered positive if it has the potential of eradicating the species? The only way homosexuality could be considered positive is if you wrap it in the ideology of radical individualism.

[2] instead of freedom it has led to slavery of our passions and our sexual appetites. Scripture speaks of these men, “These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity-for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him. (2 Peter 2:17-19).

 

More Nonsense of The New Atheists

Posted on by Lyle Duell in Apologetics, Atheism, Nonsense

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. [1]

[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.