Recently, there has been a new internet campaign by the American Humanist Association called "Kids without God", which attempts to win children over to the view that you can be a good person without a belief in God. Let's examine some of the claims being made by this campaign in detail.
1. "I'm getting a bit old for imaginary friends" - Evidence of God's existence is all around us. His very fingerprints are seen from the design of our cells, our blueprints in DNA, and in the grand-scale structure of our universe, the planets, and their orbits. What takes more faith, belief that our entire universe came about by random chance, or that it was designed by an infinite Creator God? The AHA (American Humanist Association) would never make internet banners stating "Millions of airline passengers good without airplane designers," right? How much more ridiculous is it to say that human beings, which are infinitely more complex than any airplanes, came about without an intelligent Designer?
2. "Millions are good without God, are you?" - If you believe that there is no infinite Creator God, and that all life came about through a series of random chance accidents, then who determines what is "good" and "bad"? Humanists such as those in the AHA would say that because we are just highly evolved animals, every person has the right to decide right and wrong for themselves. So if I decide that murder is morally acceptable, should I be punished if I murder someone? After all, the lion doesn’t get punished when it kills zebras for food, and it was natural selection (survival of the fittest which brought us to this stage in evolution, so why not continue the process? So you see, if man decides truth for himself based on the evolutionary worldview, then there is no true morality, no good or bad. However, if we do live in God’s world as the Bible says, then we must follow by His Law, which clearly says, “You shall not murder.” It is the belief in the one true God of the Bible that gives us a system of order from which all people benefit, and thus the claim that we can be “good” without God is unfounded and doesn’t even fit within the humanist worldview.
3. “You don’t have to believe in God to be a good person” - The billboards and ads used to promote this idea often use examples of humanists giving great sums of money to charity, and then make the statement that you can be “good without God.” How is this “good” in the evolutionary worldview, though? If we are just animals that are evolving by the process of survival of the fittest, then wouldn’t we want to get rid of the less fortunate members of society so that we can continue this process of upward evolution? And if every person decides what’s right and wrong for themselves, couldn’t stealing be considered just as “good” as giving large sums of money? In a humanistic worldview, there is no standard for right and wrong other than that which man has made from his own heart, which is “deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; who can know it?” (Jeremiah 17:9)
I thought natural selection was supposed to get rid of the "less-fit" members of society? How is charity good in the evolutionary worldview? |
When you look at some of the things which the American Humanist Association stands for (homosexuality, abortion, radical environmentalism, etc.), you quickly see how well this campaign matches what the Apostle Paul prophesied about in Romans 1:18-25;
“18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. 24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.”
Too funny that secular samaritan has an add on your page.
ReplyDeleteOnce you start to prove your claims, I'll take you seriously.
Question:"Millions are good without God, are you?" - If you believe that there is no infinite Creator God, and that all life came about through a series of random chance accidents, then who determines what is "good" and "bad"".
Answer:Look up Kohlberg's stages of moral development, and get back to me. Who determines good or bad? We do.
Question: If we are just animals that are evolving by the process of survival of the fittest, then wouldn’t we want to get rid of the less fortunate members of society so that we can continue this process of upward evolution? And if every person decides what’s right and wrong for themselves, couldn’t stealing be considered just as “good” as giving large sums of money?
Answer: Evolution doesn't have squat to say about moral decisions. Evolution is simply the change in biological populations over time. You wanna talk about where morals come from, talk to a philosopher or an evolutionary psychologist.
But if you wanna talk about what science has to say about morality, and not a 2,000 year old book, check these out.
"Bzdok, D. et al. Parsing the neural correlates of moral cognition: ALE meta-analysis on morality, theory of mind, and empathy. Brain Struct Funct, 2011.". Springerlink.com. 2012-01-24
and
Harenski, CL; Antonenko, O; Shane, MS; Kiehl, KA. (2010). "A functional imaging investigation of moral deliberation and moral intuition". Neuroimage 49: 2707–2716.
And finally, in response to your first statement-arguments from incredulity are not arguments. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean you can just wave your magic wand and say "god did it". If you wanna know the actual math behind the probabilities and how they function, then read this article
How Anti-Evolutionists Abuse Mathematics by J Rosenhouse. Can be found on James Madison University's website.
Finally, while we're at it, please explain the following:
Surface area of Earth=approximately 200 million square miles
Height of Mt Everest is approximately 5.5 miles
Amount of water that needed to be supplied (and disposed of) in the Great Flood=1.1 billion cubic miles.
The atmosphere today=only capable of holding the equivalent of one inch of precipitation.
The amount of rain per second that would be falling to generate 1.1 billion cubic miles of water over 40 days=289 cubic miles per second.
Should you go with the hydroplate theory that most of the water was stored underground like most creationists do, then please show me basaltic erosional deposits are, as well as explain how the water didn't immediately boil and kill Noah. I mean even at 2 miles deep, water is ~200 degrees F at that depth due to heat from the earth's core.
When you're done, let's have a little chat about structural engineering and the beam equations needed for the ark to work.
Hello Matthew,
ReplyDeleteIf you really want answers to your challenges and arguments, I have made your comments and my responses available in the latest post on Foundations Creation Club blog. Here is the link: http://www.foundationscreationclub.blogspot.com/2012/11/answering-skeptics_29.html
Caleb (Leader of FCC)
So you've illustrated that you don't understand the meaning of the words, "evidence", "evolution", "morality", etc.
ReplyDelete...but we're supposed to take you seriously?