kachoban

Moral depravity: The history of the atheist community and various studies concerning the atheist community point to moral depravity being a causal factor for atheism.[1] In addition, there is the historical matter of deceit being used in a major way to propagate atheism from the time of Charles Darwin onward. Also, Bible exegesis points to the moral depravity of atheists. Moral depravity is certainly one of the prime causes of atheism. Francis Thompson wrote: "Maybe the atheist cannot find God for the same reason a thief cannot find a policeman." (see also: Atheism and morality )

Atheistic upbringing. However, according to recent research by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, in the United States, a majority of those surveyed who were raised in atheist or agnostic households, or where there was no specific religious attachment, later chose to join a religious faith.[2][3] A notable example, of a person raised in a atheistic household who later became a Christian is William J. Murray. Mr. Murray was raised by Madalyn Murray O'Hair who founded the organization American Atheists. In addition, Christianity is experiencing rapid growth in atheistic communist China and has experienced rapid growth in former communist countries. [4][5][6]

Rebellion: Atheism stems from a deliberate choice to ignore the reality of God's existence [7] Dinesh D'Souza declared: "Look at Satan's reason for rebelling against God. It's not that he doesn't recognize that God is greater than he is. He does. It's just that he doesn't want to play by anybody else's rules. This idea that it is better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven is Satan's motto, and it turns out that this is also the motto of contemporary atheists such as Christopher Hitchens." [8]

Naiveté/Gullibility: Many atheists have embraced a number of far fetched, unworkable, and errant notions and ideologies such as communism, abiogenesis, and evolution despite abundant evidence of their falsity.

Irrational thinking: As noted earlier, a comprehensive study by Baylor University found that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians.[9] Also, as noted above, a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer found irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born again Christian college students were found to be the least likely.[10]

Superficiality: Noted ex-atheist and psychologist Dr. Paul Vitz has stated that he had superficial reasons for becoming an atheist such as the desire to be accepted by his Stanford University professors who were united in disbelief regarding God.[11]

Error: Some argue that atheism partly stems from a failure to fairly and judiciously consider the facts [14]

State churches: In regards to the causes of atheism, rates of atheism are much higher in countries with a state sanctioned religion (such as many European countries), and lower in states without a sanctioned religion (such as the United States). Some argue this is because state churches become bloated, corrupt, and/or out of touch with the religious intuitions of the population, while churches independent of the state are leaner and more adaptable. It is important to distinguish "state-sanctioned churches," where participation is voluntary, from "state-mandated churches" (such as Saudi Arabia) with much lower atheism rates because publicly admitted atheism is punishable by death. [15]

Self-deception[16]

Poor relationship with father: Some argue that a troubled/non-existent relationship with a father may influence one of the causes of atheism.[18] Dr. Paul Vitz wrote a book entitled Faith of the Fatherless in which he points out that after studying the lives of more than a dozen leading atheists he found that a large majority of them had a father who was present but weak, present but abusive, or absent.[19][20] Dr. Vitz also examined the lives of prominent theists who were contemporaneous to their atheist counterparts and from the same culture and in every instance these prominent theists had a good relationship with his father.[21] Dr. Vitz has also stated other common factors he observed in the leading atheists he profiled: they were all intelligent and arrogant.[22]

Division in religion: According to Francis Bacon, atheism is caused by "divisions in religion, if they be many; for any one main division addeth zeal to both sides, but many divisions introduce atheism." [23]

If Jesus did not actually rise from the dead, why did the disciples go from frightened, timid followers of Jesus before his death, to bold evangelists willing to die preaching his resurrection if they just really made the whole thing up and he was still dead? Remember, before Jesus was crucified, the disciples were, for the most part, cowards. Peter denied even knowing Jesus 3 times before the crucifixion. What event changed them from cowards to courageous? Answer: They must have actually seen the risen Jesus.

Why were the disciples willing to be tortured and killed for a known lie? You don’t need a degree in human psychology to know that people do not die for a cause they know to be false. People do certainly die for false beliefs all the time, but they think they are dying for the truth. If the disciples faked the resurrection, they would know Christianity is a lie. History records they were tortured and killed for their faith, and not one of them said, under torture “okay, okay, we made the whole thing up”? Why is that? Answer: They must have actually seen the risen Jesus.

Why would they make up the resurrection story if Jesus turned out to be a fraud? Remember, Jesus told them he would rise after 3 days. If he was still dead on day four, that means he wasn’t who he claimed he was, he wasn’t the Messiah and certainly wasn’t God after all, so why would the disciples worship a dead guy who lied to them and was exposed as a fraud? Answer: They must have actually seen the risen Jesus.

What was their motive? Lies or deceptions are typically done for some selfish motive. Preaching the resurrection of Jesus would not bring them wealth, fame, status or popularity. It would only cause them to be hated, scorned, persecuted, excommunicated, imprisoned, exiled, beheaded, tortured and crucified, as history records, so again, what could possibly be their motive? Just to save face? That’s certainly not logical. No one is going to go through what the disciples went through just because they’re too embarrassed to say “I guess we were wrong”, so what was their motive? Answer: It was the TRUTH. They must have actually seen the risen Jesus.

How do the disciples, 12 ordinary people pull off such a hoax? Remember, this “hoax” would trigger thousands of skeptics per day to convert to following their scam as well as redirect the entire world to even eventually change their calendars and establish their hoax character, Jesus as the best known religious figure in all of humanity. How could they pull something like this off without ever getting exposed, offering a death bed confession or even admitting it was a hoax under torture? Answer: It must not be a hoax. They must have actually seen the risen Jesus.

Why would thousands of people immediately convert if Jesus didn’t actually rise from the dead? Think about it. History records that thousands upon thousands were instantly and immediately mass converting to be followers of Jesus, as many as 3000 in a day. It is recorded that after the crucifixion, Jesus appeared alive over a span of 40 days and to “500 brethren”. (Back then, only men were counted in crowd totals, so factoring in women and children, Jesus most likely appeared to safely 1500 to 2000 people over 40 days). If that many people saw Jesus alive, it would explain how so many were converting because even the most hardened skeptics would have crowds and crowds of former skeptics saying “yes, it’s true, we all have seen him too”, but if no one saw him alive and the crowds had only the words of the disciples to go by, why would thousands convert? Remember, the disciples were preaching to many who didn’t want to believe Jesus was the Messiah, so what words could they speak to hostile crowds to convince them Jesus really did rise from the dead? “Trust us”? That might convince some of the disciple’s closest friends, but not thousands upon thousands of skeptics. So why did thousands convert? Answer: Crowds must have actually seen the risen Jesus.

Why did the disciples make themselves look bad in the Gospels? Think about it, if you were going to make up a story, wouldn’t you present yourself in somewhat of a positive light? The disciples painted themselves as sniveling cowards lacking in faith. Why? Answer: They must have been telling the truth.

How did Saul of Tarsus, the chief persecutor of Christians convert to become the Apostle Paul, the chief follower of Jesus if he didn’t really have an encounter with a risen Jesus? Logically, if Jesus didn’t really rise from the dead, Saul would just gloat in his victory, exposing Jesus as a fraud who couldn’t conquer death after all, so what event could have caused him to convert? Answer: He must have actually encountered the risen Jesus as recorded.

While Intelligent Design skeptics may claim there is no evidence of God, the actual scientific evidence for God's existence is overwhelming, scientifically answering the question, "does God exist?".

In science there is a Law of Physics called the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Within it is a Conservation of Energy Law that states, as a key principle that all energy in a closed system must be conserved. Okay, fancy language, but what does that mean? It means that while energy can convert into matter (physical “stuff”), and matter into energy, however much total “stuff” there is (matter and energy), there can never be an increase in that total amount or a decrease in that total amount. So however much total “stuff” there is in the universe, (matter and energy combined), there can never have been more and never have been less. All it can do is convert to different forms, like matter to energy or energy to matter, but the total amount of all of it has to remain the same.

The “closed system” is a scientific term that refers to a system or an “area” that has no outside influence, like the universe. Now, as believers we know, of course, that God does influence the universe, so many believers would consider the universe an “open system”, (one that does get outside influence), but for the atheist who says there is no God, the universe is all there is, so from their perspective and for the sake of conventional science, the universe would get no outside influence and would therefore be considered a “closed system”.

Back to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. If it states that you can never have an increase or decrease of energy/matter, which means that matter/energy can not be created from nothingness, how did we get all the matter and energy in the universe? If science is all there is and there is no God, then the 1st Law of Thermodynamics reigns supreme and therefore it would be impossible to have matter and energy in existence right now. Simply put, when you open your eyes and see matter and experience energy, what you see is impossible according to the known Laws of science if, in fact, there is no God. Therefore, science itself says there must be a God.

Plain and simple, matter/energy can not come into existence. It is scientifically impossible, yet here we see everything around us, so how can that be? There are really only 3 possibilities. Option A: Everything came into existence by itself anyway, without the help of God, (even though science has proven that impossible). Option B: Everything in the universe has always existed for all of eternity, or Option C: There must be a God, a Being greater than science, who created the Laws of science and has the ability to disobey them. Not only is a belief in God the only logical conclusion to draw, it's the only one scientifically possible because remember, if there is no God, the first two options are scientifically impossible according to the actual Laws of Physics.

To believe in Evolution, you must accept a belief in an old Earth that is “billions of years old”, but the scientific evidence actually points to a young Earth that's about 6000 years old, which would support the interpretation of 6 literal 24 hour days of the Genesis Creation as recorded in the Bible. First though, we have to realize we have been conditioned to believe that biological or geological change takes long periods of time. However, the actual scientific evidence shows that things we assume take “millions of years” to happen actually don't take that long at all.

One small example of this brainwashing is the Geologic Column. We've all seen these impressive layers of ground as we drive on a road that has been cut through a mountain or when we look at the walls of the Grand Canyon. We also see this Geologic Column on paper in our Geology books. But there's a problem; The Geologic column in your school textbook doesn't line up with the actual geologic strata in the ground. Over 99% of all the layers in the actual ground are different than the official “Geologic Column” you see in your Geology book. Bottom line, it appears that way on paper, but not in the ground. The layers in the ground are actually all out of sequence, upside down, inverted, missing layers, etc. The layers are all randomly shuffled throughout the entire planet like a deck of cards. This is exactly what we would expect to see if there were a worldwide flood producing massive mud deposits all over the Earth. It is not what we should see if these layers supposedly represent the surfaces of the Earth over the last “500 million years”.

Simply put, the Creation Scientist says the Geological strata we see in the ground was all laid downover a fairly short period of time as part of the natural layering that takes place after massive flooding and mud deposits, or in other words, after Noah's flood about 4500 years ago. Evolutionary scientists say the layers in the ground were the various surfaces of the Earth over the last 500 million years.

In the ground, right now are literally thousands of “polystrate” fossils. These are fossils that are standing upright, vertically punching through many (poly) of the layers (strate or strata) in the ground. In other words, picture a fossilized tree standing upright, right in the middle of the Geologic Column going up through “millions of years” of several layers. If the evolutionists are right, that would mean the bottom of that tree would be in layers of the ground millions of years “older” that the top of the tree. How logical is that? There are literally thousands of these polystrate trees, right now, in the ground all over the Earth. I can assure you, you'll never see their photos in your school Geology books because evolutionists don't want you to know about them. What's also interesting is that the majority of these fossilized trees do not have branches or roots. They literally look like telephone poles. So how and when did they get there? To find out, let's look at Mt. St Helens.

In 1980 when Mt. St. Helens erupted, we noticed a fascinating phenomenon. The force of the eruption blasted the forests in the area with such power that it broke the trees off at the base of the ground, leaving the roots underground and stripped the branches from the trunks leaving the hillsides littered with thousands of, what appeared to be “telephone poles”. No branches, no roots. We see that this is common when volcanoes erupt near forests and leave thousands of branch-less, rootless trees littering the hillsides. Near Mt. St. Helens, thousands of these “telephone pole” trees rolled into nearby Spirit Lake creating massive log mats. To see the photos, it just looks like thousands of telephone poles floating in the water. As the trees became waterlogged, they sank, but they didn't sink horizontally. It was observed that as they got more waterlogged, they eventually turned upright, floating vertically until finally they sank to the bottom, punching their way down into the muddy bottom. Additional mud deposits into the lake covered them up even more. This is not theory, this is what was actually observed.

Now let's go back to Noah's flood. If there were a worldwide flood and waters were springing forth from the deep as the Bible says, there would have been massive continental shifting. We know today that continental shifting triggers volcanoes, so it is safe to presume that if the story of Noah is true, there would have been volcanoes erupting all over the Earth. That means there would have been forests laid bare, it's trees stripped of their roots and branches, and floating log mats worldwide of branchless, rootless trees.

Why aren't these things mentioned in textbooks?

The evidence that dinosaurs lived with man in recent history is staggering and overwhelming due to the countless artifacts, drawings, carvings, statues, mosaics and depictions throughout history of Brachiosaurus, Stegosaurus, Plesiosaur, Pterodactyl, Triceratops, T-rex and more. If man didn't live with these creatures, how did artists throughout ancient history and in cultures all over the world happen to re-create these beasts, thousands of years ago, to “coincidentally” look identical to what we see in the dinosaur books and museums today? Some may say “well, they must have seen dinosaur skeletons back then too”. Not so. Here's why.

Dinosaur skeletons aren't found just lying on the ground intact, so someone walking by can look down and see what the dinosaur looked like. The bones are separated, fragmented and embedded deep within the ground, mountains and rock with most of them missing. Occasionally, you might find a piece of a single bone sticking out of a rock here or there, but that's pretty much all we find today. Logic dicates that's all anyone in ancient history would ever have found as well. They would not have been able to create the image of the entire beast without the entire skeleton, yet the science of Paleontology did not develop until the early 1800's. The process of digging out and excavating dinosaur bones from rock didn't begin until then. Consequently, the first complete skeleton of a dinosaur was not constructed until the 1800's.

In 1841, British Anatomist Richard Owen coined a brand new word..... “dinosaur”, from the Greek “deinos”, meaning great or terrible.....and “sauros” meaning lizard. Before 1841 the word “dinosaur” didn't exist. That doesn't mean dinosaurs didn't exist, it just means these giant reptilian creatures weren't called “dinosaurs”. They were called dragons, and dragon sightings have been documented and recorded throughout history by eyewitnesses and have been a part of legend in cultures all over the Earth from England to China. There are even more than 20 references to dinosaurs in the Bible, but of course they're not called “dinosaurs”, as the word did not exist yet. They were called dragons and the Bible even gives detailed descriptions of dinosaurs in various places.

The mere mention of dinosaurs on Noah's Ark or dinosaurs living with man in recent times, let alone dinosaurs in the Bible will draw giggles from evolution believing people, but what if there is actual historic, scientific and even eyewitness evidence for this? The fact is that more and more evidence continues to be uncovered proving everything we've been taught about dinosaurs is wrong.

Dinosaurs have been documented in history by eyewitnesses such as Marco Polo, Herodotus and Alexander the Great. There exists today dozens of cave drawings, mosaics, sculptures and paintings of dinosaurs from ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Cambodia, Europe, Austrailia , North America and all over the Earth.

And please don't mention KT boundary as there are accounts of polystrate fossils piercing it.

Sources: The Travels of Marco Polo, © 1948,Book 2, Chapter XL, pg. 185-186

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2707/2707%E2%80%A6

P. Taylor, The Great Dinosaur Mystery, Films for Christ, Mesa, Arizona, 1991. See also P. Taylor, The Great Dinosaur Mystery and the Bible, Accent Publications, Denver, Colorado, 1989.

Kramer, Samuel, History Begins at Sumer, 1959, pp.170-81.

http://www.fairrosa.info/dragon/

The mere mention of dinosaurs on Noah's Ark or dinosaurs living with man in recent times, let alone dinosaurs in the Bible will draw giggles from evolution believing people, but what if there is actual historic, scientific and even eyewitness evidence for this? The fact is that more and more evidence continues to be uncovered proving everything we've been taught about dinosaurs is wrong. As more of this evidence comes out, the evolutionists won't be able to keep it censored from the text books science journals for much longer.

Dinosaurs have been documented in history by eyewitnesses such as Marco Polo, Herodotus and Alexander the Great. There exists today dozens of cave drawings, mosaics, sculptures and paintings of dinosaurs from ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Cambodia, Europe, Austrailia , North America and all over the Earth.

I've noticed that this forum is a joke and extremely discouraging to anyone who actually has a sincere question relating to R&S. Atheists are constantly complaining of Christians and other Abrahamic religion followers trying to convert others, yet Atheists are constantly trolling and pushing their lack of beliefs in this forum.

A genuine paradigm shift. While mainstream science remains materialist, a substantial number of scientists are supporting and developing a paradigm based on the primacy of consciousness.

Dr. Amit Goswami, Ph.D, a pioneer of this revolutionary new perspective within science shares with us his vision of the unlimited potential of consciousness as the ground of all being, and how this revelation can actually help us to live better.

The Quantum Activist tells the story of a man who challenges us to rethink our very notions of existence and reality, with a force and scope not felt since Einstein.

If this applies to you, if not, please don't answer. I would like truthful, intelligent answers please.

I noticed this, especially with UK Y!A...