![[img]](/images/sml_cmi_logo.png){kind=logo}
Responding to atheistic opposition
Underhanded tactics include attempted censorship
Published: 4 December 2014 (GMT+10)
We often get asked for our response to some atheist critique of an article we have published. For example, I have been asked to respond to an atheist ‘wiki’ website that has an article that claims to rebut my article Age of the earth: 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe. Correspondents have asked me to rebut the (supposed) rebuttal.
I have replied as follows.
I am very much aware of the wiki article; the fans of the website made it their business to make sure I knew about it (I got ~100 emails from them when it went up). It appeared that not many of them actually read my article at all carefully, or any of the linked supporting articles. The agenda of such fanatical atheists (‘new atheists’) is to ‘search and destroy’ (faith in Jesus as Lord and Saviour), not to ‘seek and find’.
If we responded in detail,
- It would be giving their diatribe unmerited publicity.
- It would be ‘baptising’ it with credibility by commenting on it. This would not be appropriate if their criticisms were not actually valid due to not reading my article properly in the first place.
- How would I respond? Generically? Point-by-point? The former wouldn’t be very useful and the latter would be awfully time-consuming as well as tedious for readers, especially if just rehashing the content of my original article.
- A wiki article is always changing, so I would be forever being told that my response is ‘out of date’.
- In the same light, my article is a work in progress. If I discover any weak arguments, I replace them with better ones (I have many more than 101 evidences and I am continually collecting them). I would rather them be chasing to keep up with my article rather than the other way around (there is so much to do …). When it’s all said and done, my article was the original, not their ‘many cooks-spoiled-the-broth’ one.
- We are an information ministry. At the time of writing our site contains over 9,000 articles. It is not our job to comment on every atheist blog or video out there. We already have enough information to deal with their claims. If some new article appears with some new scientific information or claim we haven’t heard before, then we usually respond in good time.
Various claims of the wiki article are dealt with in my responses to comments at the end of the article. This includes my supposedly not citing original sources, which is of course nonsense. Being a wiki, with different parts contributed by different people, most of their supposed refutations totally ignored my introductory remarks, which set out the rationale, which is not just to ‘prove the earth is 6,000 years old’, which I actually said could not be done with science (which can only involve measurements done in the present), but also casting serious doubt on the billions of years belief system (arguments against an old age are also, rather obviously, arguments for a younger age, although not necessarily a specific age). For example, with point #13, the observations regarding the Kaibab Upwarp at Grand Canyon wipe out 480 million years of evolutionary time. That does not prove that the earth is 6,000 years old but it clearly knocks a big hole in the deep time myth and argues towards a biblical time-frame.
The fact that the atheist wiki crowd saw fit to try to refute my article underlines how a very old earth is a fundamental tenet of faith for the atheist—with the fallacious reasoning that ‘given enough time anything is possible’. Deep time has been a necessary element of the naturalism myth since pre-Christian times; see The long story of long ages.
If you have someone who has thrown this at you, or something similar, I suggest that you first need to get them to engage with the arguments, not just throw a website link at you. In this example, you could hold their feet to the fire and pick a couple of the strongest of the 101 evidences and ask them to explain to you where the argument is wrong (it should not be hard to see where the wiki contributor has resorted to logical fallacies such as equivocation, appeals to authority, or ‘shoot the messenger’). And then refuse to move on until they have explained in detail any actual fault with the argument. Don’t be on the defensive but put the onus on them. If they come back with a copy-and-paste of the wiki ‘refutation’, ask them to explain to you how the cited wiki material actually overturns the argument. You need to get the skeptic to think for himself, rather than just parrot responses from an atheopathic website, which is an all too common tactic designed to overwhelm the average Christian (and CMI). This happens because most people assume evolution to be true, deferring to ‘experts’ rather than thinking for themselves. Why wouldn’t they? Our public education system only teaches one view. To repeat, it is also good to nail down the respondent to agree on a point before allowing a change of subject; see Anyone for tennis?
Be skeptical of Skeptics
Here is a rule when dealing with atheistic websites (or any that push materialism): do not believe any claim unless you check it. Satan is the “father of lies” (John 8:43-47) and his ‘children’ are masters at it. Time and time again I have been hit with some supposedly unanswerable argument, but when I research the matter I find that the issue has been seriously misconstrued in some way. Genuine Christians have a strong constraint to tell the truth; there are many biblical injunctions to do so (Psalm 101:7, Proverbs 6:16-19, 12:22, 19:9, Colossians 3:9-10, and many others). The atheists who haunt the Internet have no such moral constraint on bending the truth. I am not saying that all atheists are dishonest, but that they have no absolute moral standard that compels them to be consistently honest (except those who borrow from Christian morality). Many do lie, often blatantly. It seems that the end (promoting secularism) justifies any means, in their thinking. There are plenty of documented cases where frauds or lies have been used to promote evolution. See Evolutionist: it’s OK to deceive students to believe evolution and Textbook full of mistakes, misinformation, bias and … lies?
I also suggest reading all the comments and my responses at the end of the article (or the article in question). That should also give you a ‘heads up’ to some of the attempts to undo the arguments (there was plenty of opportunity for people to comment on the article and we also posted hostile comments, where they were civil enough in their language to publish).
If perchance you do find a seemingly sound argument against one of my 101, I would certainly be keen to know about it. If the refutation stacks up, I will delete the faulty argument and substitute it with another that I have in reserve for just such an occasion. And that applies to the other articles on creation.com; we want to know of any errors so that they can be corrected.
Because science is always moving on, scientific arguments come and go. We endeavour to update articles, or where they are archived articles we will put riders on them to alert readers to out-of-date arguments. We even have the article, “Arguments we think creationists should not use” to alert our fellow Christian creationists of bad arguments that float around cyberspace, often promoted by well-meaning but poorly-informed people. This is one of the most accessed articles on our website. Integrity is important.
Atheists’ underhanded tactics
Christians tend to be a bit naïve when it comes to the marketplace of ideas. Because we try to be truthful, we tend to assume that others will likewise be at pains to be truthful. We also tend to assume that our opponents will ‘play fair’, treating us with respect and not using underhanded tactics. However, we should remember that this is ultimately a philosophical debate and such ‘civilized’ behaviour is not to be assumed, particularly when we consider what’s at stake. Either we are accountable to a Creator or we are free to act as we choose. We should not be surprised then when people behave badly, especially when they assert we are just a cosmic accident with no ultimate purpose, that death is the end, and there is no judgment for wrongdoing, where doing the ‘right’ thing might be according to their stomach rumblings at the time?
We at CMI have experienced a lot of atheists playing foul. One example is the misuse of YouTube to get CMI videos banned. YouTube has a facility for flagging inappropriate material, such as videos that have pornographic images or gross violence or racial vilification, etc. It only takes three strikes and the video is de-listed. You can protest to YouTube that the flagging has been inappropriate but it can take a couple of weeks (or as in some cases, never) for re-instatement and meanwhile the momentum is lost for the promotion.
The atheists did not like our posting of the Fool’s Heart video, which sets out some of the historical consequences of atheism (such as the bloody French Revolution), and voted it down.
Trying to shut down Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels
More recently, we posted the official trailers for our new Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels (EAH) documentary. This documentary features fifteen Ph.D. scientists setting out why evolution just does not stack up. It is very powerful. EAH co-producer Dr Rob Carter describes what happened:
In January 2014, we posted the first official trailer for the EAH movie on YouTube. This was almost immediately ‘mirrored’ (pirate copies appearing on YouTube). The duplicate videos had the effect of reducing our ‘hit’ count, meaning our videos were bumped down the search list. We have had enough experience with verbal vitriol, insults and objectionable language from the opposition to know that we should turn off the comments feature for the video. Yet, the mirrored versions had comments enabled. Also, several of the mirrors were very low quality (one looked like it was filmed by a hand-held camera phone), making it look like we were creating poor-quality material. And, of course, there was no way for our supporters to know which video was legitimate, meaning that by watching one of the others they were inadvertently helping them and hurting us and being subjected sometimes to disgusting language in the comments. ‘Denial of free speech’ and claims like that were used to justify breaking copyright law. YouTube at least acknowledged our rights and they deleted the mirrors promptly. Yet the damage was done. They had blunted our momentum during those first critical days.
A concerted and well organized opposition
After we posted the second trailer in May of 2014, a skeptic blogger posted a link to the trailer with several key words listed, one of which was “crazy people”. This post was picked up and mirrored by many other blog sites, including Richard Dawkins’ site. Overnight, we had over 2,000 ‘dislikes’. Since the rank of a video in YouTube is based in part on the like/dislike ratio, this had the effect of driving the trailer off the first results page. We were happy that the skeptics were aware of our project, even if few of them actually watched the trailer, but their attention had a huge negative impact.
Not satisfied with the fact that our videos were still available online, sometime in August 2014 all of the highest-ranked EAH-associated videos were flagged as “inappropriate”. There is no reason for YouTube (owned by Google) to flag this video, except based upon complaints.
Yet, the Christian, family friendly Dove Foundation, after reviewing our documentary, gave us their highest rating, saying, “If we could award Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels more than five Doves, our best rating, we would!”
Flagging our videos as inappropriate was obviously done with malicious intent.
It has been an uphill battle, but the truth cannot be totally suppressed. We are in a war against powerful opposition. How should the Christian respond? Perhaps it would be good to heed the advice of Paul in Ephesians 6:10–11:
Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.
And when faced with malicious intent, 1 Pet 3:9 is appropriate: Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing.
We cannot stop the negative feedback. We cannot change hearts (only God can). We cannot do anything but stand our ground and attempt to give the best answer we can to the challenges of the skeptics, even if they do not play by the same rules as us.
Would you like to help? You can help us by finding and ‘liking’ our videos on our YouTube channel, by joining our FaceBook page, by ordering our materials, by spreading the truth, by your generous donations, and by prayer. Our job is to provide you with the best arguments available so that you will be more confident in sharing the Good News with a dark and fallen world. Your job is to get equipped, and Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels is designed to do just that. If the opposition is determined to keep you from knowing about it, that is just more of a reason you need to order the book today (and you might as well throw in a copy for a friend)!
Robert W. Carter
The God-haters also vote against Christian books on Amazon. Lots of negative votes result in a lower listing of such pages by the search engines so they are less likely to be found. These voters don’t read the book involved; they just have to know that it is arguing effectively for the Christian faith and that is enough. The more effective the video, book or article at portraying a reasoned argument for Christ, the more concerted the negative atheist attention it will attract.
Facebook attack
CMI’s head Facebook moderator Lita Cosner reports:
Recently Facebook put the ability to give company pages a rating. There is no way to turn this off (I looked when we realized this was added). We knew it was only a matter of time until the atheists realized they could bombard our Facebook page with 1-star reviews, and that happened last night, dragging our rating way down to 2.5. I mobilized our fans to bring our rating back up and to report the fake reviews. Facebook hasn’t taken anything down yet, but the positive reviews more than undid the damage of the bombardment of fake reviews (as I write this, it is 4.2 out of 5).
The next day Lita reported:
Overnight, the whole thing absolutely exploded. Nearly 300 5-star reviews, and 150 1-star reviews. The atheists are fighting back, but they’ve only been able to bring our rating down to 3.5 this time.
You can help!
If you are on Facebook, or other social media, please get onto our posts and ‘Like‘ them, but also give our CMI page a good review rating. When you read an article or view one of the videos on creation.com that you like, be sure to share it with others on whatever social media you are on, or just share it by email with your friends (there is a bar above the title of the article to make this super easy; see illustration below). The more that this happens, the higher the website will rank and then the more people will find it when they search the Internet for information about creation or evolution. And people will get saved, because ‘the truth sets free’.
Be active, that is, outvote the atheists! This will help greatly in us getting the message out via the Internet.
Thanks for standing with us against atheist attempts to silence the truth of God’s creating and redeeming work in history.
Related Articles
Further Reading
Related Media
Sadly, I have had the experience more than once of speaking with someone whom I thought was an atheist, because of the stridency of the responses, only then to be 'floored' with the statement by the adversary that he is a Christian.
Maybe you could file actions at the Human Rights Commission for something or other as regards Google in Australia, and Australian blasphemers.
The behaviour of such bodies at the Federal and State level in Australia indicate that they are more interested in suppressing the freedom of Christians then defending it.
Google (via YouTube) has procedures that apply to everyone and I don't blame Google for what happens. We have no evidence that Google has been complicit in this bad behaviour towards us.
Only the enemy of TRUTH could act with such hatred.
Thanks so much for this article and your excellent responses to some of the respondees. Furthermore, this article could almost be directed to theistic evolutionists nearly as much as atheists. I have had many negative & sometimes vitriolic responses from some of them nearly as much as I have from atheists. Many of them will praise evolutionists while extremely put down Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis, Institute For Creation Research and your Creation Ministries International. So nice to see this, thank you again.
Firstly thank you for CMI's commitment to defending the authority of bible.
You have and are equipping me to ready with answers (1Pet3:15) and I'm learning when and how to apply these when necessary.
As the article alludes and many here have commented, there is a clear attack on the gospel, especially sites like CMI.
The irony is (not really) the many false accusations of CMI's dishonesty thrown around by those using dishonest tactics. Those that 'claim' free speech, yet, it seems only as their right, not those that differ with them.
Besides Facebook, YouTube etc. being flooded by the 'rational and open-minded' to SUPPRESS the views they hate, even browser tools like WOT (World of Trust) are used as a way to falsely suppress ministries like CMI.
It just shows the ignorant and failing understanding of democracy and tolerance (some may say hateful attack) when a tool to flag dangerous sites (filled with malicious content like spam, viruses or adult material) are used to downgrade or vote down sites like CMI as dangerous.
Keep up the faithful work and thank you for your strong and vigilant, yet kind and humble, stance against such attacks.
My fellow readers and brethren, follow Romans 12 even when rebuking since the enemy can claim many things but our Christian character should always be evident.
I want to respond to Jason S because I heard him say "NONE of us truly knows. . . but I'm being real, and the truth hurts. . . And those christians who will come claiming that they know...please do tell how you do? and how it isnt just a BELIEF".
Jason, if you really are being real, please just pick an article on this site at random. Any article. And make up your mind to dissect it completely, until you can see what evidence is being proposed. Do this and you will also know something based on evidence.
Before I became a christian my search was for something real. I didn't just find a reality - I found the reality. You can too but you need to be prepared for the truth. Sometimes it doesn't just hurt, it's embarrassing. Can you handle it?
And something else. Go to the next level. Say a genuine prayer to Jesus before you read and you may find a lot more than you thought. I know you won't like this. It doesn't seem like science. Try it anyway. The Greek word in the Bible that is translated to 'faith' is actually derived from a root word about 'evidence'. This faith is not just blind belief - it is a complete collection of forensic evidence amounting to proof.
If you genuinely search you will find something genuine. Keep searching and you will keep finding more. Don't expect God to bow down to you. Be ready to encounter someone truly awesome. Watch and pray.
The sheer hostility and often vicious behaviour from those who oppose Biblical creation says everything about them and their beliefs - and nothing about Christianity, God, the Bible or Creation. It is interesting that two 'religions' are rising up globally, whose momentum and intent (for many within them though not all) is to silence any opposition through intimidation, terror and violence. And this is especially against Christians and the truth of the Bible. This clearly reveals the source of those 'religions', the purpose behind what they say and who it is they are attacking - God. Knowing the purpose behind these attacks helps us be aware of the true enemy behind this which is Satan, the author of confusion and father of lies. Those fundamentalist atheists who behave in these attacks are unwittingly being used by Satan to prove the very truth of the thing they oppose, simply because of the viciousness of their attacks. They also behave in ways which are unscientific, unreasonable and against the very educational and intellectual principles they worship!
I have stopped using the word "evolution" in discussions because it too easily derails the flow. Most can't get their head around anti-evolutionists accepting natural selection (and are clearly unscientific!)
"DARWINISM" like Maoism etc captures the notion of an ideology riding on (the faulty) data. This allows my friend to believe that I can accept the science around natural selection , but I have difficulty with a SELECTIVE process becoming a CREATIVE one.
(ie. How can shuffling a deck of cards create new spots and new cards - and so new KINDS of hands?)
fraternally, frank
First, I am most thankful for the CMI ministry. It has helped me in countless ways.
Second, in relation to the topic of the article, I can recommend Greg Koukl's website Stand to Reason in helping Christians defend their faith. He discusses in some detail how we can engage in a discussion with unbelievers. One of his suggestions that comes to mind is that the onus is in the person who makes the claim, something you also mentioned in this article.
As Christians we often feel that we have to provide all the evidence and defense. However, through Greg's tactic lessons, I have seen the benefits of getting the unbeliever to do more of the talking.
I have also found it helpful to practise these skills on youtube sites where atheists like to comment. There are many who are rude and aggressive, but occasionally you can come across those who will try to have a meaningful discussion. I don't make a habit of spending countless hours doing this as I think conversation face to face is much more productive. However, I have found it has helped me learn a lot. Personally, I am not very good at face to face when things get into a "debate/defense" situation. Youtube has allowed me to practise with the written word first where I have time to think through my responses. Hopefully, now it will flow into how I now converse face to face.
Hope this helps.
kind regards,
Lyndell
I have met Greg Koukl, at a Summit Ministries conference where we were both speaking. He's a nice guy and I like his lessons on tactics/logic a lot. Sadly, he does not seem to be 'on the page' about the problem of billions of years for the Gospel. see Did God create over billions of years?
I personally gave Greg a copy of Refuting Compromise, but I suspect he has not read it, or I think he would be fully on side with the biblical timeframe. :-)
If someone tells me that ''human nature is basically good'', I like to say, "Just look at how humans are using that wonderful tool, the Internet, to spread corruption, hate, and misinformation all over the Earth." Attacking the truth will not make it go away.
There is an article somewhere on the relationship between atheism and immorality. Bible believers already know, from Romans 1:18-32, about this connection.
Little children in atheistic schools are being set up for such a lifestyle. Many students have already fallen for it.
One sad example is a well-known doctor who was raised as a Christian. He went to university as a medical student, determined to learn skills which would benefit suffering people. In his own memoirs he tells how he threw off the moral constraints he once had, at the end of his first year at med school. He felt guilt, but did not want to reconcile with God by confessing his sin as sin. Therefore, he became a God-denying atheist. He attributed his atheism to the unrepentant immorality he had given himself to. (Which came first ?) He carried out many operations which benefitted suffering people.
His good work continues today through a foundation he set up, but it has a hollow ring to it as he has gone on to Eternity, apparently unrepentant.
If they WILL NOT to receive the love of the truth, they cannot be saved. Keep putting the truth out there, CMI, so that whoever is seeking the truth may be saved.
Actually, some Muslim sources replicate the Christian young earth material because it does support their world view (contrary to an atheist comment).
I wish Facebook would make an attempt to record interest in a particular topic. To thwart the obvious injustice of the like / dislike wars pages could be ranked by the amount of like / dislike activity, too (not a replacement, an alternative additional ranking).
We don't know of any Muslim groups that advocate a biblical timeframe. The major one publishing stuff for distribution in Europe, for example, is apparently not bothered by billions of years. This article compares and contrasts the Bible and the Koran on origins: The Koran versus Genesis.
Just to clarify also: the Facebook 'war' was on the star rating system for Facebook corporate sites. It is possible to disable this and we have done that for CMI's page.
Facebook posts can only be 'liked', and while I find it frustrating at times that there is no 'dislike' button, it does avoid a lot of the tribal wars that occur on the likes of YouTube where you can dislike things as well as like. The atheists have to actually go to the bother of writing a comment to have an influence on a Facebook page, and their comments can be removed by the page editor if they are inappropriate (and they often are).
It always reassures me that atheists attack mainly evangelical Christianity and in general leave the religions alone. The heathen rage against truth and ignore idolatry - shades of Romans 1:18.
Isn't it strange (or perhaps it's not!) that atheists are so scared of anything that supports a different view. If there is no God, then there is no reason for any moral judgments at all - and it shouldn't matter if people believe differently. The fact is (as many atheists have admitted) they just do not want to be held accountable to a Creator or higher intelligence.
G'DAY
For many yrs GOD has used me to minister to people from all walks of life,and out of that i've learnt this.
Persecution will come,as it did to JESUS it will come to every christian who stands for his truth and lives a righteous life. The word is truth and his truth never changes,we are not called to defend his truth, we are called to 1st believe, love all mankind, preach the truth and point them to JESUS.
We can encourage, but in the end everybody has to work out their own salvation. Keep up the good work of speaking the truth to all mankind. Your ministry is GREATLY BLESSED.
Maggie M. wrote:
I won't demand to bring my science into your pulpit, as long as you don't ask to put your personal, philosophical position, into our science classrooms.
"our" science classrooms? Which ones are they? The science classrooms of atheist-owned schools? I don't know of any such schools, and I don't know of any Christians who would want to.
So she must be referring to taxpayer-owned classrooms. So she is saying that she won't bring her views into our pulpits, but she wants her views taught in—and ours excluded from—schools owned by all of us!
Like Cynthia I thought the article was brilliant; but I was most impressed by your not letting the "father" of Jesus reference slip by. Some would have been tempted to just let it go. Some would consider it being to picky to point it out, but Spurgeon is quoted as saying, "Discernment is not simply a matter of telling the difference between what is right and wrong; rather it is the difference between right and almost right.". Truly, "Jesus 'father' was God the Father."; not the Holy Spirit.
Some excellent points were made here. Sometimes, it's a tough call: Do we dignify nonsense by addressing it, or let it go? I've been the recipient of a post from the same libelous wiki, and chose to *not* dismantle it piece by piece. Dr. Batten gave good reasons for ignoring the hit piece on his material.
Notice that a great deal of atheopathic attacks are driven by emotion. They claim to espouse "reason", but are not skilled in it. If belief in God and in biblical creation were matters of evidence, then everyone would be a biblical creationist Christian! No, it's about pride, rebellion and a spiritual problem of rejecting to come to God on HIS terms, not our own. Some of the comments I've seen in other places about this article help support my contention.
Keep up the good fight, we need you.
If you can't beat them, silence them! I've seen such practices more than enough on Facebook and Youtube over the years, and disturbs me. Makes me wonder what these people will do when they get into power when they are older. As well, they wonder why religious people have no respect for them and view them negatively.
Even then, a good portion of atheists claim to not be that way, but seem to not do anything to counter such negative actions, as if they don't care.
Then again, this is nothing new. It's happened for centuries with various groups. Let's learn from history.
Do you recommend wading into the fray and trying to oppose the anti-YEC bias of sites like Wikipedia?
From our experience, and that of others, there are so many atheistic trolls haunting Wikipedia that any edit that puts some balance on a controversial topic is normally quickly deleted or amended to neutralize it. It has proven to be very frustrating for many a well-meaning would-be editor.
Thank you CMI for the "Atheism's Achilles Heel" documentary I literally could not wait for it to come out. My brother and sister abandoned their faith in God so I hate evolution and I hate atheism (I don't hate atheists or evolutionists). After I watched it I invited people to come to our church and watch it to better equip believers and surprisingly I got scoffed at by a fellow believer saying how does this have anything to do with the Gospel? I was absolutely surprised! It has everything to do with the Gospel (probably just spoken out of ignorance because he has no family who abandoned faith due to the evolutionary nonsense)! Especially when evolution is forced down our throats at schools and faith is stolen from kids on day 1! God Bless you CMI, you equip me to defend my faith and I stand even stronger on the WORD of GOD! All glory to Jesus our Lord and Savior! Peace be to you CMI
Thanks Filipp. For other readers, see the Evolution's Achilles' Heels page. As evolution is the atheists' creation myth, I guess "Atheism's Achilles' Heels" would be a reasonable alternative title!
If there are no gods or God as atheists claim, then it stands to reason that only atheists could have imagined the god delusion which they now diss. Can they prove their imagination/reasoning was wrong then, but correct now?
Furthermore, Jesus was a man whom eye witnesses in the Bible observed, repeatedly, claiming that God the Holy Spirit was his Father. And Jesus accurately predicted the manner of his death, and his resurrection on the third day after, in fulfilment of prophecies in the Scriptures dating back to the dawn of creation. He also claimed before hostile Jews that he existed before Abraham was born…
‘Your father Abraham was overjoyed to see my day; he saw it and was glad.’ The Jews protested, ‘You are not yet fifty years old. How can you have seen Abraham?’ Jesus said, ‘In very truth I tell you, before Abraham was born, I am.’ — Jn§8:56-58
Yes, all atheists, if they want to be intellectually honest after seeing the reports about Jesus in the Bible, need to reassess their stance regarding their imagined non-existence of the God the Holy Spirit. After all, it does say here in Romans in the Bible that the invisible Holy Spirit of God is visible through the ‘eye of reason’.
“His invisible attributes, that is to say his everlasting power and deity, have been visible, ever since the world began, to the eye of reason, in the things he has made.”
Just a little strange terminology here. Jesus 'father' was God the Father (e.g.):
2 Corinthians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort,
2 Corinthians 11:31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, he who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying.
Galatians 1:1 Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—
For some clear thinking on the biblical concept of the Trinity, see Jesus our Creator; a biblical defence of the Trinity.
Time and aging are the sole basis for 'scientific' 'old earth' claims. The time it would take for light to reach earth from the heavens for instance. We as believers know that God is outside of time and did not require millions of light years for His creation. He did not need embryonic process to create Adam/Eve. God's unsearchable wisdom in life, eternity, creation, death and decay, far transcends man's capacity of comprehension. Time can never reveal what man can never understand. Aging is evident in all we see. This is the antithesis of evolution in itself. "For the time will come when men will no longer put up with sound doctrine. Instead to please their own desires they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths" 2 Timothy 4:3-4. Atheists clutch at any straw no matter how illogical or how impossible. Using the sophistry of scientific vernacular to smokescreen the lack of any real substance or evidence for their claims. I take their stance as a cry for help in that they seek an escape from accountability to Almighty God with so much hysterical fervor and denial.
I don't see the "Reviews option on your Facebook Page. FB says it's on the left of the Timeline, but I looked everywhere and could not find it. Can you point me in the write direction?
https://www.facebook.com/help/271128916342286
From Lita Cosner, CMI's FB moderator: The review option was removed. It was being flooded by crude and vulgar atheist comments. If they'd only been negative we would have left it up, but it was so bad we had to take it off.
Don Batten: Seems like yet more of the uncivilized behaviour that we talked about in the article.
Hello! I'm one of those atheists you seem to have such a problem with, so I thought I'd throw my two cents in.Honestly, I don't care what other people do or do not believe. Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Jew, Hindu. Makes no difference to me. The only objection I have is when your religion gets in my politics, such as this young earth business, or anti-LGBT or anti-choice actions. You may hold whatever opinions you like, but you may not force me to share them, or force them into my life. If you DO want to force people to share your beliefs, you might be better off in someplace like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.They are very big on that sort of thing. (although, while Muslims honour the Christ, even they find the young-earth thing nonsense) Now, I am none to fond of my New Atheist brethren.(They are a little too preachy, for my tastes)I see no reason why we can't all "live and let live". We're not all scary monsters,trying to squelch your freedom of religion.But, again, as I respect your right to believe, I ask that you respect our right, not to. I won't demand to bring my science into your pulpit, as long as you don't ask to put your personal, philosophical position, into our science classrooms. Thank you and good luck! The one thing I DO believe is that this world won't be much of a place, if we don't all learn to practice peace, love, mercy, justice, compassion, kindness, and most off all, tolerance. :)
Hello! I'm one of those atheists you seem to have such a problem with, so I thought I'd throw my two cents in.
Response: Actually, you don’t seem like the atheists mentioned in this article, because you don’t seem like the sort who would try to censor other views by voting them down. Indeed, it is nice to get something from an atheist that is printable without the need for removing crude language, etc.
Honestly, I don't care what other people do or do not believe. Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Jew, Hindu. Makes no difference to me.
Response: You probably do care more than you realize. For instance, Buddhists are fellow travellers with you, as they don’t believe in God (the Creator of everything). Also, Islam does not tolerate dissent (as you allude to), so someone who wants to leave Islam and be an atheist often has to continue to pretend to be a Moslem, if they value their health.
The only objection I have is when your religion gets in my politics, such as this young earth business, or anti-LGBT or anti-choice actions. You may hold whatever opinions you like, but you may not force me to share them, or force them into my life.
Response: "My politics"? I thought that the idea of a democratic system of government is that every citizen had a right to influence the decision-making process, including Christians. No? You are actually trying to force your views on the whole of society by opposing alternative views and trying to make sure that only your view is heard in school science classes (for example), or in the public arena. Take your views on abortion for example. You want women to have the freedom to murder unwanted babies. Sounds rather like something that the pre-born child is having forced on him or her, doesn’t it? Not much of a 'choice' for the baby, is it? I wonder if your support for 'choice' extends to women in India or China choosing to abort girls and keeping the boys? Or the LGBT issue; you want to force society to accept this behaviour as 'normal'. I wonder if your 'tolerance' extends to a marriage celebrant who refuses to marry three lesbians because it would violate his/her conscience to do so?
If you DO want to force people to share your beliefs, you might be better off in someplace like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. They are very big on that sort of thing.
Response: Have you ever thought about why there is so little choice in such societies, but there is a tradition of incredible freedom of conscience in (for example) the USA, the UK, Canada, Australia and much of Europe (no one is forced to be a Christian, for example)? Christians uphold that a forced conversion is not a real conversion, so there is no point in trying to coerce people into 'believing' (they would not be truly believing, would they?). The very freedoms we enjoy come from a Christian heritage.
Do some research: think about the lack of freedom of people living under despotic regimes founded on atheism (think Stalin, for example of the last century, or North Korea at present, but there are plenty of examples). Then think about the freedoms enjoyed in those countries most influenced by the Bible. See Christianity as progress.
(although, while Muslims honour the Christ, even they find the young-earth thing nonsense).
Response: Muslims don’t truly honour Christ, because they don’t follow him as Lord and Saviour. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but by me" (John 14:6). Moslems do not come to the Father (God) through Jesus, so they do not truly honour Jesus.
young-earth nonsense
Response: I suggest that you need to do some study on this. Dismissing something without considering it properly is not the mark of open-minded skepticism. You could begin with seriously considering Young age of the earth and the universe Q&A, or my article referenced above.
Now, I am none to fond of my New Atheist brethren.(They are a little too preachy, for my tastes) I see no reason why we can't all "live and let live". We're not all scary monsters, trying to squelch your freedom of religion. But, again, as I respect your right to believe, I ask that you respect our right, not to. I won't demand to bring my science into your pulpit, as long as you don't ask to put your personal, philosophical position, into our science classrooms. Thank you and good luck!
Response: As I said, Christians are not about coercing anyone to believe. You have nothing to fear from Christians, but you have everything to fear if Christianity is eradicated or diminished to the point where Christians are not allowed to have any influence on society (which is what many of your 'preachy' fellow travellers would like). If Christianity goes, so will many of the benefits.
However, I think you need to have a good think about personal philosophical positions being taught in science classrooms. That is exactly what is happening; the atheists' creation myth (a personal philosophical position) is being taught to the exclusion of all else. See Secularism is atheism.
The one thing I DO believe is that this world won't be much of a place, if we don't all learn to practice peace, love, mercy, justice, compassion, kindness, and most off all, tolerance. :)
Response: That sounds all very nice. I wonder if you are old enough to compare the world today with that of some years ago when countries such as the UK, USA, Canada, Australia and much of western Europe was much more Christian. Are these once-substantially Christian countries now more, or less, like your ideal? See Sorry atheists but you're wrong.
Here’s the rub: the good things you list are basically the things Jesus encouraged his followers to embrace (although today's politically correct 'tolerance' is actually intolerance for the truth). However, if God did not stipulate these moral standards, why should anyone follow them? As Peter Hitchens, brother to God-hater Christopher Hitchens (vale) said, "If there is no God then your moral qualms might just as easily be the result of indigestion."
Perhaps this also might be helpful: Atheism: no objective morality.
I hope you will think some more about these things.
Kindest regards,
Don Batten
Dear CMI. We've watch this new DVD and all we can say is...more please! It is so well made and such a blessing. What "gifts" the hostile have to offer me... no thank you! Don't tire for your heavenly Father. He blesses through all of you.
That would be Evolution's Achilles' Heels. A big thanks to all those who made it possible through their donations!
I'm not even getting into the religious vs atheist debate...but this article makes you look very pathetic, only christians will come praising and sharing this article. I'm not going to say who is right as none of us truly knows, (and christians will say they know)...despite not being anywhere near and just reading words from a book that was compiled for reasons they have no clue of)
NONE of us truly knows...
but with the article, I agree with the atheists that it was highly flawed and twisted to suit a christian agenda, I know 95% of this site or you wont see it that way, but I'm being real, and the truth hurts.
And those christians who will come claiming that they know...please do tell how you do? and how it isnt just a BELIEF....smh...dont say you know, say you BELIEVE.
You say you are not going to get into the atheist vs Christianity (I assume that's what you mean by "religious") debate, but then you start hurling atheistic complaints against Christians!
You say the truth hurts, but there is nothing truthful (factual; your opinions are not 'truth') in what you have written.
It is clear that you only read part of this actual article, but then you confidently claim something about "95% of this site ..." (you have read over 9,000 articles, and watched over 200 videos, have you?).
You ask how Christians can be confident of what we know. Firstly, there is the evidence from history (including fulfilled prophecy in Jesus, and his life, death and resurrection) and from the created order. See "Does God exist?", Creation Answers Book, chapter 1. Secondly, there is something that you would have trouble understanding as a non-Christian; that when someone becomes a (real) Christian, having received the forgiveness through what Jesus did, God's Spirit, the Holy Spirit, comes to reside in the person. This creates a growing relationship with God. So, convincing me that God does not exist would be like trying to convince me that my wife does not exist.
Again and again we see that many anti-CMI people have very little knowledge to back up their criticisms and/or have not actually read the CMI material properly. I think it is safe to say none of them question or read or watch with an open trully enquiring mind. As a result it is very difficult to have any kind of constructive dialogue. I heartily agree that CMI has better things to do than 'chasing the wind'. For those of us who are students of science, CMI provides an invaluable source of study and information which is Biblically based at the same time. I have not come across any author or speaker who has claimed to 'know it all'. I have used a great deal of CMI material in my own ministry and continue to do so now I am retired, because the battle with ignorance and prejudice never ends. We need CMI and others like them, so please keep on providing us with good 'peer-reviewed' material such as Evolutions Achilles' Heels.
As far as rationalwiki.com's countering of the Age of the Earth article is concerned, CMI doesn't need to worry about this. Even I was able to see easily through all their misrepresentations and fallacies when an atheopath threw it at me on Facebook.
May God continue your to bless your ministry. The onslaught against the Bible is relentless! The History H2 Channel claims that an ancient alien did or may have rolled the stone away from the tomb of Jesus. History!?! Sometimes, I just want to cry about such garbage. I feel helpless in the face of these untiring and relentless attacks. I take some comfort knowing you are out there carrying on the fight.
If they are resorting to such nonsense, it shows that they have no answer to the evidence for Jesus' resurrection. It is tacit admission that the Resurrection happened.
It's a long response but worth the read. Didn't Mark Twain say "those who do not read have no advantage over those who cannot read"? Thank you for taking the time to respond to the request to rebut the rebuttal in such a pastoral and compassionate manner. It made me think of the verse "Who makes you to differ?" It is only the grace of God. I don't say this in a paternalistic way at all; I know that if God did not give faith or uphold us day to day, NONE of us would seek after Him not believe what He has said. I so appreciate the work you do to support that. I know it stirs up anger among the unbelievers, but may the godly witness of believers continue to testify to God's grace and love until He returns. May He find us faithful!
I read a lot of the atheists' posts to articles on creation and evolution online and find so many are just hate-filled responses - often with profanity. Most don't want to discuss but just tear down. It can be frustrating and depressing at times. Why can't they see the truth? In most cases it is probably because they don't want to. I have always been thankful for CMI and being able to refer to the proper worldview in the research and common sense in the articles I find online and in the magazines and books that CMI produces!
A handy theme when confronted with ‘irrefutable’ evidence against God’s word is;
1st Proverbs 18:17 ‘The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him’ (ESV)
2nd 1 Thessalonians 5:21 ‘But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good’ (NASB)
Once that’s mastered, we need to ask three questions;
1st What’s the raw evidence, i.e.- minus the assumptions?
2nd Is there another possible explanation that has not, (or) is not, allowed to be considered? (Dr Scott Todd’s famous quote about which hypotheses are allowed, reveals why we need to ask this question)
3rd & most important, what do you consider to be of greater authority, God’s word or man’s understanding of nature…? If anyone answers ‘Man’s understanding of nature’ then what about Man’s understanding of nature from 100 year old text books, or should Man’s understanding 100 years into the future be ignored in favor of today’s textbooks?
Pride is a real killer.
It is sad how the opposition (enemy) resorts to lies and underhanded tactics. They can't win on fact or arguments. They aren't successful with stealing the education/indoctrination systems the media and education. Note the stats on how many mainstream people still know evolution is wrong. I thank God for writing it on man's heart that He is God. But despite all this, they have to resort to these underhanded tactics. If they are right, then why all this vitriol? Why do they care what others believe? Why so much effort to control other's beliefs? If you are an atheist and think you become dirt, what do you care what others believe? You are supposedly a scientist (as I actually am), so the facts are the facts. Even a scientist can realize history has shown evolution to be loaded with assumptions and lies. A scientist can realize that the point of view can change the perception (parallax anyone). But I can admit I care about the facts and the final soul destination of the person observing. I can see my bias. I can see the faith I need (as you do) to believe what I do. But I don't have to overlook a mountain to point out a molehill. The best holistic explanation for all we observe (can't ignore the out of place artifacts and biology/biochemistry we don't like) is for a large water event/flood destroying things in the not too distant past. Hmmm...that sounds familiar. God Bless CMI for standing in the gap and contending against the dark side.
Two thoughts about background dynamics, re. Dr. Batten's experiences and comments:
1. A couple of generations ago, people like Arthur C. Clarke could cordially and constructively talk with people such as C. S. Lewis. (Yes, Clarke was a sort of Buddhist rather than an atheist, but he was also a strong Modernist who had walked away from the Bible.) A level of civility existed that doesn't seem to exist today.
Might it be that a Christian-produced societal courtesy then existed--a cultural overcoat--that no longer exists? That even atheists, back then, were protected a bit from the hostile-to-culture implications of their atheistic-evolutionary worldview?
In that earlier setting, constructive debate was still possible. One can also think of the temporary success that Henry Morris had in the late 1970s in doing California classroom presentations jointly with atheistic instructors.
Now, in contrast, the implications have caught up, and a ruder world exists.
2. Might current atheists also be increasing in their belligerency and aggressiveness because of a possible loss of popularity of competing postmodernist thought?
Earlier, Modernity overconfidence in scientists-as-authority-figures produced wicked and **speculative** eugenics, which in turn lead to the Nazi death camps. Serious disenchantment set in about Modernity, erupting in the mid-60s with the hippie movement. Modernity-minded atheists have been on the defensive since then.
However, the absurdity of postmodern textual deconstruction has made a lot of enemies. Has it started to weaken? Is the resurgence of atheism, in part, a backlash against postmodernism?
Let us pray with discernment, through and against negative dynamics, as we pray for the eternal souls of the people involved.
Hi cmi, this article really helped me.I wanted to tell you guys about my experience with youtube atheist many years ago when i was lost and needed answers.Sadly yes i have seen Christians on youtube who had to disabled comments because of atheist attacks on it and yes they do accuse the maker of censoring. However not surprising, videos that leave the comments section open, the atheist have full control of the comments section. Not only do they thumbs up any comment that agrees with them (which half the time has nothing to do with refuting the video, but the highest rated comment either refers to the uploader as an idiot or they just do like you guys said and appeal to authority), but they also thumb down and flag any comment that tries to refute their comment as spam. I know youtube is not a debate website but i think the fact that they flag and thumb down those who disagree just shows they don't want people to know about the other alternatives to evolution and by thumbing up their comments, i think that they think people will think they are right. I do admit that i applaud you guys for standing your ground and keeping your youtube channel up despite the amount of hate i know you guys get.
Thank you for your brilliant article. I say, 'Brilliant' because you even added what I was going to share with you, as the author.
This site's supposedly 'atheistic' critics continually expose themselves as having a religion...hence, they are NOT 'atheists'. Pantheists, perhaps. But, they are uncovered as serving the 'father of lies'.
I can 'see' in my mind's eye, Jesus calmly stating to them that they are of their father, not of His.
And, while I am well aware you can't do this directly ~ everyone else who reads your articles published DO have 'eyes to see' where the root of this issue rises from, I assure you.
Thank you for responding to the 'Wiki' stuff in the way you are, AND thank you also for 'not engaging' those who 'true colors' are showing.
It's amazing. Satan has no other cards up his sleeve. He keeps using the same old tired lines and I pity his followers and pray for them because they not only have to submit stuff from this 'driveler' ~ but, are oppressed by him, as well.
The TRUTH in LOVE. That's our banner under which we move forward. I thank Jesus Christ for each of you stalwart writers/thinkers/and TRUE Scientists, for continuing to persevere as you do... you do both Jesus and His children proud by your professionalism under these tyrannical times of anti-God doctrines as you maintain your focus and give all of us that which is factual and full of faith in our Creator. You bless me, and I know you bless others.
I thank God for this web site and I pray for all of you who are involved. Great article. I am NOT an 'encourager' by nature. I am skeptical of everything I see ~ until, that is ~ my Savior and Lord exposes either the veracity of what I am reading ~ or, the lies.
God bless your socks off, gentlemen.
Cynthia
Thanks heaps Cynthia!
I'm sure many (most?) of the harshest criticism and opposition to your work comes from the militant atheist community. However, in my own experience, I have had the most heated debates (often very emotionally charged on their part) with fellow Christians. They seem to be very much afraid of being seen as 'one of those crazy, backward creationists'! I try to steer them toward sound evidence for creation (often backed up by your site or articles) but they almost never will engage in a discussion or read the articles I give them. I have been actually shouted down on several occasions. These fellow Christians are very much opposed to any creationist ideas and I would suspect a part of the 'atheist' opposition you experience.