Once when Miss Roscoe was in his room, some of his infidel friends came to visit and in a loud, heartless manner said, “Tom Paine, it is said you are turning Christian, but we hope you will die as you have lived.” They then went away. Turning to Miss Roscoe, Paine said, “You see what miserable comforters they are.”

     Once he asked her if she had read any of his writings. She told him that she had begun The Age Of Reason, but it had made her so mad she had thrown it into the fire. “I wish all had done as you,” he said, “for if the Devil ever had any agency in any work, he had it in my writing that book.”

     When going to carry him refreshment, she repeatedly heard him uttering, “Lord! Lord God!” or, “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me!” It was observed that during his illness he wrote a great deal. But, as nothing was ever heard of these writings, it was presumed that his infidel associates had destroyed them, finding them not in keeping with his former views. [1]

This article focuses upon a sobering fact – the death of our mortal bodies. Those who reject God are especially affected by death. It is Shakespeare’s Hamlett that offers a good illustration of this dilemma. In mulling over the question “to be or not to be,” the sleep of death is contemplated. “For in that sleep of death what dreams may come … Must give us pause.” Indeed such is true. If there is consciousness (dreams) after death, there is the sobering issue of immortality to answer. And such a possibility is the deathknell of Atheism!

Death is an ironic subject. It is oft thought but seldom discussed. It is called the last enemy, the unknown quantity, the thief of strength and opportunity. Modern technology has opened limitless vistas of knowledge. We can chronicle the beginning of life from the minuscule zygote to the birth of the baby. We can trace life from fetal development to gerontology. But even today we know as much about the moment after death as we have known for centuries!

All who reject Holy Scripture are ignorant about the nether world.  And ignorance spawns fear. It is at death that “atheism meets its nemesis. Any system that does not know the origin of man and cannot give his reason for being, certainly must remain silent of his destiny, or at best, argue for nothingness” [Zacharias, p. 93‑94].

The most frightening aspect of death to the worldling is that at the instant of death we leave everything we have and take everything we are! All the wealth amassed, achievements accumulated, and honors received are worth nothing for “there are no pockets in burial shrouds”!  

Death reveals Atheism’s flaws clearly. Atheism offers no comfort. Bertrund Russell observed, “All the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction … and the whole temple of man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins.” Following this dark assessment Russell concluded that humans face only “the firm foundation of unyielding despair” [2]

Who, in rational thinking, wants a life like this?  And yet such is Atheism’s consequence.  Such a worldview leads to a preposterous view of man. This is humorously summarized by Zacharias, “In the end, the atheistic view reduces the botanist from studying daffodils to fertilizing them, the scientist from measuring the ‘big bang’ to becoming  a small fizzle, and the geologist from investigating the geological column to becoming embedded in one of its layers” [p. 95].

There is no greater doom than this fatalistic perspective about earthly life which Atheism invites man to accept.  Consider the stark contrast between life’s hopelessness offered by Atheism and life’s hopefulness offered by belief in Jehovah God.

Questions About Death Which ATHEISM Fails To Answer.

There is a failure to answer the finality of relationships ceasing. 

Nothing threatens life’s dreams, hopes, aspirations, and accomplishments like the death of a dearly loved one. Many grieve themselves to death because death has separated them. Why is the loss of a special relationship so critical to humans? Because humans were created dependent upon bonds of special relationships. Without these special relationships human existence is hollow and void. Genesis 2:18 verifies this fact. In the splendor of Eden’s bliss there was something about man’s existence that was “not good.” He lacked the bond of special relationships. Yet Atheism allows death to reduce this bond to cold extinction!  Atheism cannot explain the void which death causes. Atheism is unable to offer hope for a death severed union. The human heart yearns to meet departed loved ones again. Atheism does not destroy that longing.  Atheism does not silence the question “What about __________?  Where is s/he?”

Atheism fails to answer the apportionment of justice for evil and good. 

Even the atheist pursues justice ‑ his philosophy denies such, but he still pursues it! But Atheism holds no response for the nagging query of how justice can be meted for evil when the wicked is dead. Some atheistic beliefs have tried to resolve this problem by appealing to reincarnation. But such is insufficient. Atheism has no answer for the reign of evil!

Atheism fails to answer the futility of earthly labors.

This predicament is well summed up in Luke 12:20 when God asks the Fool what profit all his labors would be when death took him. According to Atheism all human efforts are ultimately useless! The atheistic position naturally leads one to uphold that all labor to benefit humanity is absurd.  Atheistic concern is purely self‑centered. The atheist advocates humanitarian projects is a hypocrite! Atheism holds no answer to those who ask, “Why should I work, sacrifice self‑pleasure, and aid humanity’s progress?”

Atheism fails to answer the “sense” of eternity which resides within every human heart. 

Honesty forces all to admit a sense of the eternal. We “know” that there is “something” beyond earthly existence. The savages sent their dead prepared for happy hunting. The Norseman set their dead sailing for Valhala to reign among the heros of the past. Even in their ignorance these brutes acknowledged what the “intellectual” atheist cannot accept! Solomon observed that God “has also set eternity in their heart” (Eccl 3:11). No matter how much materialism one finds, s/he is still empty until God is found! Atheism cannot explain this “sense” of the eternal.

Atheism cannot answer how “hope” is abandoned by its worldview. 

Having “killed God” Atheism is left without reason for existence, morality for guidance, meaning for life, and hope during and after life! The loss of hope is cancerous and destroys all possibility for joy in the present. “Hope” is the one indispensable factor essential for meaning in life.

These words of Percy Bysshe Shelly reflect the unanswerable plight of the atheistic philosophy :

        Alas! I have no hope, nor health, Nor peace within nor calm around,

        Nor that content, surpassing wealth, The sage in meditation found,

           And walked with inward glory crowned ‑‑ Nor fame, nor power, nor love, nor leisure.

           Others I see whom these surround ‑‑ Smiling they live, and call life pleasure;

        To me that cup has been dealt in another measure -Stanzas Written In Dejection Near Naples, 1818

To all who share P. B. Shelley’s atheistic outlook comes his forlorn hopelessness.

The loss of “hope” in earthly life has drastic consequences. Every endeavor survives because of hope. Without hope all is futile and morbid. Without hope despair strangles and overcomes our vision. It is this hopelessness that has fueled the modern society’s preoccupation with immoral sexuality, drug abuse, terrorism, and crime. Humans seek meaning and purpose in life. But with a society guided by atheistic principles there is no hope. Each heart will struggle to find hope/meaning via some avenue.

Our youth illustrate this desperate grasp. Young people, struggling to find hope, grasp at astrology, witchcraft, shallow sex, and anything else that offers promise of meaning. They live in a society that has rejected God and now they desperately search for something to give meaning to existence! Atheism has abandoned hope for the future. Atheism cannot offer any encouraging vision. It offers only a world  without hope; a fate of oblivion into “unyielding desperation;” a burial beneath the debris of a universe in chaotic ruin. What “reasonable” person desires this philosophy of life?

Questions About Death Which God FULLY Answers.

In dramatic contrast to Atheism’s emptiness are the complete and comforting answers of Jehovah God! Note carefully these answers which leads to hopeful living.

God says that while death severs earthly relationships there is the provision for such separation to be temporary!

At the Battle of Gaines’ Mill, two brothers were wounded at the same time. They were found by a friend, embraced in one another’s arms, talking of home, mother, and their love of God and country. They prayed for each other, for absent friends, and especially for mother. Soon the younger died. The elder, being blind from a wound, knew it not and continued to speak encouraging words to him. Hearing no reply he said, “Poor little Rob’s asleep.” It was his last sleep and in a few minutes more they joined company in that land where the sound of battle will never disturb! (Foster, Vol. 1, page 171). For the believer there is hope of reunion after death!  David spoke of this upon the death of his baby (2 Sa 12:23); Christ spoke of this at Heaven’s great feast (Mt 8:11). Other texts offer hope for separated relationships (cf Lk 20:34‑36; Mt 25:34; Col 1:12; 1 Ths 4:17; Hb 12:23; Rv 5:9).

God says that justice will be meted to both good and evil.

The answer simply says, “God will judge both the righteous man and the wicked man” (Eccl 3:17; cf Eccl 11:9; 12:13,14; Ro 2:5‑9; 1 Co 3:8; Da 7:9,10; 12:2).

God says that all earthly labors have value here and hereafter.

The believer has hope because no effort is futile! Two soldiers were discussing the death of a comrade. “He got his discharge.” “Not quite.” “Well, if not discharged I’d like to know what he is?” “Only transferred.” “Transferred where?” “To the other department.” “What for?” “For duty.” “What duty?” “Don’t know, that depends on what he’s fit for.” (Foster, Vol. 1, p. 173). Believers are “fit for” reward “for their works follow with them” (Rv 14:13b; cf Eccl 3:12,13; 9:10; Mt 10:42; 25:35,36; Col 1:10; Hb 6:10; Rv 22:14).

God says that the “sense” of the eternal is present because there is the presence of an eternal soul within each human being!

The query, “What must I do, that I may have eternal life?” (Mt 19:16b) presses upon all hearts (cf Eccl 12:6,7; 2 Co 5:1). Only God answers this question.

God says that “hope” is reserved and encourages all to obey heaven’s will (Ro 8:24,25).

The “abundant life” can be realized here as well as hereafter (Jn 10:10)!

Concluding Thoughts 

The death factor has tremendous bearing upon the existence or void of “hope.” The fruits of Atheism are tragic – it offers no Mind for one’s origin, no law for morality, no meaning to enhance existence, and no hope to brighten its future. This dark existence is aptly addresses in Ephesians 2:11,12 as those without God are described.

However, faith in God’s existence offers complete victory in life here and hereafter! In this world he that is today the conqueror may tomorrow be the defeated.  Pompey is eclipsed by Caesar, and then he falls at the hands of conspirators; Napoleon conquered nearly all of Europe and was then himself conquered. But the Christian’s conquest of death is absolute. The result is final. The believer has vanquished the last enemy and has no more battles to fight! Let all saints join with Moses and call for our society to choose God and thus choose life! (Dt 30:19‑20). [3]
 ————————————————————-

[1]  Elon Foster, New Cyclopedia Of Prose Illustrations, Vol. 1. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, Co., 1870, p. 174.

[2] Bertrund Russell, “A Free Man’s Worship.” Mysticism And Logic And Other Essays. London: Allen & Unwin, 1963, p.41. 

[3] Sources Used And Suggested For Additional Study

Dr. Robert Gange, Origins And Destiny, chapter 15, “Why does physical reality terminate in man?” Dallas: Word Publishing, 1986..

John L. Kachelman, Jr., Studies In Judges, chapter 4, “An Erring Philosophy,” Quality Publications.

Ravi Zacharias, A Shattered Visage: The Real Face Of Atheism, Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt Publishers, Inc., 1990

Jean Meslier (1678-1733) was a Roman Catholic priest who served as Vicar of Bue in Champagne, France for thirty years. Voltaire (1694-1778), the French deist who vigorously opposed Christianity and sought to fashion his own naturalistic religion, described Meslier as “the most singular phenomenon ever seen among all the meteors fatal to the Christian religion.”

 In a recent essay, A.J. Mattill, Jr., a Contributing Editor for The American Rationalist (a small journal published bi-monthly out of St. Louis), gushes over Meslier, applauding him as one of the great champions of skepticism.

As a preliminary matter, we must make two observations.

 First, if Meslier was any sort of symbolic luminary at all, he must have been a “meteor,” i.e., a phenomenon that provides no significant or lasting illumination, and who appeared as but a “glitch” in the galaxy of literary history. The priest was most obscure. I have consulted several sources – from The Encyclopedia Britannica to The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church – and I cannot find a solitary reference to the gentleman – not even an allusion to his name! Apparently he is considered illustrious only by the atheists.

 Second, what is this insanity about Meslier’s influence being “fatal” to the Christian religion? It is not even legitimate hyperbole to suggest that any skeptic has proved “fatal” to Christianity – or, for that matter, the whole of them combined. Voltaire himself was not (though he boasted he would be), and he was much more of a significant influence than Meslier.

 But consider for a moment this rogue whom skepticism extols so highly.

 When Jean Meslier died at the age of 55, three handwritten manuscripts were discovered in his home. Authored and signed by Meslier, these documents were titled, My Testament. The writings contained a series of confessions by the priest – combined with a vicious attack against the Bible. The documents revealed that his entire life had been a sham.

 Supposedly, his religious faith was abandoned as an adolescent, but, wishing to obey his father, he pursued the vocation of a priest.

 Here is a portion of his confession, directed to the members of his parish, as reported by Mattill (The American Rationalist, June/July, 1999, p. 3).

“I was nevertheless compelled to teach you your religion and to carry out that false duty that I had committed myself to as the vicar of our parish … I had the displeasure of finding myself annoyingly obliged to act and speak totally against my own feelings, to entertain you with foolish nonsense and vain superstition that I hated, condemned, and disliked in my heart. I, however, declare that I never did it without great pain and extreme repugnance. This is why I hated so much the vain functions of my ministry, particularly all those idolatrous and superstitious celebrations of masses, and those vain and ridiculous administerings of sacraments that I had to carry out. I cursed them thousands and thousands of times in my heart, when I was obliged to do them, and particularly when I had to carry them out with a bit more attention and a bit more solemnity than usual.”

 Aram Vartanian, writing in The Encyclopedia of Unbelief (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1985, II, p. 448), says that Meslier was “[f]rustrated and incensed by the hypocritical role he felt condemned to play during his lifetime” (emp. WJ).

 Two observations are in order.

First, one can only wonder if the direction of Jean Meslier’s life would have been altered had he known genuine Christianity, as opposed to the corruptions of the apostate Romish system (cf. 1 Tim. 4:1ff). Those who pervert the primitive Christian arrangement – as designed by God and revealed in the New Testament, thus paving the way for unbelief – will have a heavy responsibility to bear in the day of judgment.

 Second, what does it say about the character of atheism when the skeptics virtually “canonize” a man whom they concede to be a life-long hypocrite, and who was able to express his true convictions only posthumously?

 Consider the following scenario.

Carl Sagan was an atheist who spent the whole of his adult life opposing God and casting reflection upon His Son. Now that Sagan is dead, suppose there were discovered among his possessions a manuscript in which he secretly professed his faith in Christ, and apologized for his hostility toward things sacred. Does anyone imagine for a moment that the Christianity community would be ecstatic – applauding the gentleman and making of him a causa celebratio?

Not hardly!

 But such is the difference between the character of Christianity and that of infidelity.

 The Folly of Atheism^[1]

Jesus once warned: “Whosoever shall say, ‘You fool,’ shall be in danger of the hell of fire” (Mt. 5:22). And yet elsewhere, the Lord, in addressing the scribes and Pharisees, declared: “You fools …” (23:17). While the superficial student might see a conflict here, actually, there is none; the respective passages are addressing different matters.

 In the earlier context, Christ is condemning the impulsive, insulting use of hateful epithets for the purpose of venting one’s personal hostility. “Fool” (Greek – more) may be designed to reflect upon the character of an adversary, in the sense of: “You scoundrel!” (Bruce, 107).

 On the other hand, the word “fool” (or a kindred term, e.g., “foolish”) may be employed calmly and objectively to describe someone who is acting in a senseless, stupid fashion. To certain misguided Christians, who were being seduced away from Christ towards the Mosaic regime, Paul could say: “O foolish Galatians…” (Gal. 3:1). J.B. Phillips rendered the phrase: “O you dear idiots of Galatia” (393).

It makes for a fascinating study to explore the sort of person who is denominated as a “fool” in Scripture. Let us consider but one example – that of the atheist.

 A thousand years before the birth of Jesus, the poet-king of Israel wrote: “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God” (Psa. 14:1). The Hebrew term for “fool” is nabal, which signifies a “senseless” person. Especially is the word used of one who has “no perception of ethical and religious claims” (Brown, et al., 614).

 In the Greek version of the Old Testament, the word rendered “fool” is aphron, literally, “mindless.” It represents “the lack of common sense perception of the reality of things natural and spiritual” (Vos, 44). In the passage just cited, the “fool” denies the existence of God (cf. 53:2); elsewhere in the same book the term describes one who insults his or her Creator continually (74:22). The prophet Isaiah employed the word of the individual who stands in contrast to a noble-minded person (32:5).

 Why is the one who affirms – “There is no God!” – a fool? There are many factors.

1. In defiance of one of the most elementary principles of logic, the atheist suggests that “something” (e.g., the Universe) came from “nothing;” that zero plus zero equals something greater than zero.

Victor Stenger, an atheistic professor at the University of Hawaii, admits that “everyday experience and common sense” supports the concept that something cannot come from nothing. Nevertheless, he suggests that “common sense is often wrong, and our normal experiences are but a tiny fraction of reality” (26-27). If you want to be an atheist, you must put your “common sense” on the shelf!

2. Atheists contend that the entire Universe, estimated to be 20 billion light years across (the distance light could travel in 20 billion years at the rate of 186,000 miles per second) accidentally derived from a submicroscopic particle of matter. As one writer expresses it: “Astonishingly, scientists now calculate that everything in this vast universe grew out of a region many billions of times smaller than a single proton, one of the atom’s basic particles” (Gore, 705). This is totally nonsensical.
3. Atheism contends that the marvelously ordered Universe, designated as “Cosmos” by the Greeks because of its intricate design, is merely the result of an ancient explosion (the Big Bang). Does a contractor pile lumber, brick, wire, pipe, etc., on a building site, blast it with dynamite, and expect a fine dwelling to result? Is that the way atheists build their houses? To so argue is to reveal a truly “senseless heart” (cf. Rom. 1:21).
4. In spite of millions of examples in nature, which suggest that biological life can only derive from a living source, atheists believe that billions of years ago, life was accidentally generated from inorganic materials. Common sense and experimentation argue otherwise, but skeptics are willing to abandon logic and opt for the myth of “spontaneous generation,” because the only other alternative is “special creation.” To atheists that simply is not a possibility. Why? Because the fool, for emotional reasons, has already decided: “There is no God.”
5. Atheists believe that blind, unintelligent forces of nature, via genetic mutations and the process of natural selection, produced the myriads of delightful creatures that inhabit Earth’s environment. The skeptic can see that a simple pair of pliers, with only four components, must have been designed by an intelligent being, yet he argues that the human body, with its 100 trillion constituent elements (cells), organized into ten magnificent systems, is merely the result of a marriage between Mother Nature and Father Time. How very stupid such ideology is!
6. Atheists believe that from a tiny speck of inorganic, self-created matter, human consciousness and moral sensitivity evolved. That is utterly ludicrous; can a rock decide to “think”? Can a proton “feel” guilt? The notion that morality has developed merely as a survival factor (cf. Hayes, 174), is asinine in the extreme. Plants have survived; do they possess a moral code? And what if one decides that he doesn’t care about the “survival” principle? Can he do any “wrong”?

 When men refuse to have God in their knowledge, he gives them up to a “reprobate mind,” i.e., one which does not “pass the test” (Rom. 1:28). They are not “intellectuals,” as they fantasize; they are fools.

 As G.K. Chesterton once said: “When men cease to believe in God, they do not believe in nothing; they believe in anything!” ^[2]

Losing The Virtue Of Goodness By John Kachelman

“The enemies of religion cannot leave it alone. They laboriously attempt to smash religion. They cannot smash religion; but they smash everything else” [G.K. Chesterton, Lunacy And Letters. New York: Sheed & Ward, 1958, p. 191]. Such was never more accurate than in the realm of ethical standards. The atheistic philosophies have subtly decimated the ethical basis of morality. Society today reflects the distorted values which Isaiah condemned (Is 5:20).

 Religious expression has been denied in modern society because of the atheistic persuasion. A book detailing the ACLU notes, “For all intents and purposes, the ACLU has been able to harass out of existence public expression of faith” [Grant, Trial And Error p. 72]. In our courts, schools, and communities we have been forced to silence regarding religious matters. Loud objectors have convinced us that the Constitution’s founding principles designed a government free FROM religion, instead of one free FOR religion.  And this is the consequence of atheism’s influence! Atheistic ideas have scored a significant victory in the sequestering of religious expression. Yet this advance poses another obstacle that exposes the flaws of atheism. In brief this “victory” reveals that atheism is utterly incapable of producing “goodness” in society! This is concluded from the following thoughts.

 In every culture there is an understood “code of oughtness” which establishes the foundation for laws, justice  and society’s welfare.  “Oughtness” is linked with purpose. When you eliminate the “oughtness” from existence you eliminate the purpose for life and chaos will follow. A good illustration is given by Ravi Zacharias (p. 47ff). He suggests the simple watch has a simple purpose ‑ to tell time. However you describe a watch you must describe it as a time‑telling mechanism. The watch is designed with a purpose, an “oughtness.”

 When it loses that purpose (fails to keep accurate time) it loses its meaning for existence! Such is true with human society. When society loses its sense of “ought” (its awareness of right/wrong) it also loses its purpose for existence. Such citizens will aimlessly wander about asking, “Why are we here?” “What are we to do?” From the Garden of Eden to the splendor of the heavenly Eden restored, man’s purpose (that which s/he ought to do) is to honor the Heavenly Father through labors, service, and honor. When man/woman loses this awareness of the “ought” they lose the purpose and meaning of life.

 It is this point that exposes atheism’s failure. A self‑caused world has no sense of “ought”; no morality (for how can one give up the Christian Faith and expect live to live by Christian Ethics?); and, there is no abiding sense of right and wrong. Holy Scripture gives repeated warnings about rejecting God because the consequences of such rejection have a paramount impact – a rejection of the spiritual for the fleshly! (cf Ro 8:5‑7; 1 Co 2:14; Gal 5:17; Ep 2:1‑3; 4:17‑19; Tit 3:3). Once one rejects God then s/he loses the sense of “oughtness” for existence. Such is a tragic penalty which is often rashly gained and leisurely regretted.

 Those who follow atheism’s allurement will find themselves adrift in the stormy seas of life without chart or compass. They will sail into hopelessness guided by meaninglessness. Life will be void of purpose. An inner‑turmoil is constantly fueled by the unanswerable query, “Why am I alive?  What is my purpose for being here?”

 The ethical quagmire of atheism affords no escape for those rejecting Deity. Look and observe how atheism fails to be a suitable alternative to theism because it eliminates the virtue of goodness in human society.

 The BASIS For Ethics

“Ethics” is simply the standard upon which right or wrong is decided. Any ethical standard operates from a basis of origin. Whatever ethical standard is used, one will appeal to this origin in every decision. Christian Faith has such an ethical basis, as well as Atheism.

C. S. Lewis, a well‑known apologist of theism, suggests that there are three questions upon which any ethical standard must stand if it is to offer society a workable program [Peter Kreeft, Three Philosophies Of Life. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1989, p. 17ff].  He uses the metaphor of ships sailing upon the seas.  First, the ships must know how to avoid bumping into one another.  This sets the standard for social ethical behavior.  Second, the ships must know how to stay shipshape and avoid sinking.  This sets the standard for individual ethical behavior. We must know what virtues to add, vices to avoid, and characters to build if we want to avoid personal tragedy.  Third, the ships must know why they are at sea.  This points to the philosophical ethical standards ‑ the reason for existence.

 The Holy Scriptures clearly provide explanation for these three ethical bases. The Bible tells us how to act socially. The Bible tells us how to act individually. And the Bible tells us the reason for existence on earth. Although several texts explain each, 2 Timothy 3:17 aptly summarizes, “That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.”

 The Atheist miserably fails to establish a workable ethical basis using these three standards. Atheism flatly rejects the last two and practically ignores the first! By such atheism has brought about . . .

 The DISSOLUTION Of Ethics Today

Since atheism has erased the “WHY” of human existence, those following its philosophy are forced to decide life’s choices in tragic ways. Look at society and observe how the Scriptural Ethic has vanished.

First, we are promised unlimited “freedoms” only to discover greater bondage. As a result of the “freedoms” of speech and privacy we are almost bankrupt of basic morality! The virtues of respect, honor, truth, and compassion have been sacrificed upon the alter of self‑centeredness. “Porn Kings” live in splendor because they enjoy “freedom” of speech. Homosexuality has been legitimized because of a “freedom” of privacy. But it is a deceptive freedom (cf 2 Pt 2:18‑19).

 Second, the traditional ethics of right/wrong are attacked with scorn and ridicule. The old morality has been replaced with the new morality that has neither absolute rights or wrongs! Ethical decisions today are based upon feelings of the moment, not upon decisions of thought. Today’s society is called to “duty” to the downtrodden and oppressed.  The atheistic philosophy argues that man alone is the savior of fellow‑man. But, to what purpose is this “duty.” From what higher level of morality can atheism call for benevolence?  Having erased God, the atheist has no higher level than himself and that is inadequate! Duty to whom and duty to what purpose cannot be answered by atheism! This is supported as we observe . . .

 The CONSEQUENCES Of Atheistic Ethics

What happens when one tries to live as a law unto himself without God’s ethic? Tragic consequences will come (Ro 1:21). This is practically seen in the following :

 First, the lives of those who rejected God illustrate the perversness of a self‑guided ethic. Names from history such as Marx, Sarte, Bertrund Russell, Hemmingway, and a host of others reveal that those who trust in a self‑guided morality will live life with a lack of cohesion; relationships will be void of commitment; fidelity will be a dream unattainable [See Paul Johnson, Intellectusals. New York: Harper & Row, 1988]. 

 Hitler was such a person.  In Auschwitz, Hitler’s words comment upon the goal of a self‑guided ethic, “I freed Germany from the stupid and degrading fallacies of conscience and morality . .  . I want young people capable of violence ‑ imperious, relentless, and cruel.” [Zacaharias, p. 59].  These goals were achieved in the Third Reich and have survived to our modern times. The sanctity of life is ignored by the abortionaries and mercy killers. The self‑guided ethic justifies killing those who are “ill‑suited” and “ill‑equipped” to live as “contributing citizens.”

 Second, survival is the only ethic of atheism. Since there is no God, there are no moral obligations to help another at the sacrifice of self. Those honored as “heros” in the past because of personal sacrifice for the good of others are seen as “stupid” by the atheistic philosophy. What is the justification for sacrifice under atheism? There is none! The harsh consequence of atheism is that people will look out only for self and have a callous disregard for others!

 Third, violence is the bitter fruit. Since one is concerned only with self, then s/he will do anything to another to gratify self! In atheism there can be NO WRONG with murder, rape, torture, or any other cruelty because it is simply the “survival of the fittest”! Those who are persuaded by atheism’s ethics feel more compassion for the murderer than the murdered; for the adulterer than for the betrayed! Atheism actually convinces us that the real guilty party is the victim rather than the perpetrator of the crime!

 Fourth, a never ending erosion of life’s value. “The universal solvent ‘the death of God’ has effectively dissolved the life sustaining crucible of morality. But like all universal solvents, the problem of how and where to contain it becomes paramount” [Zacharias, p.66].  Such is a sobering thought. If atheism’s ethics are allowed to progress then we will no longer have any sense of morality ‑ all will be destroyed!

 CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Thus we see two ethical standards. One, Christianity, offers logic, meaning, purpose, and practicality. It holds hope for society’s longevity. Then there is Atheism. It offers that which is intolerable and unlivable. It portrays no hope, no meaning, and only selfish practice. It dissolves  society’s foundation.

 The only abiding Code of Oughtness, that gives meaning to life, is the Holy Bible! Even though the ACLU has advanced atheism’s morality, there is still religious expression in our land!

 In our public buildings, irrefutable evidence of our country’s Christian heritage abounds: the 10 Commandments hang over the head of the Chief Justice in the Supreme Court; in the House and Senate chambers appear the words, ‘In God We Trust’; in the capitol rotunda is the figure of the crucified Christ; carvings on the capitol dome testify to, ‘The New Testament according to the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’; the Great Seal of the United States proclaims, ‘Annuit Coeptis,’ which means, ‘God has smiled on our undertaking’; under the seal is inscribed the phrase from Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, ‘This nation under God’; the walls of the Library of Congress are adorned with the words of Psalm 19:1 and Micah 6:8; engraved on the metal cap of the Washington Monument are the words ‘Praise be to God’; and lining the stairwell are numerous Scripture verses that apply the Christian Faith to every sphere of life from the family to business, from personal character to government” [Grant, p.77‑78].

 Once again we see the utter folly of Atheism. Those who are influenced by it follow a course of ethical behavior which will cause them to lose the virtue of goodness! ^[3]

“In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reasoning to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.” – Richard Dawkins, Out of Eden, NY: Basic Books 1992, p 133. 

Dawkins is one of the most vocal and visible atheists of our day, and the above statement is an atheist statement of faith. We can show that DNA cannot be the product of chance, and we can argue that the whole question of biological cause to behavior is poorly answered by evolution; but it might be useful to ask what case atheists can make for any kind of morality? If there is “no evil and no good” then everything is a function of survival of the fittest. How can you make a meaningful case for law and order from such a belief system? 

  Atheists are quick to point out that those that believe in God fail as much as atheists do in living any kind of meaningful morality. Whether you agree with that assessment or not, there is no question that believers do immoral things, and the problems that our Catholic friends and neighbors find themselves in right now is a classic demonstration of that – but one certainly not confined to Catholicism. Atheists will also argue that you cannot have an ordered society unless there is an agreement about basic issues of what you will allow and what you won’t allow.

An atheist will say that they have as much reason to be moral and not murder or rape as any Christian, because society will dissolve into anarchy if they do so and that doesn’t benefit their own personal survival. I used to make that argument as an atheist in loud and vocal terms, and it sounds good to many people.

The problem is that it doesn’t work. As an atheist if I could get away with something that would bring me pleasure, I only had to answer to myself and thus there was no reason not to do it. As long as it didn’t hurt anyone else, there was no right or wrong or good or evil, so there was no reason not to do it.

The problem with that thinking is that none of us could ever know the ultimate result of what we do. Having sex with an animal or a same sex partner didn’t appear to me to be anyone else’s business when I was an atheist, and had it not been for the fact that I was in love with a Christian girl who was rock solid in her own moral beliefs, I would have done all of those things.

I would never have known about animals carrying STDs or that such activity would have enormous emotional and spiritual affects on my life later on. My belief system as an atheist was totally unworkable – and led me to the brink of suicide.

Dawkin’s argument is not only strongly opposed by evidence, it is a totally impractical and unworkable system. Unfortunately, since September 11, a lot of people are believing it, and since he is a prolific and aggressive author and speaker it is going to get widespread press and support. Recently the ACLU has gone to court saying that abstinence is a religious position. This says that anything that has a moral standard that suggests that there is right and wrong conduct has to be religious in nature. I am sure that Dawkins would agree with that. I would argue that there is no moral standard in atheism, and that this is a strong apologetic for the teachings of Jesus Christ. (By John Clayton). ^[1]
———————— 

^[1]John Clayton was an atheist for 20 years and actively involved with Madalyn O’Hair and her organization. He became a believer in God through detailed studies in science.

 ^[1] These two fine articles were written by Wayne Jackson and are posted on the Christian Courier website.

^[2] Sources for these two articles:

Brown, Francis; Driver, S.R.; Briggs, Charles (1907), Hebrew-English Lexicon of the Old Testament (London: Oxford University Press). 
Bruce, A.B. (1956), “Matthew,” The Expositor’s Greek Testament, W. Robertson Nicoll, Ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), Vol. I. 
Gore, Rick (1983), “The Once And Future Universe,” National Geographic, June. 
Hayes, Judith (1996), In God We Trust: But Which One? (Madison, WI: Freedom From Religion Foundation). 
Phillips, J.B. (1972), The New Testament in Modern English (New York: Macmillan). 
Stenger, Victor J. (1987), “Was the Universe Created?” Free Inquiry, Summer, Vol. 7, No. 3. 
Vos, Geerhardus (1899), Dictionary of the Bible, James Hastings, Ed. (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark), Vol. II.

^[3] Sources used by John Kachelman and suggested for further study

George Grant, Trial And Error. Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Pub., 1989.

Paul Johnson, Intellectuals. New York: Harper & Row, 1988.

Cal Thomas, Uncommon Sense. Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt Pub., 1990.

Thomas B. Warren & Wallace I. Matson, The Warren‑Matson Debate On The Existence Of God. Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press, 1978.

Ravi Zacharias, A Shattered Visage : The Real Face Of Atheism. Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt Pub., 1990.

Each reader has seen the crude depiction of the “Missing Link” – squat, bent bodies with dull, beastly features. The drawings convincingly portray the missing connection between monkey and man. Even the scientific designations are such that the novel student of “origins” is instantly impressed.  After all, how would you react to names such as Australopithecus and Hesperopithecus haroldcookii?

 These discoveries have been used as the bedrock of evolutionary theory. Millions of children have been exposed to the fabricated timeline of human evolutionary development. Each of evolution’s “Missing Links” has been exposed as a complete failure! [Richards, p. 94ff].

 Some may see no connection between evolution and atheism. But the two are intimately connected. In fact, either philosophy is dependent upon the other. You cannot have one without the other! Why is atheism dependent upon evolution’s absurdities? The answer lies in the issue of “origins.”

 To explain the origin of life one either admits God’s existence or advocates evolution. Because of his rejection of God the atheist must accept evolution. This is an ill‑fated position revealing the failure of atheism.

 Why People Believe in Evolution by Wayne Jackson

The most insidious and damaging ideology ever foisted upon the mind of modern man is the notion that human beings are but animals, and the offspring of other, more primitive creatures. It is known as the theory of organic evolution. This concept has been reflected in recent years in such volumes as Phil Donahue’s, The Human Animal (1986), and in the earlier production, The Naked Ape (1967), (as man was characterized) by zoologist, Desmond Morris.

 Tragically, multiplied thousands across the land have ingested, to a greater or lesser degree (sometimes even with a religious flavor), this nefarious dogma. But why? Have folks intellectually analyzed the matter, and thus, on the basis of solid evidence and argument, accepted this viewpoint. Not at all; rather, for a variety of emotional reasons, this concept is entertained so readily.

 In 1974, Marshall and Sandra Hall published a book titled, The Truth: God or Evolution? In the opening section of this excellent volume, the authors listed several reasons why the evolutionary theory is embraced by so many. With credit to them for the germ thoughts, I would like to expand the discussion.

 Brainwashing

Since the issuance of Charles Darwin’s, The Origin of Species (1859), there has been a massive campaign to flood the “intellectual market” with evolutionary propaganda. Though such ideas by no means originated with Darwin, he popularized evolution more than anyone else. His book sold out (1,025 copies) the first day of its release.

 Another significant milestone was the famous Scopes Trial, conducted in Dayton, Tennessee in July of 1925. Twenty-four year old John Thomas Scopes, a high school science teacher, had agreed to violate Tennessee’s Butler law, which forbade the teaching of any theory that holds man has descended from a lower form of life. The entire affair was “rigged,” but it brought together William Jennings Bryan (three-time Democratic nominee for president), who volunteered to represent the state, and the famed criminal defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, who defended Scopes. The trial, the first ever to be broadcast on radio, brought national attention to the issue of creation vs. evolution. As a result of that encounter, the concept of creationism was cast into an unfavorable light, and evolutionary dogma gained considerable respectability, albeit undeserved.

 From that time, however, the theory of evolution has accelerated in influence via the media and the public school system. Today, there exists a determined campaign for the indoctrination of evolution, and millions have absorbed it into their minds.

Intimidation

Hand-in-hand with the brainwashing factor is the impact of intimidation. Supposedly, evolutionary doctrine has the endorsement of “science.” In 1966, H. J. Muller, a prominent geneticist, circulated a statement signed by 177 biologists. It asserted that evolution is a “scientific law” which is as firmly established as the rotundity of the earth.

 Since most folks want to be thought of as “educated,” and as they have been led to believe that “all educated people believe in evolution,” they have defected to the Darwinian camp. Most of these individuals could not cite a solitary argument in defense of evolution; they simply believe it is fact because “the scientists say so.”

 Informed people should know the following:

1. Evolution is not a scientific law. It is a mere hypothesis that falls quite beyond the pale of the scientific method (observation, experimentation, and verification).
2. There are numerous laws, e.g., the laws of thermodynamics, genetics, etc., which contradict evolutionary assertions.
3. Many scientists dispute that evolutionary dogma is true science. Evolutionist Robert Jastow, for example, has conceded that belief in the accidental origin of life is “an act of faith,” much, he says, like faith in the power of a Supreme Being (Until the Sun Dies, New York: Warner Books, 1977, p. 52).

Theodore N. Tahmisian, a nuclear physicist with the Atomic Energy Commission, has said:

“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact … It is a tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure jaggling … If evolution occurred at all, it was probably in a very different manner than the way it is now taught” (Fresno Bee, Aug. 20, 1959).

It is hardly necessary, therefore, to yield to the pressures of evolutionary brow-beating. We ought not to be cowed down; we should be more aggressive, demanding that those who affirm their confidence in evolution argue their case logically.

 Religious Confusion

Some have been thrust toward evolutionary ideology because they are repelled by the confused (and sometimes cruel) state of the religious world. Religionists have sacrificed their own children in the name of “gods” (cf. Jer. 19:5). In the Far East the cobra is worshipped as deity. “Christians” (so-called) have warred with the devotees of Islam.

 Catholics allege that the bread and wine of “the Eucharist” magically turn into the body and blood of Jesus, while Protestants insist that such does not occur. Some contend that “baptism” is administered only by immersion, while others allege that “sprinkling” or “aspersion” will suffice. A rather unique view suggests that it takes all three “modes” to constitute the “one baptism” of Ephesians 4:5 (cf. Wycliffe Bible Dictionary, Peabody: MA: Hendrickson, 1998, p. 201).

 This disunity has driven many to disenchantment with religion in general, which includes a rebellion against divine revelation. This, of course, is precisely what Jesus indicated. He admonished those who professed a loyalty to him to be “one,” that “the world might believe” (Jn. 17:20-21); the Lord thus implied that disunity would produce the opposite effect, i.e., unbelief.

 But people need to realize that a departure from the original does not negate the genuineness of the original. The segmented status of “religiondom” does not authenticate evolution. The fact of the matter is, the evolutionists are as divided as the religionists.

 For example, Sir Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, contended that biological life evolved here on earth. On the other hand, Sir Fred Hoyle has argued that “spontaneous generation” occurred in outer space! Some Darwinians speculate that the evolutionary process has occurred quite gradually, over eons of time. Supposedly this explains the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. Others (e.g., Richard Goldschmidt, and more recently, Stephen Gould of Harvard), suggest that evolution has proceeded rapidly, almost in snatches.

 There is wholesale disagreement among the advocates of evolution. Those, therefore, who have fled from religion because of its disunity, have found no haven in Darwinism.

 A World of Disorder

Many feel that our world environment, which is so characterized by brutality and suffering, is more consistent with Darwin’s tooth-and-claw, “survival-of-the-fittest,” principle, than it is with the notion that the earth is tended by a benevolent God. There might be some leverage in this argument if there were no other rational explanation for the ills of this globe.

 But the fact is, a compelling case can be made for the proposition that life’s tragedies are the result of man’s rebellion against his Creator; and negative consequences have been allowed to follow as an educational process on behalf of the human family. In our recently published book, The Bible and Mental Health, we have an entire chapter chronicling some of the values of human affliction.

But here is another matter for consideration. While the believer has some basis for explaining the presence of “evil” in a fashion that is consistent with the existence of a powerful and benevolent God, the evolutionist has no reasonable explanation as to why there is a human sensitivity within man that judges some things to be “evil” and others “good.” How can a package of mere “matter,” which, according to atheism, is the sum of man, arrive at a rational, moral judgment concerning this phenomenon called “evil”? The problem of “evil” is more challenging for the evolutionist than for the creationist.

 Tangible Evidence

Many folks are impressed with the evolutionary case because it is buttressed, they believe, with tangible evidence, whereas religion seems to partake of a dreamy, surreal environment. After all, scientists have “fossils” to prove their case, don’t they?

 This argument is exceptionally deceptive for the following reasons:

1. All of the fossils ever collected represent less than 1% of the potential evidence, according to David Raup of Chicago’s Field Museum (Museum Bulletin, Jan., 1979, p. 50).
2. Not a single fossil has ever been discovered that clearly demonstrates a link between basic organism “kinds.”
3. All fossil evidence is subject to interpretation; and even evolutionists dispute the data.

For example, when Donald Johanson and his colleagues discovered the few bone fragments they dubbed “Lucy,” back in 1974, they alleged that this little creature walked on two legs, and was on-the-way to becoming human. Numerous evolutionists, however, seriously disputed this. We discussed this matter in considerable detail in the October, 1986 issue of the printed Christian Courier.

 But Bible believers are not without “tangible” evidence in the defense of their case. Numerous archaeological discoveries have been made which support the historicity of the Scriptures (see our book, Biblical Studies in the Light of Archaeology.

 If, then, a general case can be made for the factual correctness of the Bible, one may reasonably conclude that its affirmations regarding the origin of humanity are correct as well.

 Escape from Responsibility

Another reason why many so readily accept evolution as the explanation for mankind, is that such allows them to “cut loose” from God, and hence to be free from moral and religious obligations. They thus can become their own “gods,” and write their own rules. Richard Dawkins says that “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist” (The Blind Watchmaker, New York: W.W. Norton, 1986, p. 6).

 This viewpoint was vividly illustrated some years ago when Clarence Darrow spoke to the inmates of the Cook County jail in Chicago. Hear him.

“I do not believe there is any sort of distinction between the real moral conditions of the people in and out of jail. One is just as good as the other. The people here can no more help being here than the people outside can avoid being outside. I do not believe that people are in jail because they deserve to be. They are in jail simply because they cannot avoid it on account of circumstances which are entirely beyond their control and for which they are in no way responsible” (Arthur Weinberg, Attorney For The Damned, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1957, pp. 3-4; emp. WJ).

 This shocking statement reveals the motive of some evolutionists.

 People do not believe in evolution because they have been led there by solid evidence. They are stampeded into the Darwinian community by superficial, emotional, and personal factors. They only delude themselves when they think otherwise.

 Consider how evolution leads man to a total loss of life’s essence.

 THE CONTRADICTIONS OF EVOLUTION

1. Evolution contradicts basic laws of Physics. 

The 1^st Law of Thermodynamics teaches that natural processes do not bring things into existence from nothing. But evolution must contend that once nothing existed and suddenly “nothing” produced something. True Science admits that the universe began from nothing. Hence the evolutionary theory contradicts this basic law.

 2. The “New Generalized 2nd Law of Theromdynamics” also reveals evolutionary errors.

This Law asserts that had the universe been here forever, it would now be in a state of “rest” because in natural processes the order [complex] always dissolves into the disorder [simple].

 Natural processes NEVER begin with the simple and ascend to the complex! Natural processes are locked into a strict order that cannot be broken. But evolution argues that matter has the marvelous ability to perform brief “miracles” where natural processes are suspended and the matter transcends natural laws. But such a theory contradicts the laws of True Science!

 3. Evolution contradicts basic common sense. 

When all is studied the evolutionist still has no logical, scientific explanation for origins. Vain efforts have been made to provide explanations. One example will suffice, although many could be cited. F.H.C. Crick, discoverer of the DNA molecule, had a profound effect upon genetics/biology. He was an evolutionist who struggled to explain origins. He suggested that life on earth originated when a bacteria form was transmitted to Earth by a missile from some other part of outerspace! [Zacharias, p.39]

 4. Evolution contradicts basic facts of True Science.

True facts are not presented by the evolutionists unless they are shrouded with fabrication. So called “experts” are called to testify to the validity of evolutionary progress. Many “facts” are presented. But it is helpful to remember that an “expert” is only one who agrees with one’s worldview and “facts” are often assumptions that reinforce the worldview of the “expert.”

 THE TRAGEDY OF EVOLUTION

The greatest tragedy of evolution is found in its assertion that humans are just another animal that live on a higher plane of awareness and activity. But this is false! Practical observations reveal this tragedy. When man and monkey are compared we see enormous differences. There is an absolute distinction that sets human life apart from animal life. Emotive awareness also refutes evolution’s tragic conclusion. At death we “know” that a difference exists between man and animal. No amount of evolutionary talk will convince us otherwise (cf Eccl 3:19‑21; 12:7). 

 The differences between man and monkey raise a number of probing questions haunting the evolutionist. Why are there such dramatic differences IF man is just another animal? Does this difference enable man to participate in a destiny inaccessible to the monkey? Could this destiny include “eternity”? What quality in man enables him to defeat even the mightiest of beasts?  What is there that makes human life “human” and animal life “animal”?

 The tragedy of evolution is beginning to be measured in our century as ethical madness, inane cruelties, and desolation are sweeping civilization. Evil and immorality abound because human life has lost its “humanness” and thus has lost its meaning and value!

 THE IGNORANCE OF EVOLUTION

This system is advocated to support the philosophy of atheism. It is advanced by the leading “Intellectuals” of our century. But it is ignorant of the sublime words of Psalm 8.

 In Psalm 8 we read of God’s glory and man’s dignity. These are two elements which evolution has erased from the modern mind.  The Scriptures reveal that man’s dignity is inescapably connected to God’s glory – if God has no glory then man has no dignity! The Psalm elaborates on man’s dignity and presents human beings in a majestic portrait. Man is created by God and has an intrinsic value and dignity that is not found in animals. Man is placed over the animals because he is far different!

 Even though evolution is advocated by the “Intellectuals,” it is a theory of gross ignorance! It ignores man’s uniqueness; his creation by the Almighty; his authority over animals; his essence as the image of God!  In this ignorance man has lost the essence of daily living!

 Put in simple terms, atheism eliminates human dignity, self‑worth, and personal value via evolution. Its tragic conclusion is stated by Jacques Monod, “Man at least knows that he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe, out of which he emerged by chance.” [Chance And Necessity, London: E.T. Collins, 1973, p. 167].

 We are on Earth either as a consequence of a “Mindless First Cause” or we are here by the design of a Mighty Creator. With one position you have neither purpose nor meaning in life. With the other, your life has purpose, meaning, and existence. Surely the reasonable mind will see the folly of evolution!

 Problems for the Theory of Evolution by Wayne Jackson
 New articles come to our attention occasionally which contain data that really throw a “monkey wrench” into the theory of evolution. Let me mention three such items I’ve seen in relatively recent times.

Evolutionary scientists date the earth at approximately 4.5 to 5 billion years old. Most folks are not aware that there is really no incontrovertible scientific proof to establish these fantastic dates. They are grounded in a series of assumptions that are based upon evolutionary premises. In other words, the “clock” is rigged to provide the “long ages” of earth’s history.

 Why is this the case? Because, as everyone concedes, “time” is an absolutely essential ingredient in the Darwinian scheme. Dr. George Wald of Harvard called it the “hero of the plot.” Evolutionists need vast amounts of time for the millions of evolutionary changes to occur which would produce the amoebae-to-man phenomenon.

 It has been demonstrated many times, however, that the “evolutionary clocks” are terribly flawed (see our Courier Publications for, Creation, Evolution, and the Age of the Earth). Here is a recent example.

 Remember the Mount St. Helens volcanic eruption? It occurred on May 18, 1980. That was less than twenty years ago. As a result of that catastrophe, a new lava dome was formed on the site. Not long ago, it was “dated” by the radio-metric method. Guess how old it turns out to be? It yielded a date of 2.8 million years! If that does not demonstrate that the “clock” is broken, then what would?

 Here is another interesting item. Tens of millions of fossils have been found beneath the surface of the earth that provide us with a veritable library of what life was like upon the ancient earth. And the record contains some surprising mysteries.

 For instance, one of the foundation stones of the evolutionary theory is that of “natural selection.” This is the idea that in the struggle of life, the stronger survive, while the weaker are eliminated. This was Darwin’s “survival of the fittest.” While there is some truth in the principle, it is taken much too far by the disciples of Darwin. If this has been the guiding factor in evolution, over vast periods of time, one would expect to find, in the fossil record, evidence of the increasing hardiness of the species as time passes.

 Actually, just the opposite is true. The fossil record bears mute testimony to the fact of degeneration. Earth’s creatures were much more robust in the past than they now are. For example, the January (2000) issue of National Geographic magazine reports concerning a huge depository of fossils found in a large cave in Brazil. It contained, for instance, the skull of a spider monkey that was twice the size of modern spider monkeys. The fossil of a twenty foot ground sloth was also discovered. These discoveries literally shout, “digression!” – not “progression.”

It is commonly believed that fossils take vast ages to form; this, supposedly, is another of those “proofs” employed by novices to suggest an earth millions of years old. This doesn’t make a lot of sense, of course, when you think about the fact that when animals die, they are usually consumed by other animals, or simply decay away. But here is a bizarre news item.

 The theory of evolution is so besieged with problems that it’s amazing it is so widely believed. But then, most people do not investigate. They simply believe what they are told – especially when it has the fumes of “science.” Many scientists have a vested interest in pushing evolution. Why is that? Because the only other alternative is creation. And that, of course, points to God – and a responsibility to him. For them, that is simply out of the question.

 Sources For Further Study :

Gange, Dr. Robert. Origins And Destiny, Word Publishing.

Richards, Lawrence, It Couldn’t Just Happen. Ft. Worth: Sweet Publishing, 1987.

Zacharias, Ravi. A Shattered Visage. Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt Publishers, 1990.

(Romans 1:18-32 NIV)  The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, {19} since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

 {24} Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. {25} They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen. {26} Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. {27} In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. {28} 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.

 A comment at the outset

We face difficult times. Massachusetts, California, Oregon, and New York are “pressing the legal envelope” and marrying same-sex individuals against state and federal laws. Christians aren’t surprised, because 2-4% of our country (it seems) has proven what Romans 1 describes: that people who deny the truth about God are going their sinful ways and homosexuality and lesbianism is the natural result.  The Supreme Court ruled that it will not address the issue, clearing the way for many of our states to continue down this path.

John McArthur makes the following comment, which is in complete agreement with many other religious leaders’ words: “In the United States and many other western countries it is not uncommon for homosexual males to have 300 partners a year. Even when relationships are on a friendly basis, the most bizarre acts imaginable are committed, and mutilation is common. In his biography (Where Death Delights, by Marshall Houts [New York: Coward-McCann, 1967]), the New York City forensic expert Dr. Milton Helpern, who makes no claim of being a Christian and avoids making moral judgments about homosexuality, nevertheless comments that, after having performed thousands of autopsies, he would warn anyone who chooses a homosexual lifestyle to be prepared for the consequences: “When we see … brutal, multiple wound cases in a single victim … we just automatically assume that we’re dealing with a homosexual victim and a homosexual attacker.… I don’t know why it is so, but it seems that the violent explosions of jealousy among homosexuals far exceed those of the jealousy of a man for a woman, or a woman for a man. The pent-up charges and energy of the homosexual relationship simply cannot be contained. When the explosive point is reached, the result is brutally violent.… But this is the ‘normal’ pattern of these homosexual attacks, the multiple stabbings, the multiple senseless beatings that obviously must continue long after the victim dies” (pp. 269-70).

 A San Francisco coroner estimated that ten percent of his city’s homicides were probably related to sado-masochistic sex among homosexuals (cf. Bob Greene, “Society’s Been Given Far Too Much Rope,” the Chicago Tribune [19 March 1981], sec. 2, p. 1). Yet in spite of such impartial and damning evidence, many people, including a large number of psychologists and other social professionals, persist in maintaining there is no scientific proof that homosexuality is abnormal or harmful to society. Some even assert that attempts to convert homosexuals to heterosexuals are ethically questionable. The city government of San Francisco has even conducted workshops to teach homosexuals how to avoid serious bodily harm while engaging in sado-masochistic sex—although by definition, both sadism and masochism are destructive! The very purpose of both deviations is to inflict pain and harm, sadism on others and masochism on oneself. Many mass murderers seem to be homosexuals.

 Unimaginably, many church denominations in the United States and elsewhere have ordained homosexuals to the ministry and even established special congregations for homosexuals. One denominational group claims that homosexuality is no more abnormal than left-handedness.

 Instead of trying to help their children become free of sexual deviation, many parents of homosexuals have banded together to defend their children and to coerce society, government, and churches to recognize and accept homosexuality as normal. In many cases, religions that hold homosexuality to be a sin are blamed for the tragic results that homosexuals bring on themselves and on their families and friends. Evangelical Christianity in particular is often made the culprit and is accused of persecuting innocent people who cannot help being what they are.

 But in both testaments God’s Word condemns homosexuality in the strongest of terms. Under the Old Covenant it was punishable by death. Paul declares unequivocally that, although homosexuality can be forgiven and cleansed just as any other sin, no unrepentant homosexual will enter heaven, just as will no unrepentant fornicator, idolater, adulterer, effeminate person, thief, covetous person, drunkard, reviler, or swindler (1 Cor. 6:9-11; cf. Gal. 5:19-21; Eph. 5:3-5; 1 Tim. 1:9-10; Jude 7).

 As a result, it is felt that this study is important at this time. It shows much of what serves as a foundation to many of these lifestyle decisions. Certainly, those “who deny the truth about God” would fit into categories similar to that of the atheist.

 Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God. – Heywood Broun, Gaily the Troubadour, Arthur Guiterman, 1936 .

 God is not discoverable or demonstrable by purely scientific means, unfortunately for the scientifically minded. But that really proves nothing. It simply means that the wrong instruments are being used for the job. – J.B. Phillips in For This Day

 On August 7, 1961 the world heard the cynicism of Atheistic philosophy clearly defined.  On that memorable day Soviet cosmonauts orbited our planet and safely returned. Later one was recounting his feat at the 1962 World’s Fair.

 An interview on May 7, 1962 recorded him saying: “Some say God is living there [in space].  I was looking around very attentively.  But I did not see anyone there.  I did not detect angels or gods … I don’t believe in God.  I believe in man, his strength, his possibilities, and his reason.” [Lawrence Richards, It Couldn’t Just Happen, Ft. Worth: Sweet Pub., 1987, p. 15]. 

 The communistic press quickly picked up on his remarks and soon there appeared cartoons depicting space travellers cynically searching for God in outer space. The unspoken message was clear – it is absurd to believe in a Supreme Being of the Bible called Jehovah God!

 But Titov’s challenge was not new.  In Psalm 42:3, 10 the existence, care, and provision of Jehovah God were questioned with a sarcastic pitch:

(Psalms 42:3 NIV)  My tears have been my food day and night, while men say to me all day long, “Where is your God?”

 (Psalms 42:10 NIV)  My bones suffer mortal agony as my foes taunt me, saying to me all day long, “Where is your God?”

In 2 Chronicles 32:10‑16 we find blatant atheism:

(2 Chronicles 32:10-16 NIV)  “This is what Sennacherib king of Assyria says: On what are you basing your confidence, that you remain in Jerusalem under siege? {11} When Hezekiah says, ‘The LORD our God will save us from the hand of the king of Assyria,’ he is misleading you, to let you die of hunger and thirst. {12} Did not Hezekiah himself remove this god’s high places and altars, saying to Judah and Jerusalem, ‘You must worship before one altar and burn sacrifices on it’? {13} “Do you not know what I and my fathers have done to all the peoples of the other lands? Were the gods of those nations ever able to deliver their land from my hand? {14} Who of all the gods of these nations that my fathers destroyed has been able to save his people from me? How then can your god deliver you from my hand? {15} Now do not let Hezekiah deceive you and mislead you like this. Do not believe him, for no god of any nation or kingdom has been able to deliver his people from my hand or the hand of my fathers. How much less will your god deliver you from my hand!” {16} Sennacherib’s officers spoke further against the LORD God and against his servant Hezekiah.

 God’s existence, care, provision, and leadership are challenged with Assyrian sarcasm (v. 15):

(2 Chronicles 32:15 NIV)  Now do not let Hezekiah deceive you and mislead you like this. Do not believe him, for no god of any nation or kingdom has been able to deliver his people from my hand or the hand of my fathers. How much less will your god deliver you from my hand!”

 We could easily add to this list.  Throughout history man has heard the clamor of atheistic proponents.  What used to be shrugged off as ignorance about the Almighty has now become the standard of “reason” for the intelligentsia of modern opinion!

 Atheism offers an unparalleled challenge in our present day.  Today’s children are impressed with atheistic philosophy in almost every spectrum in life.  From Saturday morning cartoons to “religious” programs of self‑help the subtle forces of Atheism are found.  Too many have ignored this challenge. 

 We need to consider Atheism and reckon its danger to society’s existence (cf Ps 33:12; Pr 14:34):

 (Psalms 33:12 NIV)  Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD, the people he chose for his inheritance.

 (Proverbs 14:34 NIV)  Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.

 What can be said about Atheism?  Does God really exist or is He only a “psychological necessity”?

 In this series we will examine Atheism and expose its glaring inconsistencies, unanswerable faults, and gross inaccuracies.

 Description of Atheism: [1]

“Atheism is not a religion in the sense that Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are. Conventional religions usually include a belief in the nature of deity, other religious beliefs, a moral code, religious rituals and sacraments, and a membership in a religious community. Rather, an Atheist’s belief system about a supreme being is confined to one factor: the existence or non-existence of a deity. He or she will have a personal moral code. However, it would generally be derived from purely secular considerations, and will be unrelated to any religious texts.”

 Most Atheists have analyzed the available material evidence for the existence of one or more deities (gods and/or goddesses) and have concluded that there is no real evidence of the existence of gods or goddesses. They believe that the universe, Earth and its life probably evolved by perfectly natural processes. They see no evidence of intervention by a supernatural entity. They generally feel that ethical and moral systems governing human behavior can be developed without reference to any code of behavior of allegedly divine origin. Other Atheists are people who have simply never been exposed to belief in a deity or deities and therefore have no belief in them.

 In ancient Greece, the term was used to refer to people who did not believe in the official pagan religion; i.e. unbelievers. “Atheism is derived from the Greek, atheos, and means simply ‘away from the belief in a god or gods.’ ” [2]

 In ancient Rome, Christians were often called Atheists because they did not believe in the pantheon of Roman gods and goddesses. Until the word Agnosticism came into general usage during the 19th century, people we now call Agnostics were commonly lumped together with Atheists.

 “Atheist” according to most modern dictionaries:

Most dictionaries define an “Atheist” as a person who either passively believes that no God exists, and/or who actively asserts this belief. For example:

 How This Deadly Challenge Arose

Atheism has never lacked a spokesman.  Even in Eden the care, provision, and protection of God were questioned (Gen. 3:1):

(Genesis 3:1 NIV)  Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

 From that beginning Satan effectively used a number of spokesmen, movements, and groups to propel the Atheistic philosophy.  A survey of history provides an interesting discovery as to how Satan manipulated forces to achieve the evil, atheistic end.  Consider some of the most prominent of these points.

 First, begin with Galileo, a 16th century mathematician, physicist, and astronomer.  He dared suggest that Earth was not the center of the solar system, just a part of it.  Such was considered blasphemy that cast questions upon God’s creation.  The Inquisition forced him to recant but his theory did not die.  Some began to see his theory as evidence for a determined, mechanical Universe.  Such a Universe could not possibly have a caring, protective God overlooking it. Rejoicing was prompted because “scientific” grounds justified a rejection of Deity could stand.

 Second, the character of Charles Darwin presents an interesting study in the development of Atheistic philosophy. His theory of man’s origin shook the bedrock of Christian Faith.  But Darwin’s hypothesis was only a logical step of a mechanical world‑view – if the Universe was not superintended by Deity, but working in a mechanical manner, why not man? 

 Thus arose “grounds” upon which a mechanistic view of man could be argued.  Man/Woman were seen to have arrived upon earth through natural causes.  The cynical rejected God believing that there was not the slightest suggestion of the Supernatural about man’s origin.

 Atheism thus appealed to “scientific evidence” to support its rejection of Deity.  Atheism had “proved” there was no God by twisting Galileo’s theory and by accepting the unacceptable theory of evolution.

 Third, another to figure in Satan’s Atheistic strategy was Karl Marx.[3]  Here was a bitter enemy of religion.  His life is a sad story of how rejection of Deity leads only to compounded sorrow.  Marx’s supreme goal in life was to destroy the influence of religion.  He saw Darwin’s theory as the means by which he could eliminate religion and establish the long sought “classless” society.

 The fourth point that surfaces as atheistic philosophy is considered is the field of psychology. Sigmond Freud used a biased view of religion as a basis of his theories that would further destroy the credibility of religion.  Freud saw religion as the culprit in all deviant behavior.  He saw all compulsions rooted in religion, repressive morals.  He saw ethics as dangerous hindrance to man’s true self.  He branded the beliefs of the Church as the “future of an illusion”, the title of one of his books.  Recent research has revealed the corruption of Freud. 

 Today the honest student realizes that Freud’s theories were presented to accommodate the psychologist’s immorality and rejection of God.  But Freud had planted the seed that Atheism needed.  Psychologists following him propagated Freud’s atheistic principles. Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs suggested that man has the ability of “self‑actualization” within himself.  Thus, Maslow removed the need for God in life.  B.F. Skinner’s writings and theories further removed God from man and reduced man to the level of a mere animal.

 Throughout psychology there was a philosophy that man was a pawn to environment. Thus was removed from man any accountability for choices made.  After all who could be accountable for “S/he was the product of the environment!”

 God was effectively erased.  Man’s accountability was denied. In the end, it was “society” that was to blame and the only way to correct the wrong was for the government to legislate. Correction through repentance because of a belief in God was scoffed. 

 The idea that man was personally accountable was regarded as ludicrous.  Thus guilt was removed from the person and placed upon society.  The absence of a righteous Deity was regarded as an outdated myth.  These influences of the radical psychologists persist even in our modern times.

 They become deeply ingrained and accepted as truth.  No one dares counter their teachings.  Thus Satan has effectively manipulated a denial of God’s right to command behavior and man’s obligation to obey.

 Fifth, the writers of the 1800’s Romanticism sped Atheism’s advance.  Names as Lord Byron, P.B. Shelly, Wordsworth, Coleridge, etc., brought to the public literature which glorified the Bohemian lifestyle, attacked religion, glorified the myth of an attainable perfection for humanity, and claimed that happiness was possible only for those strong enough to wrest happiness for himself.  The cynicism of life that these authors reflected infected society with hopelessness and fueled the Atheistic philosophy.

 Sixth, Satan’s manipulation of philosophers is amazing. Among the many stands one of inestimable influence ‑ Frederich Nietzsche.  He was a German who hinged the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.  His writings were widely read and respected.  Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin were influenced by Nietzsche.[4] 

 Literary authors fell under his influence.  It was Nietzsche’s philosophy that led to the “God Is Dead!” movement in the twentieth century.  It was Nietzsche’s influence that made “orthodoxy” wrong.  He claimed that an objective right and wrong were tenets held by ignorant fools. 

Nietzsche was honest about the ramifications of his philosophical thoughts.  He looked at earthly life where God was missing and saw an agonizing picture.  Those following him would live in a world that had no Mind behind existence; no transcending Voice giving counsel; no light at the end of life giving hope.  Nietzsche’s philosophy led to an abject loneliness of existence on a planet that had no future!

 Nietzsche’s insight was admirable.  He saw a world that had “killed” God. He suggested that since God had been killed then the twentieth century would be marked by two dire facts: It would be the bloodiest century in man’s civilization. And, it would be marked by universal madness. 

 One only has to read daily media reports to see he was correct.  Without God, man has nothing but tragedy!

 Satan uses these factors masterfully and brought about the current crisis in our day.  Notice today’s society as bearing the bitter fruits of these factors: 

(1)  Nietzsche considered the Beatitudes as damning in life.  To him they only emphasized weakness.  A society ruled by Beatitudes would be a society of “losers”.  Hence he urged the strong to persevere, dominate, and crush. 

 (2) Moral law has been abandoned.  If the universe and man are products of determinism, and there is no God superintending, it is absurd to claim absolute right/wrong.  Our modern society is lawless.  Absolute morality is rejected in favor of situationalism.  Our youth have been educated in a civilization that does not enjoin moral law or educate in moral knowledge! 

 (3) Since man is the product of Evolution, s/he is not  accountable for even the most heinous crimes.

 The Folly Of The Challenge Exposed

A simple principle exposes Atheism as a foolish philosophy – Error is always contradictory.  Such is true with Atheism.  It is a philosophy riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions.  Yet those who espouse its tenets fail to see this point.

 This series will focus upon this folly.  Each article will explore a facet of Atheistic philosophy and demonstrate its inconsistency and error.  At the same time it will be shown that belief in God is not only creditable but is the only reasonable option.

 Atheism is a philosophy that is void of all significance and is filled with self‑contradictions.  Whenever we are aware of these glaring errors, the challenge of Atheism will be lessened.

 Concluding Observations

Many can still recall the events of Christmas Day 1968. On that day three other “space travellers” would offer an observation regarding Deity.  Three Americans were the first humans to travel around the “dark” side of the Moon.  Having fired their rockets they were homebound on Apollo 8. 

 They saw the Earth as no human eyes ever had.  The dramatic portrait has appeared numerous times since and no living human has not seen Earth as Apollo 8 saw it coming from behind the Moon.  Earth rose over the Moon’s horizon, draped in a beautiful mixture of blue and white.  It was bordered by the glistening light of the Sun against the void of black space. 

 At this awe‑inspiring moment, the first words heard, from the crew who had gone where no other humans had gone, “In the beginning God …”  Their conclusion was quite different than Major Titov’s! 

 What shall modern man do with Atheism’s challenge?  Let us follow King Hezekiah.  When he was confronted with the Assyrian cynicism he trusted in the Almighty for vindication (2 Kings  19:14):

(2 Kings 19:14 NIV)  Hezekiah received the letter from the messengers and read it. Then he went up to the temple of the LORD and spread it out before the LORD.

 His faith did not waver.  His resolve was not weakened.  He rested confidently knowing that God would be vindicated (cf 2 Ki 19:22, 28, 34‑35; 2 Chron 32:21):

(2 Kings 19:22 NIV)  Who is it you have insulted and blasphemed? Against whom have you raised your voice and lifted your eyes in pride? Against the Holy One of Israel!

 (2 Kings 19:28 NIV)  Because you rage against me and your insolence has reached my ears, I will put my hook in your nose and my bit in your mouth, and I will make you return by the way you came.’

 (2 Kings 19:34-35 NIV)  I will defend this city and save it, for my sake and for the sake of David my servant.” {35} That night the angel of the LORD went out and put to death a hundred and eighty-five thousand men in the Assyrian camp. When the people got up the next morning–there were all the dead bodies!

 (2 Chronicles 32:21 NIV)  And the LORD sent an angel, who annihilated all the fighting men and the leaders and officers in the camp of the Assyrian king. So he withdrew to his own land in disgrace. And when he went into the temple of his god, some of his sons cut him down with the sword.

 Tragic consequences have historically fallen upon all who choose to ignore the contradictions of Atheism.  NO matter how loudly Atheism challenges Jehovah God, the philosophy can never resolve the dilemma of a world without God!

 Numbers of Atheists

Estimates of the numbers of Atheists are hopelessly inaccurate:

 A new, tongue-in-cheek, name for Atheists:

Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell of California decided to create a new word for “Atheists,” in order to encourage them to come out of the closet in spite of the heavy prejudice against them. Taking a cue from homosexuals and their embracing of the term “gay,” Geisert and Futrell suggest that “bright” become a synonym for “Atheist.” Richard Dawkins wrote in The Guardian: “People reluctant to use the word atheist might be happy to come out as bright.” [6]

Brezhnev’s Widow

As Vice President, George H. W. Bush represented the U.S. at the funeral of former Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev. Bush was deeply moved by a silent protest carried out by Brezhnev’s widow. She stood motionless by the coffin until seconds before it was closed. Then, just as the soldiers touched the lid, Brezhnev’s wife performed an act of great courage and hope, a gesture that must surely rank as one of the most profound acts of civil disobedience ever committed: She reached down and made the sign of the cross on her husband’s chest. There in the citadel of secular, atheistic power, the wife of the man who had run it all hoped that her husband was wrong. She hoped that there was another life, and that that life was best represented by Jesus who died on the cross, and that the same Jesus might yet have mercy on her husband. — Gary Thomas, in C.T., October 3, 1994, p. 26

Stalin’s Daughter

Some years ago, when the news broke out that Joseph Stalin’s daughter had defected from Communism and Russia, many people were startled. Her statement given to reporters who met her plane in New York, told why she defected: “I found it impossible to exist without God in one’s heart. I came to that conclusion myself, without anybody’s help or preaching. That was a great change because since that moment the main dogmas of Communism lost their significance for me. I have come here to seek the self-expression that has been denied me for so long in Russia.”

   That woman’s struggle was a terrible one. To leave Russia, she had to leave two children in Moscow and realize that it would be, as she said, “Impossible to go back.”

   Pascal said there is within every person a “God-shaped vacuum.” He’s right. Historians Will and Ariel Durant observed in their summery volume, The Lessons of History, that There never has been a significant example of morality apart from belief in God.” — Morning Glory, 2-5-94

Madman

Have you not heard of the madman who lit a lamp in the bright morning and went to the marketplace crying ceaselessly, “I seek God! I seek God!” There were many among those standing there who didn’t believe in God so he made them laugh.

 “Is God lost?” one of them said.  “Has he gone astray like a child?” said another. “Or is he hiding? Has he gone on board ship and emigrated?” So they laughed and shouted to one another.

 The man sprang into their midst and looked daggers at them. “Where is God?” he cried. “I will tell you. We have killed him–you and I We are all his killers! But how have we done this? How could we swallow up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the horizon? What will we do as the earth is set loose from its sun?” – Friedrich Nietzsche, 1889

 Nietzsche’s point was not that God does not exist, but that God has become irrelevant. Men and women may assert that God exists or that He does not, but it makes little difference either way. God is dead not because He doesn’t exist, but because we live, play, procreate, govern, and die as though He doesn’t.

— C. Colson, Kingdoms in Conflict, p. 181

No Belief in God

According to the teaching of our Lord, what is wrong with the world is precisely that it does not believe in God. Yet it is clear that the unbelief which he so bitterly deplored was not an intellectual persuasion of God’s non-existence. Those whom he rebuked for their lack of faith were not men who denied God with the top of their minds, but men who, while apparently incapable of doubting him with the top of their minds, lived as though he did not exist. — John Baillie, in Our Knowledge of God

50 Years Ago

In the book Gaily the Troubadour, published in 1936, Arthur Guiterman wrote the following poem. Reading his observations, you wouldn’t guess it was written nearly fifty years ago.

   First dentistry was painless; Then bicycles were chainless And carriages were horseless  And many laws, enforceless. Next, cookery was fireless, Telegraphy was wireless, Cigars were nicotineless  And coffee, caffeinless. Soon oranges were seedless, The putting green was weedless, The college boy hatless, The proper diet, fatless, Now motor roads are dustless, The latest steel is rustless, Our tennis courts are sodless, Our new religions, godless.  — Source unknown

 [1] From website: ReligiousTolerance.org: “Atheism: About Atheism or atheists”

[2] “Atheism,” American Atheists, at: http://www.atheists.org/drive.thru/atheism.html#fallacies 

 [3] [See Paul Johnson, Intellectuals, New York: Harper & Row, 1988.  Johnson provides an excellent discussion of the influential “intellectuals” and how their philosophies impacted modern thought.]

[4] [Paul Johnson, Modern Times, New York: Harper & Collins, 1991, p. 48]

[5] The World Almanac and Book of Facts (2001), Page 692.

 [6] Michael Kesterton, “Social Studies: A daily miscellany of information…” The Globe and Mail, 2003-JUL-2.

An atheist is one who does not believe in God. He accepts the idea that
the universe as we know it came into existence by natural means. He looks
to evolution as part of the answer as to the origin of life and ultimately
of humanity itself. He claims that he is too intelligent to live by
superstition and suggests that faith in God as Creator of the worlds is
just that. He belittles those who live by faith and asks for proof. He
claims to only believe that which is rational and can be seen and tested.

Alas! That is what he wants others to believe about him as they admire
his intellect and reason. But does he really have it all figured out? Has
he found the answers to mans’ origin? Has he proved that God does not exist?

Christians have a God-given responsibility to so equip themselves that
they are “always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to
give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and fear”
(I PETER 3:15). It occurs to me that the atheist who mocks and ridicules
should at least do likewise; that he should “always be ready to make a
defense to everyone that asks him to give an account for the hopelessness
and despair that is in him…”.

THE UNBELIEVER LIVES BY FAITH
“…in order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for
he causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the
righteous and the unrighteous” (MATTHEW 5:45).

While the atheist denies that God has anything at all to do with the
sun or the rain, he still lives by faith in something. He plants his crops
believing that the sun and rain will cause his efforts to be rewarded.
Atheists mock faith, but still live by it. They put their faith in the
all-sufficiency of matter as they order their lives. The difference between
the believer and atheist is that the believer accepts that there is a
purpose being fulfilled by his life and that God has provided the means to
sustain his life. The atheist believes that his life is an accident and
there is no purpose being fulfilled and the fact that he can grow food is
just a lucky break.

THE ATHEIST BELIEVES IN SOMETHING ETERNAL
“Even from eternity I am He; And there is none that can deliver out of
My hand; I act and who can reverse it?” (ISAIAH 43:13).

The atheist scoffs at the idea of an eternal God without beginning. But
as he ridicules those who believe in a Supreme Being, he, himself believes
that something has always been. There simply is no other reasonable
alternative because something exists now and something cannot come from
nothing. So what has always been here if not God? The idea that matter has
always existed flies in the face of all we know about the physical laws and
properties that govern matter. Or, we could put it this way: The believer
holds that God created matter, life and mind while the atheist holds that
matter created mind, intelligence and finally the idea of God. Which is
more reasonable?

THE ATHEIST BELIEVES LIFE CAME FROM NON-LIFE
“I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things…”
(I TIMOTHY 6:13).

People once believed that non-living matter could produce living
things. If dead meat were left to itself, sure enough living maggots would
appear. It was Louis Pasteur who first overthrew the false idea. He showed
that the maggots came from flies and not from the meat itself. Pastuer was
correct: living things come from living things.

A living thing coming from dead matter has never been observed and is
without any factual foundation at all, and yet this is exactly what the
atheist believes. The Bible affirms that life comes from life. This has
been observed time and time again without any exception at all. Again,
which is the most reasonable to believe?

THE ATHEIST INSISTS THAT DESIGN IN NATURE IS ACCIDENTAL
“O Lord, how many are Thy works! In wisdom Thou hast made them all; The
earth is full of Thy possessions” (PSALM 104:24).

The universe is a complex system. We can find order and design from the
most immense galaxies down to the smallest atom. We find amazing things
that animals do by instinct apart from which they could not survive. We can
predict the movement of heavenly bodies because of the physical laws by
which they are governed. We see with our eyes and hear with our ears and
sing songs with our voices. The various systems found in the human body
function not by accident but by plan. There were a series of articles in
Reader’s Digest which discussed this: “I Am Joe’s Heart”, Eye, Lung, etc.
Who could believe that Joe is here by accident and not by plan? The atheist
can.

THE ATHEIST CANNOT TRUST HIS OWN THOUGHTS
“Because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God
made it evident to them” (ROMANS 1:19).

Ask the atheist where thought comes from. He thinks there is no God, so
what is the source of human thought? Are his thoughts merely a product of
blind chance and random occurrences? One atheist put it this way: Thought
is “a form of vibration and sensation in the nerve fibers of the brain and
of the nervous system”. Get this: what you think is dependent only on how
your brain sloshes around! So why is the atheist so proud of his supposed
intellect if all he is and thinks is a product of random forces with no
purpose? He may talk about such ideals as morality and love, but if moving
lumps of matter is all we are then those ideals lose their meaning. If man
is only a purposeless machine that developed by accident then why be
morally outraged when one of them kills another?

And that brings us to our concluding point. We wonder why crime,
brutality and violence are on the increase. We shudder as we witness so
many hopeless and aimless lives being wasted. We see emotional wrecks
unable to cope. What is happening? We are reaping the first fruits of atheism.

In 2 Peter 2:20-22 we read of the real possibility and serious
consequences of backsliding:
“If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and
Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are
worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. {21} It would have
been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to
have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was
passed on to them. {22} Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to
its vomit,” and, “A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the
mud.””

It is interesting that we find this passage coming from the inspired pen
of Peter…for if anyone knew “firsthand” the reality and dangers of
backsliding, it was Peter! He discovered these truths the night he denied
Jesus!

The process of backsliding is a gradual one, often overtaking a person by
surprise; and lest we fall from our own steadfastness…we shall
carefully examine the process that led to Peter’s denial of Christ.
Notice how Peter’s own words in his epistles are designed to prevent the
same from happening to us!

THE ANATOMY OF A BACKSLIDER
A. PRIDE – Mark 14:27-31: “You will all fall away,” Jesus told them, “for
it is written: “‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be
scattered.’ {28} But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into
Galilee.” {29} Peter declared, “Even if all fall away, I will not.” {30}
“I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “today–yes, tonight–before the
rooster crows twice you yourself will disown me three times.” {31} But
Peter insisted emphatically, “Even if I have to die with you, I will
never disown you.” And all the others said the same.”

1. In a boastful manner, Peter claims he will not fall away or deny
Christ!
2. In doing so, Peter takes the first step in backsliding: “pride”!
– cf. _Pr 16:18
3. Why is this the “first” step?
a. Because the first step in entering the kingdom is humility –
Mt 18:3-4
b. So if we lose “humility”, we take that first step backward
4. Paul’s advice to the Corinthians is very apropos in this regard
– cf. _1 Co 10:11

B. LAZINESS – Mark 14:32-42: “They went to a place called Gethsemane, and
Jesus said to his disciples, “Sit here while I pray.” {33} He took Peter,
James and John along with him, and he began to be deeply distressed and
troubled. {34} “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of
death,” he said to them. “Stay here and keep watch.” {35} Going a little
farther, he fell to the ground and prayed that if possible the hour might
pass from him. {36} “Abba, Father,” he said, “everything is possible for
you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.” {37}
Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. “Simon,” he
said to Peter, “are you asleep? Could you not keep watch for one hour?
{38} Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit
is willing, but the body is weak.” {39} Once more he went away and prayed
the same thing. {40} When he came back, he again found them sleeping,
because their eyes were heavy. They did not know what to say to him. {41}
Returning the third time, he said to them, “Are you still sleeping and
resting? Enough! The hour has come. Look, the Son of Man is betrayed into
the hands of sinners. {42} Rise! Let us go! Here comes my betrayer!””

1. Told to keep watch, Peter kept falling asleep
2. It was therefore lack of diligent preparation which caused him
to be caught off guard for what was to follow
3. The same thing can happen to us!
a. Without diligence, we too can be found unprepared – Lk
21:34-36
b. More often than not, it is a “gradual drifting” that catches
us off guard – Heb. 2:1-3
c. But when we are proud of ourselves, we become lazy, and
that easily leads to the next step…

C. COWARDICE – Mark 14:54: “Peter followed him at a distance, right into
the courtyard of the high priest. There he sat with the guards and warmed
himself at the fire.”

1. Note that it says “…Peter followed Him at a distance”
2. Now that Jesus had become unpopular…
a. Peter stays far enough away so as not to be identified with
Him
b. Peter was unprepared for the challenge of facing ridicule and
persecution
3. Without diligent preparation, we too can become guilty of
cowardice!
a. Ashamed to be seen carrying a Bible
b. Ashamed to be seen giving thanks
c. Ashamed to be seen with other Christians
d. Perhaps even ashamed to let others know that we are
Christians!
4. And yet, Jesus has made it clear what He thinks of “cowardice”
Mark 8:38; Rev. 21:8
5. When we are ashamed of Christ, it is natural for to fall into
the next step of backsliding…

D. WORLDLINESS – Mark 14:54: “Peter followed him at a distance, right
into the courtyard of the high priest. There he sat with the guards and
warmed himself at the fire.”

1. We now find Peter sitting with the servants of the High Priest
and warming himself by the fire
2. Ashamed to be seen with Christ, it becomes easy to mingle with
those of the world and enjoy their comforts
3. But one cannot be “comforted by the fire” of the world, and not
be “burned”!
a. Close contact with that which can harm has its effects! –
Prov. 6:27-29
b. So it is we cannot “flirt with the world” and walk away
untouched! – 1 Cor. 15:33
4. By the time we become “friends with the world”, it is only a
short time before we take the next and final step of backsliding…

E. DENIAL – Mark 14:66-71: “While Peter was below in the courtyard, one
of the servant girls of the high priest came by. {67} When she saw Peter
warming himself, she looked closely at him. “You also were with that
Nazarene, Jesus,” she said. {68} But he denied it. “I don’t know or
understand what you’re talking about,” he said, and went out into the
entryway. {69} When the servant girl saw him there, she said again to
those standing around, “This fellow is one of them.” {70} Again he denied
it. After a little while, those standing near said to Peter, “Surely you
are one of them, for you are a Galilean.” {71} He began to call down
curses on himself, and he swore to them, “I don’t know this man you’re
talking about.””

1. Away from Christ, at comfort with those in the world, Peter
finds himself denying His Lord and Savior!
2. In so doing, he has put himself in grave danger – Matt. 10:32-33
3. Though we may never actually deny Jesus in “words”, we can
easily backslide to the point of denying Him in “action”…
a. We are called to worship Him…but make excuses why we cannot
b. We are called to serve Him…but render little or no service
c. We are called to stand by His side and suffer for His
name…but stand afar off in the safety of the world’s comfort

[When we deny the Lord, our backsliding is complete; unless we repent,
the only thing left is to one day face the Lord, where we will fully
realize the error of our ways!

For Peter, he fully realized his sin when the Lord turned and looked at
him there in the courtyard:
Luke 22:60-62: “Peter replied, “Man, I don’t know what you’re talking
about!” Just as he was speaking, the rooster crowed. {61} The Lord turned
and looked straight at Peter. Then Peter remembered the word the Lord had
spoken to him: “Before the rooster crows today, you will disown me three
times.” {62} And he went outside and wept bitterly.”

Imagine the feeling in Peter’s heart as those eyes of His Savior pierced
his soul! Like
Judas, Peter wept bitterly over his sin.

Unlike Judas, Peter had “godly sorrow” that results in true repentance (2
Cor. 7:10-11). And years later, we find Peter writing the sort of things
that would prevent us from making the same mistake he did…]

ADVICE FROM ONE WHO LEARNED THE HARD WAY
A. TO GUARD AGAINST “PRIDE”…
1. Peter enjoins “humility” – 1 Peter 5:5-6
2. Indeed, “God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble”

B. TO WARD AGAINST “LAZINESS”…
1. Peter commands “diligence” – 1 Peter 5:8-9
2. Note especially his words in his second epistle – 2 Peter
1:5,10; 3:14

C. INSTEAD OF “COWARDICE”…
1. Peter charges us to “glorify God” – 1 Peter 4:16
2. Think not of what it means to you, but what it means to God!

D. INSTEAD OF “WORLDLINESS”…
1. Peter tells us to “abstain” – 1 Peter 2:11-12
2. Remember that we are “sojourners and pilgrims”, destined for a
better place than the things of this world have to offer!

E. INSTEAD OF “DENIAL”…
1. Peter exhorts us to ever be ready to “give a defense” – 1 Peter
3:15
2. By careful preparation, we will “defend” Christ, and not “deny”
Christ!

CONCLUSION
1. From one who learned by the hard road of experience, let’s heed his
advice lest we one day backslide ourselves, and in so doing deny the
Lord! – 2 Peter 3:17-18

2. Remember too that when Peter saw the eyes of his Lord, he realized the
error of his way…
a. Fortunately for him, there was still time to repent
b. But for us, when we see Jesus “face to face”, the time to repent
will be gone…it will be the time for judgment!

3. If we realize that we are guilty of backsliding…
a. Repent now, do not wait until you stand before Jesus
b. Do it now, so that your “face to face” encounter with Jesus will be
terrific, not terrifying!