The "Reason" Rally

"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24).

Oh, your friends call you 'Lily Paloma'
But that's not the way that you are
It's too much of a gentle misnomer
For a shooting star

The above lyrics are from the Al Stewart Song, "Like a Song on the Radio." It is probably one of the few songs in the history of the world that has within it the word misnomer—and as part of a rhyme at that. This word comes to mind as a description of atheists who try to use the word reason in reference to themselves—especially as concerns the "reason" rally they recently conducted. When atheists describe themselves as using reason, it is definitely a misnomer—and not a gentle one, either.

Atheists would probably like to present themselves as individuals who have logically arrived at the conclusion that there is no God, but it is obvious by the fanaticism of a few adherents and the emotional and irrational actions of others that more was involved in their decision. Although some of the leaders of atheism are capable of setting forth copious amounts of verbiage, not one of them has ever answered the arguments of brother Warren in his two debates with Antony G. N. Flew or Wallace I. Matson. It was obvious that, in Warren's third debate (with Dr. Joe Barnhart), his opponent was motivated by emotion rather than logic because he could never accept the fact that his father was lost in sin and therefore consigned to hell. Brother Warren made logical arguments which were not successfully refuted in the debates occurring in 1976 (Flew), 1978 (Matson), and 1980 (Barnhart).

Perhaps as many as 20,000 showed up at the nation's capital on April 2, 2012 (although April Fool's Day might have been a more appropriate time). Reportedly, atheists do not feel comfortable with one nation under God in the Pledge of Allegiance and In God We Trust on our currency. They do not feel comfortable? What is that supposed to mean? Are 90% of citizens responsible for the comfort of a 10% minority? Some of us have not felt comfortable for the last four decades that Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, is getting millions of dollars of taxpayer money, but atheists only feel uncomfortable—not when they receive the money—but because it says In God We Trust on it. Atheists as yet do not have a clue about real discomfort!

A Banishing Act

Reportedly, attached to a crucifix was a sign that said: "Banish the Ten Commandments to the dustbin of History." How ironic! How many of the atheists present for the rally knew that the Ten Commandments were nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14)? When Jesus died on the cross, the Law of Moses (including the Ten Commandments) was nailed to that cross, meaning that it was and is no longer in effect. The New Testament of Jesus Christ replaced it; so no one is without law. But the Old Law had been fulfilled and therefore abolished

Good Without God?

Another poster read: "Good without a god." How lucky can some of these people get? Although Calvinists would never admit that people can do good things without believing in God, the truth is that they can. However, they still have two problems. First is that without God and a Divine standard, how does good exist, and who defines it? Atheists have never had an answer to this question. What one person calls, "Good," another person calls, "Bad." Without an objective code that comes from outside man, human beings have no way to define goodness. When an atheist says that he is good without a god, what exactly does he mean? He is using Christian standards and definitions to define good. If he says, "I don't steal from anyone, and I have never killed anyone," does he not recognize that the Bible's standards are right? Atheists must agree with Biblical definitions in order to try to prove that they don't need the Bible. Hmm!

Second, when they take away the objective standard of the Bible, all that human beings are left with is some subjective basis for morality. What is that standard, and who subscribes to it? Some say that whatever society agrees upon is the correct law, but it is doubtful that such an agreement would work even in a small community. Even with a law that all recognize, people still commit murder; people still steal. Not everyone will adhere to the standards that others have. It is amazing how quickly morals go out the window when one man desires another man's wife! If such a man were called to account for his adultery, all he would have to say is that it is not illegal in society any more, and it did not violate his standards.

Ultimately, what happens is that every man formulates his own code of ethics (or lack of them). What such a system degenerates into is that every person does what is right in his own eyes, and the last five chapters of the book of Judges show the chaos of that ideology. Actually, those described in those chapters were Israelites, and they did have a standard—the Law of Moses; they just were not following it. Atheists themselves cannot agree on what is good and what is immoral; the only thing they have in common is that they do not believe in God.

Warren's Argument on Subjectivity

In his debate, with Wallace I. Matson, brother Warren set forth an argument, and the charts are found beginning on page 29. He pointed out correctly that atheists, by definition, do not believe that God exists. Therefore values (such as right or wrong, good or bad) could not have existed before the first human being. In other words, values do not come from trees, vegetables, fruits, or various plants. Neither do we find them in the animal kingdom. No one has ever seen a code of ethics developed by owls or mountain lions. Only human beings have moral values, but if God does not exist, then such values must have originated with man.

In other words, moral judgment is nothing but a function of the human mind; it depends on what human beings think about and view various actions. Since God could not, according to atheists, given "good" and "bad" to mankind, then human beings have attached their own value to various types of behavior.

This is the first point in Warren's logical argument:

1) ATHEISM IMPLIES SUBJECTIVITY. Values came from human beings, not God; therefore, they are subjective; they depend upon what each person thinks.

2) SUBJECTIVITY IMPLIES THAT THE SAME MORAL JUDGMENT MAY BE BOTH TRUE AND NOT TRUE AT THE SAME TIME. This implication is so obviously true that it does not really require any proof, but here is one anyway. Let us consider the practice of abortion. Because atheists cannot use the argument based on Luke 1:41, 44 and 2:12, 16, we are forced to leave that one out, but the concept can (even without God) still be argued both ways.

On the one hand, one woman argues (incorrectly) that the baby is just a part of her body and she must have the right to control her own body. She claims that removing the "fetus" is not different from removing the appendix. Another atheist woman, however, chides her in response and says that the baby is not part of her body; the baby has its own body. Furthermore, by the time a mother realizes that she is carrying a child, the "fetus" has its own heartbeat. One woman has justified (in her own mind) terminating the life of the "fetus," and the other woman has shown that it is truly a human life and must be allowed to come to term. Which one is correct? Atheism cannot decide and is forced to say that both are correct.

3) ATHEISM IMPLIES A CONTRADICTION. If atheism implies that subjectivity is true, and subjectivity allows for contradictions to occur, then to believe atheism is to believe in a contradiction—that something may be both wrong and right at the same time. In practicality, this doctrine cannot work, which is seen by the legal quandary it places society in. Shall abortion be legal or illegal? If it is legal for some atheists, it must be legal for all atheists. If it is illegal for some atheists, it must be illegal for all atheists. Either one group or the other is not going to be happy, but for atheists there is no Divine, moral code to which an appeal can be made to settle the disagreement.

The same thing is true for other issues, such as homosexuality. One such individual argues that he was "born that way," while another atheist homosexual insists he is what he is by his own choice. Non-homosexuals argue that it is against nature (not because the Bible says so, but because it obviously is), evidenced by the fact that two homosexuals cannot reproduce. Once again, both sides have a difference of opinion, but according to the doctrine of atheism, both are right. The military cannot effectively operate that way, however, and must decide whether the practice of homosexuality will be allowed within it. Atheism has no solutions to moral issues.

4) THE LAW OF CONTRADICTION IS REJECTED BY ATHEIST AND THEIST ALIKE—because it does not work. Rational people know that nothing can be both true and false at the same time. Something cannot be red and not-red at the same time. A triangle, by definition, cannot have four sides. Two plus two cannot total four and some other number (say, three or five) at the same time. All of the evidence we have tells us that logic works and that contradiction is false.

5) THEREFORE, ATHEISM IS FALSE. Since atheism leads to clear and obvious contradictions, it is false. This is a logical argument. Let anyone who was present at the "Reason" Rally refute it.

Either / Or?

One skeptic insists that the United States of America was built on reason—not on God. First of all, such a claim would be impossible to prove in light of the tremendous influence of Christianity both before and after the Revolution. Entire books have been written documenting the truth of this fact—not to mention the religious references in the Declaration of Independence. But who said it had to be one or the other? God called for His people to reason with Him (Isa. 1:18). Although there may be some modernistic theologians who have abandoned logic and advocate leaping in the dark, historically, this vain effort has not been the case. The Bible presents evidence for rational people to believe it.

Dawkins

Richard Dawkins, whose god has deluded him, is on record as saying that scientists don't have all the answers yet, but they are working on it. Does such a posture mean that he believes his worldview despite the lack of evidence? He is teaching fellow atheists to "ridicule and show contempt" for the doctrines and practices of Christianity, including things that are holy to them. Do such actions bespeak one of a rational mind or one of fanaticism? To mock what is holy to another does not win over Christians or those who are observing such treatment.

If Dawkins and others are so confident, would not the best thing to do be to show the errors of theism in a public debate? Flew and Matson tried but did not succeed. Christians are willing to put their beliefs on the line. Atheists should be at least as willing, if not more so. After all, if their position is so obvious and so reasonable, surely all should be able to see the validity of their position. They ought to be able to persuade millions away from Christianity with their "reason."

The Huffington Post

The Huffington Post (a news website) is often quoted, and if there's one thing that many of the comments made on there lack, it is rationality. They reported that non-theists are united on many issues, such as: "separation of church and state, science education, equality, rights for women and the influence of religion on politics, among them."

Is it not the case that most Americans want "a separation of church and state"? Do we want one religious group to determine U.S. policy? Of course not. It is doubtful that these atheistic groups mean what they say on this issue. Take the uncomfortable feeling they say they have about the Pledge of Allegiance containing under God. To what church does that phrase refer? None. The same group is uncomfortable with having In God We Trust printed on our coins and currency. It doesn't bother drug dealers, but atheists are annoyed. Again, what church is that? If they were honest, they really want separation of God and state.

Of course, atheists are not required to be honest since they have no compulsion to abide by Biblical principles, as the rest of us do. But when they insist that these expressions violate the concept of the separation of church and state (which is not a phrase in our Constitution anyway), they mislead people. They simply want no public acknowledgement of God, period. If atheism were true, then all such acknowledgements would simply be futile and vain. Are Christians offended because Muslims worship Allah and believe that Muhammad was his prophet? No. We are just sad for them that they believe in what is not true, and we pray that they might learn the truth. (Ironically, however, atheists cannot pray for our enlightenment.)

Christians also believe in "science education"; we do not believe in the theory of evolution, however, which remains unproven. If the government insists that this error be taught, they should likewise be acquainted with the fact that the Bible claims that God created the heavens and the earth. The evidence fits this alternative, and it should not be overlooked.

Christians believe in "equality" for both genders and racial equality as well. No one should be denied the fundamental rights of society based on gender, race, or nationality. However, just because some are in certain groups should not grant them special privileges, either, such as pedophiles, homosexuals, drunkards, drug dealers, or convicted felons. Atheists may champion homosexual rights; what is their philosophy toward pedophiles and NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association)? Are they united on that, and if so, are they afraid to say so for fear of public reaction?

Concerning "the influence of religion on politics," we might throw that one back at them and protest the influence of atheism and ungodliness on politics. With all of the lobbies and the bribes and the misappropriation of funds, is it not obvious that for many it is actually the case that In God We Trust should be replaced by For the Dollar We Holler? Wherever there are trillions of dollars to spend (even if we don't have them), people are staying awake nights trying to figure out ways of accessing government cash.

Any nation eventually finds itself dealing with moral issues because they overlap into politics. For example, this nation struggled for a few decades with the issue of slavery. For some it may have been a strictly human rights issue, but for many it was a religious issue. All people are created in the image of God and should be treated with respect, or would the atheists of today be standing in line opposing Abraham Lincoln as a religious fanatic? Those in the womb are human beings, also, and many atheists fail to recognize that. Laws are made to protect people, which was the reason that abortion was illegal in 46 states until the Supreme Court struck down all those laws on January 22, 1973.

Morality and legislation are going to overlap at times. The issue is not religion imposing itself, but whose morality will prevail—the Bible's or secular humanism's.