Atheists Fail to Understand Both God and Man

Atheists Fail to Understand Both God and Man
Atheists have elevated their profile in the western world – particularly in the United States – to one of a, supposedly, persecuted minority and, in doing so, have exposed their failure to understand both man and the very concept of God. Their bizarre and desperate need to stamp out Christianity exposes the many hypocrisies of their own agenda and actions – quite apart from an almost criminal distortion of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. The fact that they will never truly succeed is rooted in both their misunderstanding of human nature and their failure to grasp the very idea of deism.

An atheist is someone who professes a belief in two basic principles: First, the non-existence of a deity, or deities; second, the belief that man is the only master of his own destiny and that only through a true understanding of humanism will mankind reach its full potential. This first tenet, however, betrays one very simple gaping flaw and the second betrays the abject dishonesty inherent in the atheists’ war upon religion.

A fair starting point in the argument over the existence of God – a Creator, a higher power, a supreme being or whatever label one chooses to apply – is the acknowledgement that the existence of such a being, or deity, has never been scientifically proven and, perhaps, never will be. Such a statement, however, demands the caveat that the non-existence of God has also never been proven, nor could it ever possibly be proven. Herein, then, lies the utter rejection of that first tenet of atheism: One must take, for context, the idea that a ‘god’ is a being of all-encompassing power and possibility; a being that has created everything that exists and possesses all knowledge; a being that defies the very laws of physics, as they are understood by man. A simple – and very short – leap of logic, then, brings one to the realization that, in order to be certain that such an omnipotent being does not exist, one would have to be an omnipotent being. How else could one possibly know, with certainty, that an all-seeing, all-knowing deity – existing beyond the physical grasp and sight of man – does not exist unless one actually possesses all the known and unknown knowledge of the universe – and whatever is beyond? In short; only if one were God could one say that God does not exist – and then, of course, one would be denying one’s own existence.

Having established, therefore, that atheists do not understand the nature of God, it is worth examining the ways in which they also fail to understand the nature of man. The mere fact that belief in God – or in multiple gods – has been with mankind from its very beginning demonstrates a faith and a need which is beyond understanding and, certainly, beyond eradication. Whether man was created or whether he evolved from the primordial sludge, it is in his very nature to believe, to hope or to assume that his destiny is guided by intelligence beyond his mortal reach. Whilst one can argue that religion is a conscious creation of man and, therefore, is irreversibly tainted with the worldly desires of human beings – power, influence, money and so on – one cannot deny that pure faith and pure spirituality is a natural and integral part of the human psyche. Man’s belief in one or more deities was not instilled in him by other men, as adherence to religious dogma was; it was a part of him from the very beginning. Did God create him like this or was it simply born out of his need to explain that which could not be explained by contemporary knowledge? The question cannot be answered with certainty, but only speculated upon. Nevertheless, spirituality remains a constant human factor which cannot be extinguished.

In the US, atheist groups have gone far beyond what they are claiming to be pushing for, which is the complete separation of church and state. Their goal appears to be nothing less than the complete eradication of Christianity from American society. Their obsession with bringing lawsuits aimed at removing Christian symbols from public display begs the question: If one does not believe in God, how can one possibly be offended by the idea that other people do? Not believing in something implies a lack of feeling or emotion, regarding that something. It is simply not possible to be offended by a concept in which one claims not to believe. There can be only one possible explanation of why atheists become so agitated at the very idea that others put their faith in God; it comes down to politics. Atheist groups in the United States are merely Socialists in disguise and, like all Socialists, they insist that the only loyalty a citizen should have is loyalty to the almighty State. religious faith stands in the way and that is precisely why Socialist governments always persecute those who believe in God.

Friendly athesistsThat is not to say that all atheists are Socialists; those who simply choose not to believe should be distinguished from those who join groups which try to force others not to believe. The former are merely exercising the basic human right of freedom of thought whilst the latter are intent upon denying others that right in order to impose upon them a Progressive agenda which allows for no individual liberty.

The final, but not the least significant, blow to the credibility of the atheist is the issue of the First Amendment and the so-called separation of church and state. Atheists have maintained, for some time, that separation of church and state is enshrined in the Constitution. This, however, is a myth. There is no part of the Constitution that demands such a separation; the First Amendment is very clear on the subject. The religion clause within the First Amendment prevents the government from interfering in religious matters. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” It is as clear as it could possibly be: The government is prohibited from forcing any one religion upon the people; nor can it write laws that promote any one religion over another; nor can it write any laws that restrict an individual’s right to worship in whatever way they choose.

A 2013 incident at a Ohio high school demonstrated how far atheists have taken their deliberate misinterpretation of the First Amendment. A photograph of a high school football team praying on the field led the atheist Freedom From Religion Foundation to write a letter of complaint to the school district, in which they described the prayer – and the wearing of tee-shirts bearing religious slogans – an “unconstitutional Religious display.”

Clearly, however, the First Amendment applies only to Congress; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” Neither private businesses, nor any other private entity, nor school districts, are necessarily bound by the First Amendment. A school district that allows prayers to be conducted on school property is not in violation of the First Amendment since they are not doing so in order to comply with any federal legislation. Additionally, the First Amendment – were it taken as applying to all public sector activities – actually protects the right of public school students and staff to engage in prayer or other religious activities. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” It is this second part of the clause, forbidding the prohibition of religious practice, that protects everyone who wishes to pray, if one is to extend the authority of the First Amendment to every entity, rather than just Congress. If students or staff of any public school are acting unconstitutionally by praying, then the atheists who are trying to force them not to pray are similarly violating the constitutional rights of those who wish to engage in religious devotion.

In short; the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause prevents Congress from passing a law that would make prayer mandatory in public schools, but it does not prevent any other entity from choosing to hold a religious ceremony and, in fact, prevents Congress from passing any law that would prohibit such a thing.

Atheists have chosen to interpret this First Amendment clause as meaning that the government itself must be without religion which is, of course, preposterous; the very men who wrote the Constitution were, themselves, God-fearing men who, clearly, would not have intended to create a government that was without faith. The point of the First Amendment is very clear and extremely simple; government does not have the right to persecute or suppress; it does not have the right to force one to believe or force one not to believe; it does not have the right to favor any one religion over another.

Atheism, in truth, is a religion in itself; it is the religion of Statism and its lifeblood is fear and intimidation. If the atheist truly had no interest in God, then he or she would have no interest in the idea that others worship God. The obsession with forcing non-belief upon people, however, betrays their greatest fear; that God stands in the way of their ability to exercise their own control over man. Atheists understand neither man nor God and only strive to separate the two because they understand that, when you strip a man of his faith, you are more easily able to command him. The atheist should be content with saying “I want the freedom not to believe and not to worship,” and many are. The activist, however, says “I want the freedom to force everybody not to believe and not to worship.”

This is hardly a mindset that shows any respect for the First Amendment.

Opinion by Graham J Noble

Sources:

The Blaze
Right Wing News
The Columbus Dispatch

19 Responses to "Atheists Fail to Understand Both God and Man"

  1. hertfordshirechris   October 29, 2014 at 3:19 am

    I believe in things which can be proved to exist and Graham Noble argues that I should also believe things which no-one can prove to exist.
    Does he actually understand his own argument? I do not believe that suicide bombers who kill themselves and others in the name of Allah will be rewarded in Paradise with a generous award of virgins. However I cannot scientifically prove that Allah, Paradise or the virgin do not exist so if I apply Graham’s logic I must accept that they do. And for the same reason Graham has no option but to follow his own logic and also agree that Allah, Paradise and the virgins also exist, and he would also have to recognise that the actions of the bombers are justifiable because the God they believe in rewards them.
    I also do not believe in the existence of the Pantheon of Hindu Gods, gods such as Apollo, Thor, or the Aztec rain god whose name I cannot remember. I do not accept the idea that the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot or Yeti exist, I have doubts about the fairies at the bottom of my garden and I do not worry about the existence of an invisible pink unicorn, Bertram Russell’s teapot in orbit round the sun or a mile high diamond at the centre of the Earth. However Graham’s own logic mean that he has no option but to accept them as true or come up with a scientific proof of their non-existence.
    What is scientifically provable is that many people sincerely believe in things which are not true. When their “facts” are challenged they come up with specious arguments to try and convince themselves that their beliefs are justifiable.
    Graham – you should not expect other people to accept your particular unprovable fantasy when you have so little trust in the correctness of your case that you are forced to use logically silly arguments.

  2. Richard Wade   October 28, 2014 at 2:44 pm

    Mr. Noble demonstrates that it is he who has failed; he has failed to understand atheists and atheism. This is because he only describes his imaginary atheists, not any real atheists whom he has actually taken the trouble to get to know. Instead, he stands at the balcony safe atop his ivory tower and proclaims talking points he has heard from others.

    Not one of his tired, cliché stereotypes is original with him. He is simply repeating them without taking any responsibility for checking whether or not they are true. By this negligence, he is bearing false witness against his neighbor. The fact that he might actually believe those falsehoods does not get him off the ethical hook. By spreading lies without questioning them and checking them with a thorough real-world investigation of many real people, he is just as ethically culpable as the original liar who knew they were false.

    He is correct in saying that atheists have elevated their profile in the western world, and that will continue and accelerate, not because they have some scary plot for world domination, but simply because the world is finally growing up, and out-growing its childhood fantasies. Repeating the above collection of myths, misconceptions, and outright lies is nothing but an expression of theists’ sense of being threatened. It is their impending obsolescence that they fear.

    The irony is that that kind of dishonest and fear-mongering reaction only turns off the more carefully thinking Christians, bringing them to question their beliefs, and eventually to see their religion for the myth that it is. Lying about atheists only turns the brightest Christians into atheists.

  3. Jimmy D NOLA   October 22, 2014 at 11:22 am

    There are so many errors of fact and logic in Mr. Noble’s essay that a comprehensive rebuttal is impossible. Kudos to posters here who’ve taken him quite handily to task. A couple of key points:
    Whether Noble accepts the fact or not, our governments are constitutionally prohibited from imposing any religious test on persons holding public office, and are prohibited from giving official status to one or another religion. As many Supreme Court decisions over the last 150 years (since the 14th Amendment) have emphasized, these prohibitions apply to state and local governments as well as at the federal level. Nobel is quite wrong is implying that schools or other local entities can organize, lead, or in any way appear to endorse, any particular religion. He is also quite irresponsible in repeating the myth that students or teachers are somehow prohibited from praying in schools. Anybody can pray in a public school, on their own time and without disrupting regular teaching activities, as courts of repeatedly held.
    This is not a “atheistic” interpretation of the Constitution. Many religious leaders recognize that the prayers of their particular denomination or religion are not going to be fairly represented in public performances dominated by Protestant Christians. If he were prepared to give the podium to Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, Druids, and others, he might have a point, but he isn’t and he doesn’t.
    Mr. Nobel doesn’t really know what an atheist is, and at best conflates many different strains of doubt and unbelief. Most non-theists, atheists, agnostics, doubters, and freethinkers would be happy to coexist peacefully with Christian believers. Few of us feel any need to destroy Christianity or any other religion. But we do feel threatened by the naked grab for worldly political power that the Religious Right has actively pursued since the 1980s. Separation of church and state is not a liberal or atheistic myth. It was put into our system of government at its inception, thoughtfully and intentionally. It is our tradition and our established law. It was once widely supported by many religious leaders, who recognized that mixing religion and government would hopelessly corrupt both.
    Less well-informed religious leaders of today seem to want to claim a political power they’ve never had, want to call it tradition when it’s not, and then claim they’re being oppressed when both religious and non-religious citizens push back against this power-grab.
    If you want to pray in school, go ahead. If you want to pray at the opening of city council meeting, there will almost certainly be time set aside for that. But don’t try to con the public into thinking that these accommodations amount to a governmental endorsement of your religion or anybody else’s. And please, please, please stop claiming you’re the victim when you’re the aggressor.

  4. Tris Stock   October 22, 2014 at 11:07 am

    I simply cannot believe that the author has not been corrected on his misrepresentation of atheism/atheists before. If I am correct about this, then he is nothing more than a liar.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login