The Flickr Godgivenrights Image Generatr

Racism - and the diabolical legacy of Darwinism.

The rainbow symbol has been hi-jacked.
Reclaim the rainbow for God.

I will set my bow in the clouds,
and it shall be the sign of a covenant
between me, and between the earth. Genesis 9:13

God put us on Earth to do what He wants, NOT what we want.

The equality deceit.
We hear a lot today about equality, which sounds admirable. And true equality certainly is admirable and a God-given right. However, false equality is not admirable, it can be discriminatory against truth, goodness and, if enforced by the state, can result in an evil tyranny. Error should never be equated with truth and evil should never be equated with good.
So what is true equality?
Every human person is of equal value and should be equally respected and cared for, regardless of gender, colour, race, disability, wealth, influence, intelligence or power. That is true equality.
What is false equality?
False equality is the idea that everything any human person does or believes, is equally valid. The idea that all lifestyles, beliefs, traditions or cultures (that are not against whatever the state decides should be legal) are equally valid and worthy of equal respect.

Christianity is conducive to the success and welfare of the State and society.
Saint Augustine.
“Let those who say that the teachings of Christ are harmful to the State find armies with soldiers who live up to the standards of the teachings of Jesus. Let them provide governors, husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and servants, kings, judges, taxpayers and tax collectors who can compare to those who take Christian teachings to heart. Then let them dare to say that such teaching is contrary to the welfare of the State! Indeed, under no circumstances can they fail to realize that this teaching is the greatest safeguard of the State when faithfully observed.” (“Epis. 138 ad Marcellinum,” in Opera Omnia, vol. 2, in J.P. Migne, Patrologia Latina, col. 532.)

"Poland is the geographic heart of Europe, but more importantly, in the Polish people, we see the soul of Europe. Your nation is great because your spirit is great and your spirit is strong. For two centuries, Poland suffered constant and brutal attacks. But while Poland could be invaded and occupied, and its borders even erased from the map, it could never be erased from history or from your hearts. In those dark days, you have lost your land but you never lost your pride.
So it is with true admiration that I can say today, that from the farms and villages of your countryside to the cathedrals and squares of your great cities, Poland lives, Poland prospers, and Poland prevails. Despite every effort to transform you, oppress you, or destroy you, you endured and overcame. You are the proud nation of Copernicus -- think of that -- Chopin, Saint John Paul II. Poland is a land of great heroes. And you are a people who know the true value of what you defend.
The triumph of the Polish spirit over centuries of hardship gives us all hope for a future in which good conquers evil, and peace achieves victory over war. For Americans, Poland has been a symbol of hope since the beginning of our nation. Polish heroes and American patriots fought side by side in our War of Independence and in many wars that followed. Our soldiers still serve together today in Afghanistan and Iraq, combating the enemies of all civilization … It's a fellowship that exists only among people who have fought and bled and died for freedom.
The signs of this friendship stand in our nation's capital. Just steps from the White House, we've raised statues of men with names like Pułaski and Kościuszko. The same is true in Warsaw, where street signs carry the name of George Washington, and a monument stands to one of the world's greatest heroes, Ronald Reagan.
And so I am here today not just to visit an old ally, but to hold it up as an example for others who seek freedom and who wish to summon the courage and the will to defend our civilization. The story of Poland is the story of a people who have never lost hope, who have never been broken, and who have never, ever forgotten who they are…This is a nation more than one thousand years old. Your borders were erased for more than a century and only restored just one century ago.
In 1920, in the Miracle of Vistula, Poland stopped the Soviet army bent on European conquest. Then, 19 years later in 1939, you were invaded yet again, this time by Nazi Germany from the west and the Soviet Union from the east … Under a double occupation the Polish people endured evils beyond description: the Katyn forest massacre, the occupations, the Holocaust, the Warsaw Ghetto and the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, the destruction of this beautiful capital city, and the deaths of nearly one in five Polish people. A vibrant Jewish population — the largest in Europe — was reduced to almost nothing after the Nazis systematically murdered millions of Poland's Jewish citizens, along with countless others, during that brutal occupation.
In the summer of 1944, the Nazi and Soviet armies were preparing for a terrible and bloody battle right here in Warsaw. Amid that hell on earth, the citizens of Poland rose up to defend their homeland. I am deeply honored to be joined on stage today by veterans and heroes of the Warsaw Uprising. What great spirit. We salute your noble sacrifice and we pledge to always remember your fight for Poland and for freedom … This monument reminds us that more than 150,000 Poles died during that desperate struggle to overthrow oppression.
From the other side of the river, the Soviet armed forces stopped and waited. They watched as the Nazis ruthlessly destroyed the city, viciously murdering men, women, and children. They tried to destroy this nation forever by shattering its will to survive. But there is a courage and a strength deep in the Polish character that no one could destroy. The Polish martyr, Bishop Michael Kozal, said it well: "More horrifying than a defeat of arms is a collapse of the human spirit."
Through four decades of communist rule, Poland and the other captive nations of Europe endured a brutal campaign to demolish freedom, your faith, your laws, your history, your identity — indeed the very essence of your culture and your humanity. Yet, through it all, you never lost that spirit. Your oppressors tried to break you, but Poland could not be broken. And when the day came on June 2nd, 1979, and one million Poles gathered around Victory Square for their very first Mass with their Polish Pope, that day, every communist in Warsaw must have known that their oppressive system would soon come crashing down. They must have known it at the exact moment during Pope John Paul II's sermon when a million Polish men, women, and children suddenly raised their voices in a single prayer. A million Polish people did not ask for wealth. They did not ask for privilege. Instead, one million Poles sang three simple words: "We Want God."
In those words, the Polish people recalled the promise of a better future. They found new courage to face down their oppressors, and they found the words to declare that Poland would be Poland once again. As I stand here today before this incredible crowd, this faithful nation, we can still hear those voices that echo through history. Their message is as true today as ever. The people of Poland, the people of America, and the people of Europe still cry out "We want God."
Together, with Pope John Paul II, the Poles reasserted their identity as a nation devoted to God. And with that powerful declaration of who you are, you came to understand what to do and how to live. You stood in solidarity against oppression, against a lawless secret police, against a cruel and wicked system that impoverished your cities and your souls. And you won …
A strong Poland is a blessing to the nations of Europe, and they know that. A strong Europe is a blessing to the West and to the world. One hundred years after the entry of American forces into World War I, the transatlantic bond between the United States and Europe is as strong as ever and maybe, in many ways, even stronger. This continent no longer confronts the specter of communism. But today we're in the West, and we have to say there are dire threats to our security and to our way of life. You see what's happening out there. They are threats. We will confront them. We will win. But they are threats.
We are confronted by another oppressive ideology — one that seeks to export terrorism and extremism all around the globe. America and Europe have suffered one terror attack after another. We're going to get it to stop. During a historic gathering in Saudi Arabia, I called on the leaders of more than 50 Muslim nations to join together to drive out this menace which threatens all of humanity. We must stand united against these shared enemies to strip them of their territory and their funding, and their networks, and any form of ideological support that they may have. While we will always welcome new citizens who share our values and love our people, our borders will always be closed to terrorism and extremism of any kind. We are fighting hard against radical Islamic terrorism, and we will prevail. We cannot accept those who reject our values and who use hatred to justify violence against the innocent.
Today, the West is also confronted by the powers that seek to test our will, undermine our confidence, and challenge our interests. To meet new forms of aggression, including propaganda, financial crimes, and cyber warfare, we must adapt our alliance to compete effectively in new ways and on all new battlefields. We urge Russia to cease its destabilizing activities in Ukraine and elsewhere, and its support for hostile regimes — including Syria and Iran — and to instead join the community of responsible nations in our fight against common enemies and in defense of civilization itself.
Finally, on both sides of the Atlantic, our citizens are confronted by yet another danger — one firmly within our control. This danger is invisible to some but familiar to the Poles: the steady creep of government bureaucracy that drains the vitality and wealth of the people. The West became great not because of paperwork and regulations but because people were allowed to chase their dreams and pursue their destinies.
Americans, Poles, and the nations of Europe value individual freedom and sovereignty. We must work together to confront forces, whether they come from inside or out, from the South or the East, that threaten over time to undermine these values and to erase the bonds of culture, faith and tradition that make us who we are. If left unchecked, these forces will undermine our courage, sap our spirit, and weaken our will to defend ourselves and our societies.
But just as our adversaries and enemies of the past learned here in Poland, we know that these forces, too, are doomed to fail if we want them to fail. And we do, indeed, want them to fail. They are doomed not only because our alliance is strong, our countries are resilient, and our power is unmatched. Through all of that, you have to say everything is true. Our adversaries, however, are doomed because we will never forget who we are. And if we don't forget who are, we just can't be beaten. Americans will never forget. The nations of Europe will never forget. We are the fastest and the greatest community. There is nothing like our community of nations. The world has never known anything like our community of nations.
We write symphonies. We pursue innovation. We celebrate our ancient heroes, embrace our timeless traditions and customs, and always seek to explore and discover brand-new frontiers. We reward brilliance. We strive for excellence, and cherish inspiring works of art that honor God. We treasure the rule of law and protect the right to free speech and free expression. We empower women as pillars of our society and of our success. We put faith and family, not government and bureaucracy, at the center of our lives. And we debate everything. We challenge everything. We seek to know everything so that we can better know ourselves.
And above all, we value the dignity of every human life, protect the rights of every person, and share the hope of every soul to live in freedom. That is who we are. Those are the priceless ties that bind us together as nations, as allies, and as a civilization.
What we have, what we inherited from our — and you know this better than anybody, and you see it today with this incredible group of people — what we've inherited from our ancestors has never existed to this extent before. And if we fail to preserve it, it will never, ever exist again. So we cannot fail.
This great community of nations has something else in common: In every one of them, it is the people, not the powerful, who have always formed the foundation of freedom and the cornerstone of our defense. The people have been that foundation here in Poland — as they were right here in Warsaw — and they were the foundation from the very, very beginning in America. Our citizens did not win freedom together, did not survive horrors together, did not face down evil together, only to lose our freedom to a lack of pride and confidence in our values. We did not and we will not. We will never back down … Words are easy, but actions are what matters. And for its own protection — and you know this, everybody knows this, everybody has to know this — Europe must do more. Europe must demonstrate that it believes in its future by investing its money to secure that future.
… We have to remember that our defense is not just a commitment of money, it is a commitment of will. Because as the Polish experience reminds us, the defense of the West ultimately rests not only on means but also on the will of its people to prevail and be successful and get what you have to have. The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive. Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders? Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?
We can have the largest economies and the most lethal weapons anywhere on Earth, but if we do not have strong families and strong values, then we will be weak and we will not survive. (Applause.) If anyone forgets the critical importance of these things, let them come to one country that never has. Let them come to Poland. And let them come here, to Warsaw, and learn the story of the Warsaw Uprising.
When they do, they should learn about Jerusalem Avenue. In August of 1944, Jerusalem Avenue was one of the main roads running east and west through this city, just as it is today. Control of that road was crucially important to both sides in the battle for Warsaw. The German military wanted it as their most direct route to move troops and to form a very strong front. And for the Polish Home Army, the ability to pass north and south across that street was critical to keep the center of the city, and the Uprising itself, from being split apart and destroyed.
Every night, the Poles put up sandbags amid machine gun fire — and it was horrendous fire — to protect a narrow passage across Jerusalem Avenue. Every day, the enemy forces knocked them down again and again and again. Then the Poles dug a trench. Finally, they built a barricade. And the brave Polish fighters began to flow across Jerusalem Avenue. That narrow passageway, just a few feet wide, was the fragile link that kept the Uprising alive. Between its walls, a constant stream of citizens and freedom fighters made their perilous, just perilous, sprints. They ran across that street, they ran through that street, they ran under that street — all to defend this city. "The far side was several yards away," recalled one young Polish woman named Greta. That mortality and that life was so important to her. In fact, she said, "The mortally dangerous sector of the street was soaked in the blood. It was the blood of messengers, liaison girls, and couriers."
Nazi snipers shot at anybody who crossed. Anybody who crossed, they were being shot at. Their soldiers burned every building on the street, and they used the Poles as human shields for their tanks in their effort to capture Jerusalem Avenue. The enemy never ceased its relentless assault on that small outpost of civilization. And the Poles never ceased its defense.
The Jerusalem Avenue passage required constant protection, repair, and reinforcement, but the will of its defenders did not waver, even in the face of death. And to the last days of the Uprising, the fragile crossing never, ever failed. It was never, ever forgotten. It was kept open by the Polish people.
The memories of those who perished in the Warsaw Uprising cry out across the decades, and few are clearer than the memories of those who died to build and defend the Jerusalem Avenue crossing. Those heroes remind us that the West was saved with the blood of patriots; that each generation must rise up and play their part in its defense — and that every foot of ground, and every last inch of civilization, is worth defending with your life.
Our own fight for the West does not begin on the battlefield — it begins with our minds, our wills, and our souls. Today, the ties that unite our civilization are no less vital, and demand no less defense, than that bare shred of land on which the hope of Poland once totally rested. Our freedom, our civilization, and our survival depend on these bonds of history, culture, and memory. And today as ever, Poland is in our heart, and its people are in that fight. Just as Poland could not be broken, I declare today for the world to hear that the West will never, ever be broken. Our values will prevail. Our people will thrive. And our civilization will triumph.
So, together, let us all fight like the Poles — for family, for freedom, for country, and for God.
Thank you. God Bless You. God bless the Polish people. God bless our allies. And God bless the United States of America."
EUbabel. The shocking occult symbolism of the European Union.
peuplesobservateursblog.wordpress.com/2017/09/23/togo-all...

World Government currency. The Euro, single, multinational currency, prototype of world currency.
"And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name."
Revelation 13:17King James Version (KJV)

The European Union is the fledgling, world government.

'The New World Order' - a book by A. Ralph Epperson. Exposes the globalist plot for world domination.

Globalist agenda - World government.
The return to Babel.
thewildvoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/the-wild-voic...

The European Union - the return to Babel
The irrefutable evidence in plain sight.
youtu.be/2l1RhAI-rRQ
Also see:
youtu.be/aY7MLWrMBQ8
AND:
EUbabel. The shocking occult symbolism of the European Union.
peuplesobservateursblog.wordpress.com/2017/09/23/togo-all...

Empty seat number 666
www.jesus-is-savior.com/End of the World/seat_666.htm

‘Imagine there’s no Heaven, it’s easy if you try
No Hell below us, above us only sky”
John Lennon.

‘Imagine’ a nightmare, world dictatorship.

European Union project, undemocratic, expansionist empire. Prototype and fledgling, World Government.

Brexit - The anti-globalist struggle against the NWO globalists.

Aaron Banks:
Asked if he would back the Leave side in a rerun of the 2016 referendum, Mr Banks said: “The corruption I have seen in British politics, the sewer that exists and the disgraceful behaviour of the Government over what they are doing with Brexit and how they are selling out, means that if I had my time again I think we would have been better to probably remain and not unleash these demons.”

Maybe Mr Banks didn't realise that he hit the nail squarely on the head when he described the incredibly fierce opposition to Brexit as the unleashing of "demons". The globalist agenda is truly demonic. It is no surprise that the globalists, and their puppets in the media and liberal establishment, are so desperate to stop Brexit interfering with their diabolical plans for world domination.
See: ‘Brexit, The Movie’ - available on YouTube.
binged.it/2GEouvR

Why satanism is now on the center stage in the culture war.
www.crisismagazine.com/2019/why-satanism-is-now-on-the-ce...

The EU, mystery Babylon. www.biblelight.net/tower-painting-parliament.jpg
The EU parliament in Strasbourg is modelled on the Tower of Babel.

thewildvoice.org/mystery-babylon-european-union/#comment-...
The symbolism of the EU in plain sight, is the desire of its advocates to return to the spirit of Babel.
The Council of Europe's poster produced to promote the European Union and the EU Parliament building in Strasbourg grandmageri422.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/europe-many-to... is filled with occult symbolism: a tower of Babel, 11 inverted stars (pentagrams),, the 12th pentagram is behind the top (head) of the tower. This is a Satanic parody of the 12 stars surrounding the head of the Woman (Church/Mary) in the book of Revelation. The inverted pentagram is an occult symbol designed to represent the head of Baphomet (Satan or the Goat of Mendes), illuminati pyramids are also evident in the background (since when have Egyptian pyramids been part of Europe? Square, blockheaded (indoctrinated) people (useful idiots) are featured, building a tower designed for their own enslavement and suppression, with a round-headed baby, who is too young to have been indoctrinated.

The dangerous, climate change scam:
A high level of Co2 is essential for our survival. The exact opposite of what we a led to believe by the popular, eco- fanatic narrative which is designed to convince people of the necessity for globalist control.
See the truth here:
youtu.be/TjlmFr4FMvI
youtu.be/U-9UlF8hkhs

The reason the elite hate Trump so much is because he is opposed to the one world agenda globalists.
www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-10/reason-elite-hate-trump...

Common Purpose, Agenda 2030, WEF, Davos, google Camp, World Economic Forum, ‘fiat’ money, SWIFT, World Governance Council, G7, Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications, Bank of International Settlements, Institute of International Affairs, New World Order, Globalism, European Union, EU Commission, ECJ, European Empire, evil empire, global conspiracy, United Nations, League of Nations, NAFTA, Freemasonry, Edward Mandal House, Thule Society, Kabbala, Kaaba, fractional reserve banking, Company Interbank Financial Telecommunication, internationalism, IMF, World Bank, ECB, European Central Bank, usury, Ruling Elite, Liberal fascism, Euro, EU cartel, EU empire, EU single currency, federalism, EUSSR, global elite, Federal Reserve, Paul Warburg, globalists, world government, WGS, World Government Summit, liberalism, Situational ethics, moral relativism, cultural imperialism, Bribery, Corruption, blackmail, slander, assassination, Moral relativism, Propaganda, project fear, fake news, Liberty, National Council for Civil Liberties, selective democracy, Illuminati, False religion, Maitreya, false ecumenism, World Council of Churches, Cultural Marxism, Censorship, Ted Turner, Timothy Wirth, Hilary Clinton, Club of Rome, Treaty of Rome, Maastricht Treaty, Lisbon Treaty, climate change scam, global warming, EU federalism, liberal establishment, Multiculturalism, EU Army, Palmera Arch, Temple of Baal, Nazis, National Socialism, Red Flag, hammer and sickle, useful idiots, globalist puppets, quislings, internationalism, Internationale, anti-Brexit, anti-Putin, FBI, people’s vote, EU army, Islamisation, Multinationals, multinational conglomerates, nationalisation, Fake News, Bellingcat, Bureaucracy, Climategate, chemtrails, Deep State, Council on Foreign Relations, CFR, Trilateral Commission, GM seed, GM food, quantitive easing, Bilderbergers, Eco-fanaticism, Greenpeace, eco warriors, Chatham House, Bohemian Grove, New Age, Illiberal Undemocrats, EU, Open Society, Open Britain, George Soros, Nancy Pelosi, Clinton foundation, John Podesta, John Dewey, Socialism, Humanists UK, Young Humanists, National Secular Society, British Humanist Association, neo Darwinism, Darwinism, evolution scam, CNN, New York Times, NBC news, PBS, MSNBC, BBC, liberal media, Drug legalisation, Money manipulation, IG Farben, quantitative easing, punitive taxation, Green taxes, progressives, Transgenderism, Social engineering, Communism, arch capitalism, Social Darwinism, Marxism, neo Darwinism, Erasmus Darwin, Charles Darwin, Charles Lyell, Bertrand Russell, James Hutton, David Hume, National Socialism (Nazism), Racism, international socialism, Gay mafia, gay adoption, rainbow alliance, UFOLOGY, global warming, Yakov Sverdlovsk, Red Terror, new age, Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Jacob Schiff, Adam Weishaupt, Alistair Crowley. Albert Pike, Theosophy, Antichrist, Abortion, Population control, Karl Marx, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Lenin, Trotsky, Engels, Euthanasia, Eugenics, Atheism, Soviet Union, USSR, People’s Democratic Republics, ‘People’s Vote’, Secularism, Andrew Copson, False science, Scientism, Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Bill Nye, Gary Kasparov, Pussy Riot, radical left, atheist naturalism, pagan naturalism, A C Grayling, militant atheism, secular humanism, atheist pseudoscience, Cloning, Surrogacy, Fabianism, Central Banking, Fiat Currencies, banking cartels, LGBTQ agenda, Political correctness, liberal establishment, propaganda, progressive evolution, Hollywood, State control, Labour Party, Democratic Party, Green Party, Liberal Democrats, Fabian society, Secular Society, Antifa, BHA, FFRF, RDFRS, ACLU, gay priests, gay Bishops, gay pride, child abuse, gay fascism, sodomites, Stonewall, indoctrination, LGTB, LGBT, left wing feminism, lesbianism, homosexual agenda, Redefined marriage, Gender fanaticism, gay marriage, political correctness, hedonism, false equality, gender reassignment, surrogacy, Gay adoption, perverted sex education, Embryo experimentation, sperm banks, IVF, cloning, useful idiots, globalist puppets, UN, snowflakes, quislings, internationalism, liberal media, pornography, quislings, fifth column, Trojan horses, Sankt Galen Mafia, infiltrators, modernism, amnesty international, UNICEF, CIA, cyber surveillance, CCTV, Neo Darwinism, cultural Marxism, social Darwinism, atheist naturalism, paganism, Charles Darwin, Charles Lyell, Christianophobia, Secular Humanism, Militant atheism, abortion, Margaret Sanger, Moloch, Planned Parenthood, pro choice, Klu Klux Klan, Southern Poverty Law Centre, progressives, Christophobia, Newspeak, Satanism, Hate speech, political correctness, women’s march, False Ecumenism, election rigging, mass migration, Green taxes, climate change scam, global warming scam, carbon credits scam, debt enslavement, international bankers, Arch capitalism, Kuhn Loeb, Goldman Sachs, John D Rockefeller, Lehman Brothers, J P Morgan, Max Warburg, Order of the Skull and Bones, Extortionate taxation, class war, gender war, ageism, divide and rule, centralisation, climate change scam, mass migrations, cultural imperialism, Marie Stopes, Cultural war. human trafficking. Liberal Democrats, liberal media, Socialist Workers Party, Morning Star, Emmanuel Macron, Planned Parenthood, Marie Stopes International, BPAS, British Pregnancy Advisory Service, Satanism, Wicca, Witchcraft, Luciferian. Lunar Society, secret societies, Annie Besant, Helena Blavatsky. Alice Bailey, Marxist Social Democratic Federation. Alliance for Global Justice, Malthusian League. House of Sulzberger-Ochs, House of Meyer-Graham, Mike Bloomberg, Pierre Omidyar, Sheldon Adelson, Brzezinski, Benjamin Creme, George Kennan, James Baker, Carroll Quigley, Strobe Talbott, Lev Dobriansky, PNAC, William Kristol, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Walfowitz, Robert Kagan, Professor Joseph Nye, Lester Mondale, American atheists, British Humanist Association, Outright Action International, National Secular Society. Abolition of nation states, NWO. World dictatorship, Tower of Babel, European Parliament. European Commission.

The war against anti-globalist Putin, and the globalist demonising of Russia.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/43042520105

The reason the elite hate Trump so much is because he is opposed to the one world agenda of the globalists.
endoftheamericandream.com/archives/the-reason-the-elite-h...


Ending the crime of abortion is crucial in curbing the power, of Satan.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/43172544140

Ending the crime of abortion is crucial in curbing the power, of Satan.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/43172544140

IF and THEN, the atheist dilemma
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/46553358861

Who trusts the MSM? Their lies are not just fake news, they deliberately set out to slander those who don’t agree with the liberal left, globalist elite. Their lies are positively evil. Everyone should watch this video and they will never trust the media again: banned.video/watch?id=5f00ca7c672706002f4026a9

Atheism revealed as false ... Why God MUST exist.

There are only 2 basic options for the origin of the universe .... an uncaused, supernatural first cause of the universe OR an uncaused, natural first cause of the universe. If you categorically reject the former (as atheists do), you have no option but to accept the latter by default. It is an intellectually dishonest cop-out to say atheism is merely a lack of belief. A genuine lack of belief would be classed as agnosticism, which is a neutral position. It is a 'don't know' or 'fence sitting' position. A 'don't know' position is not one which would specifically single out to reject, attack and ridicule just one side of the argument, i.e. the concept of a supernatural, first cause, as atheism does.
Atheists cannot simply deny, attack and vociferously ridicule the concept of - a supernatural, first cause, without being expected to justify the only alternative - a natural, first cause. That cannot be regarded as intellectually credible or rational.
We see that atheists dogmatically reject supernaturalism and are zealously on the side of naturalism (a naturalistic origin and explanation for everything). That is not a neutral, 'don't know' or objective position. It is not merely a lack of belief. It is a positive and subjective belief in naturalism. And hence a belief in a natural cause of the universe, and everything that exists or has ever existed.

So how do we know that atheism false and that God MUST exist?

Firstly ...
We know that the universe has not always existed, we know it had a beginning and it is 'running down' from an original peak of energy potential at its beginning. The Second Law of Thermodynamics (law of entropy) confirms that. So we know the universe had an origin.

Secondly .....
What about matter itself?
Can matter have always existed? The simple answer is no.
Matter/energy and all natural entities and events are contingent, they rely on causes for everything. Because they are contingent they cannot be eternally self-existent or necessary entities. They do not contain within themselves the reason or cause of their own existence. As contingent entities, they are entirely reliant on that which causes and maintains them. They cannot exist or operate in any way without causes, Thus they must have had an original cause at some stage, even if the chain of causes and effects is very long, it had to have a beginning at some point.
A basic principle of the scientific method is that we can expect to find an adequate cause for every natural occurrence. All scientific research is based on that premise.
To propose a non-contingent, natural occurrence or entity as the originator of the universe (as atheists are forced to do), is unscientific fantasy.

Thirdly ....
A supernatural first cause (God) is not a contingent entity. It is not natural, and is not bound by natural laws which govern matter and all natural events. In fact, as the first cause of matter/energy, it is also the author of the laws that govern matter/energy. It cannot be subject to laws it has created.
As the very first cause, it also cannot have had any preceding cause, so we know it cannot be a contingent entity.
Why? Because ...first means first, not second or third. If something is first, nothing preceded it. It must have always existed and must have had within itself the means of its own existence. It could not have relied on anything else for its existence. So the supernatural, first cause (a creator God) has to be eternally, self-existent and necessary.
It also has to have the powers and ability to create everything else that exists in the universe. As the original cause, it has to be an adequate cause of everything ...of all causes and effects that follow it, forever. That means - it has to have the powers, properties and qualities sufficient to create: time, matter/energy, natural laws, information, life, intelligence, consciousness and every characteristic that humans have. Because we, as a mere effect of the first cause, cannot be greater than that which ultimately caused us.

So God is the non-contingent, self-existent, necessary, supernatural, first cause of everything in the universe.
That is the logical conclusion of the understanding and application of natural laws.

ATHEIST BELIEF IN A NATURAL FIRST CAUSE VIOLATES NATURAL LAW.
THUS ATHEISM IS ILLOGICAL, AND ANTI-SCIENCE.

Essential characteristics of the first cause.

Consider this short chain of causes and effects:
A causes B, - B causes C, - C causes D, - D causes E.
'A, B, C & D' are all causes and may all look similar, but they are not, there is an enormous and crucial difference between them.
Causes B, C & D are fundamentally different from cause A.
Why?
Because A is the very first cause and thus had no previous cause. It exists without a cause. It doesn’t rely on anything else for its existence, it is completely independent of causes - while B, C & D would not exist without A. They are entirely dependent on A.
Causes; B, C & D are also effects, whereas A is not an effect, only a cause.
So we can say that the first cause ‘A’ is both self-existent and necessary. It is necessary because the rest of the chain of causes and effects could not exist without it. We also have to say that the subsequent causes and effects B, C, D and E are all contingent. That is; they are not self-existent they all depend entirely on other causes to exist.
We can also say that A is eternally self-existent, i.e. it has always existed, it had no beginning. Why? Because if A came into being at some point, there must have been something other than itself that brought it into being … which would mean A was not the first cause (A could not create A) … the something that brought A into being would be the first cause. In which case, A would be contingent and no different from B, C, D & E.
We can also say that A is adequate to produce all the properties of B, C, D & E.
Why?
Well in the case of E we can see that it relies entirely on D for its existence, E can in no way be superior to D because D had to contain within it everything necessary to produce E. The same applies to D it cannot be superior to C, but furthermore neither E or D can be superior to C, because both rely on C for their existence, and C had to contain everything necessary to produce D & E.
Likewise with B, which is responsible for the existence of C, D & E.
As they all depend on A for their existence and all their properties, abilities and potentials, none can be superior to A whether singly or combined. A had to contain everything necessary to produce B, C, D & E including all their properties, abilities and potentials.
Thus we deduce that; nothing in the universe can be superior in any way to the very first cause of the universe, because the whole universe, and all material things that exist, depend entirely on the abilities and properties of the first cause to produce them.

So to sum up … a first cause must be uncaused, must have always existed and cannot be in any way inferior to all subsequent causes and effects. In other words, the first cause of the universe must be eternally, self-existent and omnipotent (greater than everything that exists). No natural entity can have those attributes, that is why a Supernatural, Creator God MUST exist.

What about polytheism, can there be more than one God or Creator.
It is patently obvious there can only be one supernatural first cause.
The first cause is infinite - and logically, there cannot be more than one infinite entity.
If there were two infinite entities, for example, A and B. The qualities and perfections that are the property of B would be a limitation on the qualities and perfections of A. and vice versa, so neither would be infinite.
If A & B had identical qualities and perfections they would not be two different entities, they would be identical and therefore the same entity, i.e. a single, infinite, first cause. So there can be only one infinite being or entity, only one supernatural, first cause and creator of the universe.
So when atheists keep repeating the claim - that there is no reason to believe the monotheistic, Christian God is any different from the multiple, gods of pagan religions, it simply displays their ignorance and lack of reasoning.

Does the first cause have to be a supernatural one, or is it (as atheists claim) just a desperate attempt by ignorant people to fill a gap in scientific knowledge, by saying - God did it?

What does 'supernatural' mean? It means something which cannot be explained by science, natural laws or by natural processes.

The origin of the universe cannot be explained by genuine science, natural laws or by natural processes. And that is an undeniable FACT.
Why?
Because EVERY possible explanation by natural processes violates both the fundamental principle of the scientific method - the Law of Cause and Effect - and other natural laws.
Hence, the first cause, by virtue of the fact that it cannot be explained by science or natural processes, automatically qualifies as a supernatural entity.
To insist that the first cause must be a natural entity or event is to invoke a magical explanation, not a scientific one. The only choice, therefore is between a supernatural first cause or a magical first cause? A natural event that is purported to defy natural laws and scientific principles can only be described as MAGIC. And that is exactly what atheists propose. They cynically dress up their belief - that nature can evade natural laws - as science, but science certainly cannot envisage a causeless, natural event or entity, science cannot look for non-causes.

No one has ever proposed a natural explanation for the origin of the universe that does not violate the law of cause and effect and other natural laws. But, whenever they are challenged about this fact, they always make the excuse that the laws of nature/physics somehow DID NOT APPLY to their proposed, natural origin scenario.
The most, well known case of this excuse is the alleged 'Singularity' which, it was claimed, preceded the Big Bang. Remember it was claimed to be a "one-off event where the laws of physics did not apply." A natural event that defied natural laws! - That used to be called 'magic', before atheist 'scientists' hi-jacked science with their religion of naturalism - the All Powerful, autonomous, Mother Nature.

Excuses aren't science. A natural event that violates natural laws is by definition, not possible. There are no ifs, buts or perhaps, natural things are bound by natural laws, without question. Natural laws describe the inherent properties of natural entities. And the whole essence of science is the fact that every natural entity/event is contingent - has to have an ADEQUATE CAUSE.
The idea of 'laws not applying' to a natural event, is not science. It is just fantasy.

If the origin of the universe is inexplicable to science, within the accepted framework of normal, natural processes and natural laws, then it is a supernatural event.
You cannot claim something as a natural event that violates natural laws. For that reason it is inexplicable to science.
In fact. to claim that something natural can defy natural laws is anti-science.
Those who believe such nonsense are enemies of science.

ALL NATURAL explanations for the origin of the universe violate the Law of Cause and Effect and other natural laws.
Conclusion: the atheist belief in a natural explanation for the origin of the universe (that Mother Nature did it) is impossible - according to science.
____________________________________________
"I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism"
"If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God"
Lord William Kelvin.
Noted for his theoretical work on thermodynamics, the concept of absolute zero and the Kelvin temperature scale.

The Law of Cause and Effect is a fundamental principle of the scientific method. Science literally means 'knowledge'. Knowledge about the natural world is gained through seeking adequate causes for every natural occurrence. An uncaused, natural ocurrence, is a completely, unscientific notion.
Concerning the Law of Cause and Effect, one of the world's greatest scientists, Dr. Albert Einstein wrote: “All natural science is based on the hypothesis of the complete causal connection of all events”
Albert Einstein. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Hebrew University and Princeton University Press p.183

FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE
The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins
www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...

"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."
kgov.com/big-bang-predictions

Evolutionism: The Religion That Offers Nothing.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=znXF0S6D_Ts&list=TLqiH-mJoVPB...

The Atheist Bus Campaign, set out to convince you that a loving creator God does not exist, that you have no prospect of eternal life and that all you can look forward to is eternal oblivion.

Atheists have no evidence to back up that assertion. In fact logic, natural law and the basic principles of the scientific method rule out their naturalistic alternative to a creator as impossible.

They invent all sort of bizarre scenarios to replace a supernatural first cause (God), they even try to present their fantastical, naturalistic replacements for God as 'scientific'. Please don't be taken in by it.
Their naturalistic replacements for God are illogical, they all violate natural laws and the basic principles of science.

Atheism is rightly referred to as the no-hope philosophy.
Their ultimate goal and pinnacle of their short life is - eternal oblivion.
And, quite perversely, they want to convince you that is all you can look forward to.
Please don't be dragged down with them into that depressing pit of hopelessness.
The Good News is that they are entirely wrong, and furthermore, it is not just an opinion. It can be satisfactorily demonstrated by logic, natural law, and the basic principle of the scientific method ......

Read on .... and you will understand, why atheists can never replace God, however much they try.

Their Atheist Bus Campaign is deceitful because atheists have no logical or scientific grounds for claiming "There's Probably No God", in fact, the evidence of applied logic and natural law, is completely the contrary. The atheist claim that there's probably no God is just an unsubstantiated opinion based only on their own ideological beliefs.
You may wonder why they inserted the word 'probably'? Obviously, they knew that if they were challenged to present evidence for the truth of their advertisement and had to defend it in court, they would be unable to do so. Science and logic can be used to prove they have no alternative to a supernatural first cause, and they know it.

For atheists to propose that believing there is no God, is somehow a reason to stop worrying and the recipe for an enjoyable life, is perverse in the extreme.
For most sane people it would be the opposite - a road to depression, hopelessness, and a feeling that this short existence is worthless. It will all end in oblivion, and you might as well never have lived.

Thankfully, atheists are demonstrably wrong, there is every reason for hope - as we will show - a loving Creator definitely does exist. Your life is not a few short, stressful and worthless years leading to eternal oblivion. You are a unique, valuable, person, specially created out of supreme love, every human life is of infinite value right from the moment of conception. Humans really are special and not just intelligent apes, or a mere collection of atoms, as atheists would have you believe You can live forever in eternal bliss - that is the gift of life the loving Creator of the universe offers you, and it is all offered for free.

Please don't be fooled ... people who think for themselves (the REAL freethinkers), are able to see right through the atheist hype and propaganda. Ignore the relentless bombardment of atheist propaganda, such as the atheist bus campaign. Seek out and learn the real truth and the truth will set you free.

Please read on and you will understand ......

Because there is a law of cause and effect, the universe can't and won't create itself from nothing.

Consider this ....
A creator God (or supernatural first cause) has been made redundant and the final gap (pertaining to the so-called God of the gaps) has now been filled ... who says so?
Atheists, along with the secularist pundits in the popular media.
Why do they say that?
Because they believe that the greatest brain in atheism - Stephen Hawking, has finally discovered the secret of the origin of the universe and a naturalistic replacement for God.

The atheist replacement for God is summed up in a single sentence written by Hawking:
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing"
That is it .... problem solved - apparently!

The secularists in the popular media loved it, as far as they were concerned the problem certainly was solved. Hawking had finally dealt the fatal blow to all religion, especially Christianity. No need to question it, if a revered scientist of his calibre, is so sure of how the universe came into being, it must be correct.
The new atheists loved it, they wasted no time in proclaiming the ultimate triumph of 'science' over religious mythology and superstition.

So just how credible is the atheist claim that God has been made redundant?
And just how 'scientific' is Hawking's replacement for God?

Shall we analyse it?
"Because there is a law of gravity ....

So,
1) If the law of gravity existed, how is that nothing?
AND -
2) Where did the law of gravity come from?
AND -
3) How can a law of gravity exist before that which gravity relates to ... i.e. matter?

"the universe can and will create itself from nothing"

4) How can something create itself, without pre-existing its own creation?
(A) could possibly create (B), but how could (A) create (A)? Of course it can't.

5) What about the 'nothing' that is not really nothing, as most people understand 'nothing', but a bizarre 'nothing' in which a law of gravity exists. A nothing which is actually a 'something' where a law of gravity is presumably some sort of eternally, existent entity?
AND -
6) Is Hawking implying that the self-creation of the universe is made possible by the pre-existence of the law of gravity?
Of course, natural laws are not creative agents, they simply describe basic properties and operation of material things. They can't create anything, or cause the creation of anything. Something which is a property of something, cannot create that which it is a property of.

So, even if we ignore the law of cause and effect which definitively rules out a natural, first cause of the universe, the atheist notion of the universe arising of its own volition from nothing is still impossible, and can be regarded as illogical and unscientific nonsense. Hawking's naturalistic replacement for God, presented in his single sentence, and so loved by the new, atheist cabal, is obviously just contradictory and confused nonsense.

The truth, which atheists don't want to hear, is that atheism is intellectually and scientifically indefensible. That is why they always duck out of explaining how the concept of an uncaused, inadequate, natural first cause is possible.
The best they ever come up with, is something like "we don't really know what laws existed at the start of the universe".
However, the atheist claim that - we don't really know... is completely spurious.
We certainly do know that the Law of Cause and Effect is universal, there is no way round it.
The only reason atheists don't want to accept it, is ideological.

And ... isn't it strange, that the only laws atheists dispute are precisely those that interfere with their beliefs. For example, atheists seem pretty sure that one law existed .... the law of gravity (even prior to that which gravity is a property of … matter).
Why are they so sure that the law of gravity existed?
Because their naturalistic substitute for God, summed up in the sentence by Stephen Hawking, apparently requires that the law of gravity existed before anything else …..

Here it is again ...
‘Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing’ Stephen Hawking.

So atheists DO KNOW for sure that the law of gravity existed, but they don’t really know what other laws existed at the start of the universe. They especially doubt that the Law of Cause and Effect existed.
AMAZING!

Well, how about this for a refutation of Hawking’s replacement for God, also summed up in a single sentence?

Because there is a Law of Cause and Effect, the universe can’t and won’t create itself from nothing!

That is something Stephen Hawking conveniently forgot.
Apparently, he accepts that the law of gravity existed, because he thinks it suits his argument, but he ignores the existence of other laws that positively destroy his argument.

So now you know the truth about the best substitute for God that atheists have ever come up with.
IMPRESSED? I think not!

Why is it ATHEISTS that try to dispute the universality of natural laws?

According to their claims, atheists are supposed to be the champions of science. Yet we find in practice that it is actually theists who end up defending natural laws and the scientific method against those atheists who try to refute any laws and scientific principles that interfere with their naturalistic beliefs.
Whatever happened to the alleged conflict between science and religion?
That is revealed as purely, atheist propaganda. There is obviously much more conflict between atheism and science.

Why is the law of cause and effect so important?
Because it tells us that all natural entities, events and processes are contingent.
They are all subject to preceding causes. It tells us that natural entities and events are not autonomous, they cannot operate independently of causes.
That is such an important principle, it is actually the basis of the scientific method. Science is about looking for adequate causes of ALL natural events. According to science, a natural event without a cause, is a scientific impossibility.
Once you suggest such a notion, you are abandoning science and you violate the basic principle of the scientific method.

What about the first cause of the universe and everything?
How does that fit in?

Well, the first cause was obviously a unique thing, not only unique, but radically different to all NATURAL entities and occurrences. The first cause HAD to be an autonomous entity, it HAD to be eternally self-existent, self-reliant, NON-CONTINGENT ... i.e. it was completely independent of causes and the limitations that causes impose.
The first cause, by virtue of being the very first, could not have had any preceding cause, and obviously didn't require any cause for its existence. When we talk about the first cause, we mean the very first cause, i.e. FIRST means FIRST, not second or third.
The first cause also had to be capable of creating everything that followed it. It is responsible for every subsequent cause and effect that is, or has ever been. That means that nothing, nor the sum total of everything that followed the first cause, can ever be greater, in any respect, than the first cause.
So the idea that the first cause could be a natural entity or event is just ludicrous.

We know that the first cause is radically different to any natural entity, it is NOT contingent and that is why it is called a SUPERNATURAL entity, the Supernatural, First Cause (or Creator God). All natural events and entities ARE contingent without exception, so the first cause simply CANNOT be a natural thing.
That is the verdict of science, logic and reason. Atheists dispute the verdict of science and insist that the first cause was a 'natural' event which was somehow able to defy natural laws that govern all natural events.
Consequently, atheism can be regarded as anti-science. Which means .... the real enemy of atheism is science, not religion. And the real enemy of science is atheism, not religion.


An idea which seems to be popular with atheists at present, is a continuously, reciprocating universe, one which ends by running out of energy potential and then rewinds itself in an never ending cycle ..... this is an attempt to evade the fact that an uncaused, natural, first cause is impossible. They claim that, in this way a first cause, is not necessary. And that matter/energy is some sort of eternally existent entity.
So is it a valid solution?

Firstly .....
Matter/energy cannot be eternally existent in a cycle with no beginning).
Why?
Because all natural things are contingent, they have to comply with the law of cause and effect, so they cannot exist independently of causes. The nearest you could get to eternally existent matter/energy would be a very, long chain of causes and effects, but a long chain is not eternally existent, it has to have a beginning at some point. At the beginning there would still have to be a non-contingent first cause. So a long chain of causes and effects simply pushes the first cause further back in time, it can't eliminate it.
Secondly ....
It is pretty obvious that the idea of the universe simply rewinding itself in a never ending cycle, which had no beginning, is complete, unscientific nonsense. How such a proposal can be presented as serious science, beggars belief.
It seems atheists will try anything to justify their naturalist ideology. They apparently have no compunction about completely disregarding natural laws.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics rules out such atheist, pie-in-the-sky, origins mythology.
There is no such thing as a free lunch, the idea of a rewinding universe is tantamount to applying the discredited notion of perpetual motion - on a grand scale, to the universe.
Contingent things don't just rewind of their own accord.
The Second Law (not to mention common sense) rules it out.
Where does the renewed power or renewed energy potential come from?
If you wind up a clock, it doesn't rewind itself after it has stopped.
The universe had a beginning and it will have an end. That is what science tells us, it cannot rewind itself.
Such ridiculous, atheist musings are just a desperate attempt to wriggle out of the inevitable conclusion of logic, and the Law of Cause and Effect which are the real enemies of atheist ideology.
Once again atheism is hoisted on its own petard by natural law and science, not by religion.

A variation of the cyclical universe is the argument proposed by some that the universe just is?
Presumably they mean that the universe is some sort of eternally-existent entity with no beginning - and therefore not in need of a cause? Once again an eternally self-existent universe is not possible for the same reason outlined above.
In addition ....
The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us the universe certainly had a beginning and will have an end. The energy potential of the universe is decreasing from an original peak at the beginning of the universe. Even the most rabid atheists seem to accept that. Which is why most of them believe in a beginning event, such as a big bang explosion.
So the question is how did it (the universe) begin to exist, not whether it began to exist?
Which takes us back to the question of the nature of the very first cause.
It can only be one of two options,
an uncaused, natural first cause
OR
an uncaused, supernatural first cause.
An uncaused, NATURAL first cause is impossible.
Thus the only possible option is a supernatural first cause, i.e. God.

Atheists can’t refute the Law of Cause and Effect which is so devastating to their naturalist agenda, so they regularly invent bizarre scenarios which ignore natural laws, and hope people won’t notice. If anyone does they just brush it off with remarks like “we just don’t know ” what laws existed prior to the beginning of the universe.
Sorry, the atheist apologists may not know …. but all sensible people do know, we certainly know what is impossible ….
And we certainly know that you cannot blithely step outside the constraints of natural laws and scientific principles, as atheists do, and remain credible.
We know that natural laws describe the inherent properties of matter/energy. Which means wherever matter/energy exist, the inherent properties of matter/energy also exist - and so do the natural laws that describe those properties. if the universe began, as some propose, with a cosmic egg. or a previous universe, those things are still natural entities with natural properties, and as such would be subject to natural laws. So the idea that there were natural events leading up to the origin of the universe that were not subject to natural laws is ridiculous.
The atheist claim; that we just don't know, is not valid, and should be treated as the silliness it really is.

The existence of the law of cause and effect is essential to the scientific method, but fatal to the atheist ideology.
SO ....
Is the law of cause and effect really universal?

Causation is necessary for the existence of the universe, but ALSO for the existence of any natural entities or events that may have preceded the creation of the universe.

In other words, causation is necessary for all matter/energy and all natural entities and occurrences, whether within the universe or elsewhere.
ALL natural entities are contingent wherever they may be, whether in some sort of cosmic egg, a big bang, a previous universe or whatever.
Contingency is an inherent character of all natural entities, so it is impossible for any natural entity to be non-contingent.

Which means you simply CANNOT have a natural entity which is UNCAUSED, anywhere.
If, for example, matter/energy was not contingent at the start of the universe, or before the universe began, how and why would it be contingent now?
Why would nature have changed its basic character to an inferior one?

If matter/energy once had such awesome, autonomous power - if it was, at some time, self-sufficient, not reliant on causes for its operation and existence, and not restricted by the limitations causes impose, it would effectively mean it was once an infinite, necessary, self-existent entity, similar to God.

Now if matter once had the autonomous, non-contingent powers of a god, why would it change itself to a subordinate character and role, when it became part of the universe?
Why would it change to a role where it is limited by the strictures of natural laws. And where it cannot operate without a preceding, adequate cause?

To claim matter/energy was, at one time, not contingent, not subject to causes (which is what atheists have to claim) – is to actually imbue it with the autonomous power of a god.
That is why atheism is really just a revamped version of pagan naturalism.
By denying the basic, contingent character of matter/nature, atheism effectively deifies nature, and credits it with godlike powers, which science clearly tells us it doesn’t possess.

Thus, if anyone dismisses causality, they effectively deify matter/nature.
Which means they have chosen the first of the 2 following choices …

1. Atheism ... the unscientific, illogical belief in a natural, uncaused god (of matter or nature) which violates natural laws - which science recognises restrict its autonomy?

2. Theism ... the logical belief in an uncaused, supernatural God, which created matter and the laws that govern matter. And therefore does not violate any laws, is not contingent, and thus has completely unrestricted autonomy and infinite powers?

Which one would you choose?

Which one do scientists who respect natural laws and the scientific method choose?
The great, scientific luminaries and founders of modern science, such as Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Louis Pasteur etc., in fact, nearly all of the really great scientists and founders of modern science, had no doubts or problem understanding that choice, and they readily chose the second (theism), as the only logical option.
So, by choosing the second - a supernatural first cause – rather than meaning you are anti-science or anti-reason or some sort of uneducated, superstitious, religious nut (as atheists frequently claim) actually puts you in the greatest of scientific company.

To put it another way, who would you rather trust in science, such scientific giants as: Newton, Pasteur, Faraday, Von Braun, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Mendel, Marconi, Kelvin, Babbage, Pascal, Herschel, Peacock etc. who believed in a supernatural first cause?
OR,
the likes of: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawking, Andrew Denton etc. who believe in an uncaused, natural first cause?
No contest!

We can see that atheists are anti-science, because they treat natural law and the whole principle of the scientific method with utter contempt, and all the while, they masquerade as the champions of science to the public.

The question of purpose ....
A further nail in the coffin of bogus, atheist science is the existence of order.

Atheists assume that the universe is purposeless, but they cannot explain the existence of order.
The development of order requires an organizational element.
To do useful work, or to counter the effects of entropy, energy needs to be directed or guided.
Raw energy alone actually tends to increase the effects of entropy, it doesn't increase order.
The organizational principle in living systems is provided by the informational element encoded in DNA.
Atheists have yet to explain how that first, genetic information arose of its own volition in the so-called Primordial Soup?

Natural laws pertinent to all natural entities, they guide the behaviour of energy and matter, but also serve to limit it, because natural laws are based only on the inherent properties of matter and energy.
So ... natural laws describe inherent properties of matter/energy, and natural processes operate only within the confines of natural laws which are based on their own properties. They can never exceed the parameters of those laws.

The much acclaimed, Dawkinsian principle that randomness can develop into order by means of a sieving process, such as shaken pebbles being sorted by falling through a hole of a particular size is erroneous, because it completely ignores the regulatory influence of natural laws on the outcome, which are not at all random.
If we can predict the outcome in advance, as we can with Dawkins' example, it cannot be called random. We CAN predict the outcome because we know that the pebbles will behave according to the regulatory influence of natural laws, such as the law of gravity. If there was no law of gravity, then Dawkins' pebbles, when shaken, would not fall through the hole, they would not be sorted, they would act completely unpredictably, possibly floating about in the air in all directions. In that case, the randomness would not result in any order. That is true randomness.
Dawkins' randomness, allegedly developing into order, is not random at all, the outcome is predictable and controlled by natural laws and the inherent properties of matter. He is starting with 2 organizational principles, natural laws and the inherent, ordered structure and properties of matter, and he calls that randomness!
Bogus science indeed!
This tells us that order is already there at the beginning of the universe, in the form of natural laws and the ordered composition and structure of matter .... it doesn't just develop from random events.

A major problem for atheists is to explain where natural laws came from?
In a purposeless universe there should be no regulatory principles at all.
Firstly, we would not expect anything to exist, we would expect eternal nothingness.
Secondly, even if we overlook that impossible hurdle, and assume by some amazing fluke and contrary to logic, something was able to create itself from nothing ….. we would expect the ‘something’ would have no ordered structure, and no laws based on that ordered structure. We would expect it to behave randomly and chaotically.
This is an absolutely fundamental question to which atheists have no answer. The basic properties of matter/energy, and the universe, scream …. ‘purpose’.
Atheists say the exact opposite.
Furthermore, if we consider the accepted, atheist belief; that matter is inherently predisposed to produce life and the genetic information for life, whenever environmental conditions are conducive (so-called abiogenesis), where does that predisposition for life come from? Once again, atheists are hoisted on their own petard, and the atheist idea of a random, purposeless, universe is left completely in tatters.

It is the atheist ideology that is anti-science, not necessarily individual scientists.
There may be sincere, atheist scientists who respect the scientific method and natural laws, but they are wedded to an ideology that - when push comes to shove, does not respect natural laws.
It is evident that whenever natural laws interfere with atheist naturalist beliefs, the beliefs take precedence over the rigorous, scientific method. It is then that natural laws are disregarded by atheists in favour of unscientific fantasies which are conducive to their ideology.
Of course, in much day-to-day practical science and technology, the question of violating laws doesn't even arise, and we cannot deny that in the course of such work, atheists will respect the scientific method of experiment and observation within the framework of the Law of Cause and Effect and other established laws of science.
Bizarrely, It is a different matter entirely, when it comes to hypotheses about origins. It then becomes an 'anything goes' situation. The main criteria then seems to be that it doesn’t matter whether your hypothesis violates natural laws (all sorts of excuses can be made as to why natural laws need not apply), all that matters is that it is entirely naturalistic, and can be made to sound plausible to the public.
However, the same atheist scientists would not entertain anything in general, day-to-day science, that is not completely in accordance with the scientific method, they make an exception ONLY with anything to do with origins, whether it be the origin of the universe, or the origin of life, or the origin of species.

Atheism is not simply passive non-belief, you can only be a ‘genuine’ atheist if you proactively believe in the following illogical and unscientific propositions:

1. A natural, first cause of the universe that was ‘uncaused’.

2. A natural, first cause of the universe that was patently not adequate for the effect, (a cause which was able to produce an effect far greater than itself and superior to its own abilities).

3. That the universe created ITSELF from nothing.

4. That natural laws simply arose of their own accord, without any reason, purpose or cause.

5. That energy potential at the start of everything material was able to wind itself up from absolute zero, of its own accord, without any reason, purpose or cause.

6. That the effect of entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics) was somehow suspended or didn’t operate to permit the development of order in the universe.

7. That life spontaneously generated itself, of its own volition, from sterile matter, contrary to: the Law of Biogenesis, the laws of probability, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Information Theory and common sense.

8. That the complete human genome was created by means of a long chain of copying mistakes of the original, genetic information in the first living cell, (mutations of mutations of mutations, etc. etc.).

9. That the complex DNA code was produced by chemical processes.

10. That the very first, genetic information, encoded in the DNA of the first living cell, created itself by some unknown means.

11. That matter is somehow inherently predisposed to develop into living cells, whenever conditions are conducive to life. But such a predisposition for life just arose of its own accord, with no purpose and with no apparent cause.

12. That an ordered structure of atoms, guiding laws of physics, order in the cosmos, order in the living cell and complex information, are what we would expect to occur naturally in a purposeless universe.

The claim of atheists to be the champions of science and reason is clearly bogus.
They think they can get away with it by pretending to have no beliefs.
However, when seriously challenged to justify their dogmatic rejection of a Supernatural First Cause, they indirectly espouse the unscientific beliefs outlined above, in their futile attempts to refute the evidence for a supernatural first cause.
Of course, whenever possible, they avoid declaring those beliefs explicitly, but you don’t need to be very astute to realize that relying on those beliefs is the unavoidable conclusion of their arguments.

That is why atheism is intellectually bankrupt and is doomed to the dustbin of history. And that is why we are seeing such a rise in militant, evangelizing, atheist zealots, such as Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens.
Their crusading, bravado masks their desperation that the public is so hard to convince. What Dawkins et al need to face is that they are in no position to attack what they consider are the bizarre beliefs of others, when their own beliefs (which they fail to publicly acknowledge) are much more bizarre.


What about Christianity and pagan gods?

Atheists frequently try to dismiss and ridicule the idea of a Creator by comparing it to the numerous, pagan gods that people have worshipped throughout history.

Do they have a good point?

Certainly not, this is just a red herring ….
Other gods, cannot be the first cause or Creator.
Idols of wood or stone, or the Sun, Moon, planets, Mother Nature, Mother Earth etc. are all material, contingent things, they cannot be the first cause.
They are rejected as false gods by the Bible and by logic and natural laws.
They are considered gods by people who worship things which are 'created' rather than the Creator, which the Bible condemns.
In fact, they are much more similar to the atheist belief in the powers of a naturalistic entity to create the universe, than they are to the one, Creator God of Christianity.
For example, the pagan belief in the creative powers of Ra (the Sun god) is similar to the atheist belief that raw energy from the Sun acting on sterile chemicals was able to create life.

So atheist mythology credits the Sun (Ra) with the godlike power of creating life on Earth. And thus, atheism is just a revamped version of paganism.
Just like paganism, atheism rejects worship of a Supernatural, First Cause, and rather chooses to worship created, natural entities, imbuing them with the same godlike powers, that theists attribute to the Creator.
There is nothing new under the Sun ... We can see that atheism is just the age old deception of ancient paganism, revisited.

The Creator is a Supernatural, First Cause, which is not a contingent entity, nothing like the pagan gods, but rather a self-existent, necessary entity. As the very first cause of everything in the universe, it cannot be contingent (it cannot rely on anything outside itself for its existence, i.e. it is self-existent) and therefore it cannot be a material entity.
The first cause is necessary because, not being contingent, it necessarily exists.
If anything exists that is not contingent, it has to have within itself everything necessary for its own existence. If it is also responsible for the existence of anything outside itself (which as the first cause of the universe, we know it is) it is also necessary for the existence of those things, and has to be entirely adequate for the purpose of bringing them into being and maintaining their continued existence. It is not subject to natural laws, which only apply to natural events and effects, because, as the first cause, it is the initiator and creator of everything material, including the laws which govern material events, and of time itself.

The atheist view of a natural first cause is not even rational, to propose that all the qualities I have mentioned above could apply to a material entity is clearly ridiculous. But apparently, atheism has no regard for natural laws or logic. Atheists get round it by simply dressing up their irrational beliefs to make them appear ‘scientific’.
This combined with rants and erroneous and derisory slogans about religious myths and superstition makes it all seem perfectly reasonable. Unfortunately, those with little knowledge, or who can’t be bothered to think for themselves are taken in by it.

Atheists repeatedly claim that they have refuted the law of cause and effect by asking : So what caused God then?
How true is that?

The ... what caused God? argument is a rather silly argument which atheists regularly trot out. All it demonstrates is that they don't understand basic logic.

The question to always ask them is; what part of FIRST don't you understand?
If something is the very FIRST, it means there is nothing that precedes it. First means first, not second or third.
That means that the first cause cannot be a contingent entity, because a contingent entity depends on something preceding it for its existence. In which case, if something precedes it, it couldn't be FIRST.
All natural entities, events and effects are contingent ... that is why the Law of Cause and Effect states that ... every NATURAL effect requires an adequate cause.
That means that the first cause cannot be a natural entity. An UNCAUSED, NATURAL event or entity is ruled out as not possible by the Law of Cause and Effect.
Therefore the very FIRST CAUSE of the universe, which we know cannot be caused, by virtue of it being FIRST (not second or third) CANNOT be a natural entity or event.
Thus we deduce that the first cause ... cannot be contingent, cannot be a natural entity, and cannot be subject to the Law of Cause and Effect.
So the first cause has to be non-material, i.e. supernatural.
The first cause also has to have the creative potential to create every other cause and effect that follows it.
In other words, the first cause cannot be inferior in any respect to the properties, powers or qualities of anything that exists...
The effect cannot be greater than the cause....
So we can thus deduce that the first cause is: UNCAUSED, SUPERNATURAL, self-existent, and capable of creating everything we see in the existing universe.
If there is life in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create life,
If there is intelligence in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create intelligence.
If there is information in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create information.
If there is consciousness in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create consciousness. And so on and on. If it exists, the first cause is responsible for it, and must have the ability to create it.
That is the Creator God … and His existence is supported by impeccable logic and adherence to the demands of natural law.

Atheists often say: you can’t fill gaps in knowledge with a supernatural first cause.

But we are not talking about filling gaps, we are talking about a fundamental issue ... the origin of everything in the material realm.
The first cause is not a gap, it is the beginning - and many of the greatest scientists in the history of science had no problem whatsoever with the logic that - a natural, first cause was impossible, and the only possible option was a supernatural creator.
Why do atheists have such a problem with it?

Atheists also seem to think that to explain the origin of the universe without a God, simply involves explaining what triggered it, as though its formation from that point on, just happens automatically.
This has been compared by some as similar to lighting the blue touch paper of a firework. They think that if they can propose such a naturalistic trigger, then God is made redundant.
That may sound plausible to some members of the public, who take such pronouncements at face value, and are somewhat in awe of anything that is claimed to be 'scientific'.
But it is obvious to anyone who thinks seriously about it, that a mere trigger is not necessarily an adequate cause.
A trigger presupposes that there is some sort of a mechanism/blueprint/plan already existing which is ready to spring into action if it is provided with an appropriate trigger. So a trigger is not a sole cause, or a first cause, it is merely one contributing cause.
Natural things do only what they are programmed to do, i.e. they obey natural laws and the demands of their own pre-ordered composition and structure. Lighting blue touch paper would do absolutely nothing, unless there is a carefully designed and manufactured firework already attached to it.

What about the idea proposed by some atheists that space must have always existed, and therefore the first cause was not the only eternally, uncaused self-existent power?
This implies that the first cause was limited by a self-existent rival (space,) which was also uncaused, and therefore the first cause could not be infinite and could not even be a proper first cause, because there was something it didn’t cause i.e. ‘space’.
There seems to be some confusion here about what ‘space’ actually is.
Space is part of the created universe, it is what lies between and around material objects in the cosmos, if there were no material objects in the cosmos, there would be no space. The confusion lies in the failure to distinguish between empty space and nothing. Nothing is the absence of everything, whereas space is a medium in which cosmic bodies exist. ‘Empty’ space is just the space between objects. So space is not an uncaused, eternally self-existent entity, it is dependent on material objects existing within it, for its own existence.
What about nothing? Is that an uncaused eternally self-existent thing? Firstly, it is not a thing, it is the absence of all things. So has nothing always existed? Well, yes it essentially would have always existed, but only if the first cause didn’t exist. If there is a first cause is that is eternally self-existent, then there is no such thing as absolute nothing, because nothing is the absence of everything. If a first cause exists (which it had to), then any proposed eternal ‘nothing’ has always contained something, and therefore can never have been ‘nothing’.
What about the idea that the first cause created everything material from nothing? Obviously, the ‘nothing’ that is meant here is … nothing material, i.e. the absence of any material entities.
The uncaused, first cause cannot be material, because all material things are contingent, so the first cause brought material things into being, when nothing material had previously existed. That is what is meant by creation from nothing.
So what existed outside of the eternally existent first cause? Obviously no other thing existed outside of the first cause, the first cause was the only thing that existed. So did the first cause exist in a sea of eternally existent nothingness?
No! the first cause was not nothing, it was ‘something’. So to ask what surrounded the something that is the first cause is not a valid question, because if something exists that is not ‘nothing’. This means that such a notion of ‘nothing’ didn’t exist, only something – i.e. the eternally existent first cause. If you have a box with something in it, you wouldn’t say there is both something and nothing in the box. You would say there is something in the box, regardless of whether there was some empty space around the thing in the box.

Atheists invent all sorts of bizarre myths to explain the origin of the universe and matter/energy.
Such as the utterly, ludicrous notion of the universe creating itself from nothing. Obviously for something to create itself, it would need to pre-exist its own creation, in order to do the creating!
They are clutching at straws and anyone with any common sense understands that.

So to sum up .....
The atheist ideology is illogical, unscientific nonsense. Even worse, it has no compunction in treating natural laws and the basic principle of the scientific method with utter distain and contempt whenever they interfere with atheist beliefs.
Science is the real enemy of atheism, and atheism is the real enemy of science.

So please ignore the atheist bus slogans, they are not worth the ink the are printed with.

FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE
The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins
www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...

"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."
kgov.com/big-bang-predictions

"Chinese socialism is founded upon Darwin and the theory of evolution." Mao Tse-tung (1893 – 1976). Kampf um Mao's Erbe (1977.)

To people who hate the truth, the truth looks like hate...

Atheism and its humanist ethics.

Atheism proved itself, in the 20th century, to be the most horrendous, barbaric, murderous and criminal ideology the world has ever experienced. Many millions suffered and died at the hands of this hideous ideology, they must never be forgotten.

The promised atheist/socialist utopia ... the idea of an atheist Heaven on Earth resulted in a diabolical Hell on Earth.

Who, but a complete idiot would want to resurrect such a monstrous, no-hope philosophy?

The so-called 'new' (improved?) atheists try to disassociate themselves from the disastrous record of the world's first ever, official, atheist states of the 20th century's, great, atheist experiment.
But there is no other example to go by.

They even try to blame the persecution and brutality on communism, and claim it had nothing to do with atheism.
But communism, per se, is an economic system, there is no compelling reason why it should be brutal, or why it should hate religion, or why it should destroy churches and persecute and murder millions of Christians and people of other faiths.
That is the hallmark of atheism, not communism.

Of course communism is a fatally flawed, economic system which thrives on envy and class hatred, but that is not the same as specifically hating God and religion. That is the unique trait of atheism.
If the communists weren't also atheists, why would they have outlawed and attacked all religion?

Lenin was a self-declared atheist who, together with his Soviet Bloc, atheist successors, tried to eliminate religion with brutal repression and wholesale murder.

Thus, history tells us that the atheist experiment has been tried and, from beginning to end, was a brutal and diabolical failure. The new atheists may say: “it's nothing to do with us gov.”
But who wants to risk such devastation again, by giving the atheist ideology another chance? Only a complete fool would want to take that gamble.

However, it was only to be expected and it could easily have been predicted beforehand, that the inevitable result of atheism's lack of an absolute ethical or moral yardstick would be to wreak havoc on the world - and that is exactly what it did. .

Atheism hasn't changed at all in that respect, because it can't.
Atheism and secular humanism categorically reject the concept of intrinsic right and wrong. Therefore, the ephemeral values, moral relativism and situational ethics of atheism are the ideal recipe for abuse.

We can see from the belligerent, intolerant, rabble rousing rhetoric and anti-religious ranting of today's militant, new atheist zealots, that the leopard hasn't really changed its spots. Let no one doubt it - atheism has an horrendous and hideously, barbaric record... we must never let it happen again.

Moreover, it is a singularly perverse ideology that motivates its adherents to waste so much time of the only life they believe they have, trying to convince everyone else that they are doomed to eternal oblivion. The ultimate reward for atheists is to never know if they got it right, only if they got it wrong.

There is certainly no moral, rational or scientific defence for the atheist cult, past or present.

But what do atheists themselves say about their ethical and moral values?

They claim that they DO have an ethical and moral yardstick, and cite the Humanist Manifesto as representing the ethics and moral code of atheism.

So is it really true?

The Humanist Manifesto may look good at first glance, but like most proposals atheists have come up with, when examined closely, it is full of holes.

Problems, problems ....

1. You don’t have to sign up to the Humanist Manifesto to be an atheist.

2. Even if you do sign up to it, there is no incentive to follow it. No reward for following it, and no penalty for not following it. You are not going to be barred from being an atheist because you reject or break the rules of the Humanist Manifesto. It is not enforced in any way.

3. It borrows any desirable ethics, it may appear to have, from Judeo-Christian values, there is no atheist, moral code per se.

Atheism is the ideology of naturalism. Genuine, naturalist, ethical values are basically the Darwinian, ‘law of the jungle’. Progressive evolution and improvement through the survival of the fittest/strongest, and the elimination of any who are weaker or unable to adapt - nature red in tooth and claw, In societal terms - the most powerful, wealthiest, most influential, most cunning, dominate and rule for their own benefit. Anything else in the Humanist Manifesto is actually a contradiction of social Darwinism and naturalism. Any socially desirable or compassionate ethics, which may be included in the H.M, are wholly inconsistent with atheist, materialist, naturalist, and evolutionist ideology.

4. By far the biggest flaw in the Humanist Manifesto is the fact that it is entirely ephemeral. It advocates 'situational ethics' and 'moral relativism'. And that major flaw makes it a worthless scrap of paper.

Why?

Because .....

Situational ethics is based on what people want or find desirable, not on any adherence to what is intrinsically right or wrong.

A good, example of humanist style, situational ethics in practice, is the gender selection abortions now being blatantly carried out in abortion clinics in Britain. It primarily discriminates against female babies, who are especially targeted for killing, because most of the parents who want it, prefer to have boys for cultural reasons.

The abortion clinics openly admit to it happening, and claim it is legal.
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/pro-choice-aborti...
The abortion act of 1967 certainly did not intend that, and the Government admits it was not intended.

So we have a Government that knows it is going on, it also knows it is not what the abortion law intended, yet it is still reluctant to do anything about it.
Why?
Because it is wedded to the secularist concept of situational ethics, i.e. whatever people want, people get. Any concept of intrinsic right and wrong takes a back seat, to whatever is the spirit of the times. And that is an example happening right now, in a so-called democracy.

The Nazi persecution of the Jews and other races they considered ‘inferior’ became popular through brainwashing of the public, and was eventually supported by a good proportion of the public.

So, Hitler cleverly used situational ethics to do what he had persuaded people was right and good.

All in all, the Humanist Manifesto and its purported ethical values, is a very dangerous document.

It gives carte blanche to any so-called, ethical values, if they become the fashionable or consensus opinion. Whatever people want, people get, or even worse, what a government decides the people want, they can claim they are justified in giving them.

And for that reason it would not stop; a Lenin, a Stalin, a Hitler, a Mao, or a Pol Pot, even if they had signed up 100% to abide by the Humanist Manifesto.

In fact, the 20th century, atheist tyrants even called their regimes ... Democratic People's Republics. They claimed they were representing people's wishes, and were carrying out their 'situational ethics' on behalf of the people.

What about the common, atheist tactic of highlighting alleged crimes and wrongdoing committed by Christians?

The point is ....

Christians who do wrong, go against the teachings of Christianity. If they blatantly and deliberately go against the intrinsic moral values and teaching of Christianity, they have no right to continue to call themselves Christian. And they can even be excommunicated by the Church, if they fail to admit their actions are wrong.
And, without sincere repentance, they don't get to go to the Christian Heaven.

End of story!

Atheists who do wrong, go against nothing, unless it is against the law of the land.
You cannot be chucked out of atheism for doing wrong, you cannot even be censored by atheism for doing wrong, it is a complete free for all, you can simply act with impunity according to your own desires and opinion.

The atheist 'heaven' is right here on earth, and far from being a 'heaven' it is an horrendous nightmare. Anyone with any sense would call it a hell.

And even the law of the land need not stop atheists .....

Whenever, atheists get into a position of power they change the law to suit their situational ethics. Then they can do whatever they want.

That is what Stalin and all the other atheist tyrants did in their people's DEMOCRATIC republics.

And the atheist thirst for blood does not cease when they live in the so-called 'real' democracies, it is simply sanitised by atheist inspired, situational ethics.

They use their 'humanist' ethics to change the law, accompanied by 'newspeak' and propaganda.

So that what was once considered evil, is not only made legal, it is actually turned around so it is considered a virtue.

The wholesale and brutal slaughter, of the most vulnerable in society ... millions of unborn babies, is callously shrugged off as necessary, for 'free choice'.

Of course murder is always a free choice for the killer, only the dangerous, warped, atheist style, situational ethics could value a killer's free choice to kill, above the victim's right not to be killed, and make murder legal.

The callous slaughter of the unborn, which in most cases, was not even put to the people democratically (it was imposed on them by a handful of secularist politicians, lawyers and bureaucrats), is accompanied by the usual atheist lies and devious propaganda.

Doctors acting illegally over abortions get off scot-free ....
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2609950/Scandal-doctors-...

So the secularists simply laugh off democracy, it doesn't stop them, if it gets in the way of their ideology, they just ignore it, like they do with science.

"Democratic societies" how do they impact on situational ethics?
We see, in practice, that democracy is treated with utter contempt .....
Why ask the people? They are apparently not qualified to consider such difficult matters of right and wrong, like whether babies should live or die? You can't give those ignorant peasants, plebs and rednecks a vote on it, ... leave it to the secularist EXPERTS and their wonderful, situational ethics based on 'reason' and 'science'.

Contrary to the scientific facts, we are told by atheist moralists that the unborn baby is not fully human, it is only a blob of jelly, which has, and deserves, NO rights.

And we are also told, anyone who supports the rights of the unborn babies not to be brutally ripped limb from limb is evil, because they are interfering with free CHOICE.

So the atheist leopard certainly hasn't changed its lying, devious, brutal and murderous spots, even in so-called 'real' democratic societies. It simply legalises and sanitises evil and murder and makes it appear good.

Then it can claim atheism is extremely ethical and virtuous, with its own, beautiful, humanist code of morals and conduct .... Yeah Right!
Remind you of anyone?
Some even have the barefaced audacity to describe their situational ethics with the slogan “Good without God”.

Always remember ....
Atheist/humanist so-called ethics and morals depend entirely on OPINION, and that is why they are so extremely dangerous.
Atheism has no moral or ethical yardstick, no concept of God-given, human rights ... only OPINION.
But WHOSE opinion?
My opinion?
Your opinion?
Maybe Richard Dawkins’ opinion?
Or Christopher Hitchens’ opinion?
Or Sam Harris's opinion?
Or how about Barrack Obama's opinion?
Or why not STALIN'S or POL POT'S opinion?
So don't be fooled by the relentless chorus from the 'new' atheists and humanists, that atheism has its own code of ethics and morals, their code of ethics is based on the OPINION of one or more of the following ... whoever (singly, or as a pressure group or lobby) is: the most vociferous, the most charismatic, the most cunning, the most influential, the most powerful, the most devious, the wealthiest, the most successful propagandist, the most persuasive, or the most brutal.
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/14797003191
_________________________________________
…civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience. Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person. —St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 95, a. 2.

EUbabel. The shocking occult symbolism of the European Union.
peuplesobservateursblog.wordpress.com/2017/09/23/togo-all...

Serfs UP ! Photo courtesy of From Sovereign to Serf author Roger Sayles (www.serfs-up.net) - Book Review

Serfs UP! Photo courtesy of From Sovereign to Serf (www.serfs-up.net)

Serfs UP! Photo courtesy of From Sovereign to Serf (www.serfs-up.net) - We prefer the Bill of Rights as our Founding Fathers gave it to us -- NOT the blacked-out, trashed version foisted upon us by Republicans and Democrats alike.

www.facebook.com/rs.serfsup/posts/158611437583016

SAY NO to SOPA ...Serfs UP!
From Sovereign to Serf - Serfs UP!

Serfs UP! Photo courtesy of From Sovereign to Serf (www.serfs-up.net) - Photo of Braveheart / Mel Gibson shouting at the TSA, "They can touch our balls, but they will never take our internet!"

Second Amendment Day 2011 was on April 23, 2011, in Naples, Florida. Over a hundred people came out to compete for great rifle and pistol prizes in 5 historic fun shoots. Kids ages 11-17 also competed for three rifle prizes after a gun safety and Second Amendment class. Check out www.onug.us for more info.

Second Amendment Day 2011 was on April 23, 2011, in Naples, Florida. Over a hundred people came out to compete for great rifle and pistol prizes in 5 historic fun shoots. Kids ages 11-17 also competed for three rifle prizes after a gun safety and Second Amendment class. Check out www.onug.us for more info.

Second Amendment Day 2011 was on April 23, 2011, in Naples, Florida. Over a hundred people came out to compete for great rifle and pistol prizes in 5 historic fun shoots. Kids ages 11-17 also competed for three rifle prizes after a gun safety and Second Amendment class. Check out www.onug.us for more info.

Second Amendment Day 2011 was on April 23, 2011, in Naples, Florida. Over a hundred people came out to compete for great rifle and pistol prizes in 5 historic fun shoots. Kids ages 11-17 also competed for three rifle prizes after a gun safety and Second Amendment class. Check out www.onug.us for more info.

Second Amendment Day 2011 was on April 23, 2011, in Naples, Florida. Over a hundred people came out to compete for great rifle and pistol prizes in 5 historic fun shoots. Kids ages 11-17 also competed for three rifle prizes after a gun safety and Second Amendment class. Check out www.onug.us for more info.

Second Amendment Day 2011 was on April 23, 2011, in Naples, Florida. Over a hundred people came out to compete for great rifle and pistol prizes in 5 historic fun shoots. Kids ages 11-17 also competed for three rifle prizes after a gun safety and Second Amendment class. Check out www.onug.us for more info.

Second Amendment Day 2011 was on April 23, 2011, in Naples, Florida. Over a hundred people came out to compete for great rifle and pistol prizes in 5 historic fun shoots. Kids ages 11-17 also competed for three rifle prizes after a gun safety and Second Amendment class. Check out www.onug.us for more info.

Second Amendment Day 2011 was on April 23, 2011, in Naples, Florida. Over a hundred people came out to compete for great rifle and pistol prizes in 5 historic fun shoots. Kids ages 11-17 also competed for three rifle prizes after a gun safety and Second Amendment class. Check out www.onug.us for more info.

Second Amendment Day 2011 was on April 23, 2011, in Naples, Florida. Over a hundred people came out to compete for great rifle and pistol prizes in 5 historic fun shoots. Kids ages 11-17 also competed for three rifle prizes after a gun safety and Second Amendment class. Check out www.onug.us for more info.