Eric Metaxas believes that culture is at a “paradigm-shifting moment,” with science and archeology increasingly pointing to the existence of God — and those opposed to Christianity aren’t “going to like it."

“We've all lived at a time when not only is the trend that science is pointing us away from God, but we've been living for over 100 years with the narrative that says, science is fundamentally at odds with faith, that reason is at odds with religion,” the Christian author, speaker and conservative radio host told The Christian Post. 

“The one thing everybody kept saying — science is leading us away from religion. Ironically, in the last 50 years, precisely the opposite has happened. Science is leading us to God. It's big news."

In his latest book, Is Atheism Dead? Metaxas uncovers new evidence and arguments against the idea of a Creatorless universe. He draws on the insights of top scientists and five scientific discoveries to prove that atheism is untenable.

“I am genuinely more excited about this book and about getting the information in this book out to people than I have ever been about any book I have written,” the New York native told CP.

One archeological discovery Metaxas said particularly intrigued him was the reported discovery of the biblical Sodom . Some scientists have speculated that a city known as Tall El-Hammam was destroyed by a meteor and could actually be the site of Sodom, the ancient biblical city destroyed for its wickedness. 

“Most believers, and definitely most non-believers, don't know this information, and it's because we live in a media echo chamber that tends to filter out this kind of information. By the grace of God, I've been able to stumble on this stuff," he said. 

Metaxas explained that the title of his latest book is based on the 1966 Time magazine article that provocatively asked “Is God Dead?” 

“Maybe the logical question in 1966 was, ‘Is God dead?’ But the logical question, now that science itself is pointing to the existence of God, which sounds crazy but it's true, and nobody knows it — maybe now's the time to write a book with the title, Is Atheism Dead ?”

Based on his research, Metaxas stressed that science, archaeology, and history don’t just support Christianity — they also undermine atheism. 

“This idea that data and science are at odds — the biggest news is that not only is that not true, there are two things that follow,” Metaxas explained. “The second is, according to John Lennox ... it is actually atheism that is incompatible with science, which is a dramatic statement. The third thing, which nobody seems to know, but it's true, is that Christian faith led to modern science … this is a historical fact; this is not some Christian gloss on history.” 

“Science lately ... is discovering things about our universe, about the Earth, about human life, about cellular life that looks so fine-tuned, so perfectly calibrated … that even atheists are being shaken. That's the one thing that they don't know quite how to handle it,” he added.

The more advanced science gets, the more it points to the idea that there had to be a Creator who created the universe, Metaxas said, citing, for example, the complexity of water and plate tectonics. 

“Every believer needs to understand how freakish it is. I mean, for you to study science, the more you look, the more you just think, ‘I almost can't bear this.’ The evidence of God is just … everywhere I look, including things like water and erosion,” he said. “It makes you realize God is even more amazing than any of us could ever dream.”

Metaxas expressed concern that some Christians today “buy into a secular narrative” that says it’s possible to believe in Jesus and the Bible until Scripture seems to contradict science. 

“That's not the kind of belief God is interested in,” he stressed. “He doesn't tell you to believe in something that is not true to the bottom. He is truth … either Jesus rose from the dead bodily or He didn't. Either what the Bible says is true or it isn't. Either the Lord created the universe and every detail in it or [He] didn't. "

He added: "This idea that we would sort of put ... our faith as Christians kind of in a corner, we're participating in the marginalization of our faith. Our faith is supposed to touch everything: science, math, history. We need to be much bolder in saying, ‘If this is true, it is true everywhere.”

The Bonhoeffer ,   Amazing Grace and Martin Luther author acknowledged that though science and archeology increasingly prove the existence of God, there will always be naysayers who refuse to acknowledge such truth.

“I think in these last days, as things unravel around the world, God is shining His light brighter and brighter; He's allowing us to discover things via science and via archaeology … it simply gets harder and harder to deny Him,” Metaxas said. “God will just keep pushing out this evidence .. but at the end of the day, it's got to be the Holy Spirit.”

Though Is Atheism Dead was written for anyone eager to learn "with an open mind," it was primarily written for the Church, Metaxas said — a Church he believes desperately needs to “wake up.”

“In my Bonhoeffer book I deal with this — the Church was slow to wake up,” he contended. “And that is a model of what not to do. If we do not wake up and fight — and a lot of Christians have bad theology that says, ‘Oh, I don't think I'm supposed to fight' — not only is that not biblical, that's demonic. God pulled us to fight evil. He calls us to fight on our knees in prayer, but He also calls us to fight in all kinds of other ways.”

“Part of the reason I wrote this book also is to say to people, ‘Hey, this is not a philosophy. Our faith is not a truth — this is truth. And God is giving this to us so that we can be emboldened.'" 

Metaxas said he believes God is “going to turn things around — but His Church “has to fight” and be “armed with information.”…

read more: christianpost

The so called consensus of science will have to decide to accept the truth or to continue in their naysaying.  

What truth are you talking about? Show us some of those newly revealed "facts" that prove the existence of a creator. Many of us here were indoctrinated in Sunday School and church early in life and are not convinced such  a divine supernatural entity exists.

Real science has done a very good job of interpreting the scientific evidence that pretty well explains how the universe came about, and the origins of life on plant Earth.

He’s saying this: 

…

culture is at a “paradigm-shifting moment,” with science and archeology increasingly pointing to the existence of God — and those opposed to Christianity aren’t “going to like it."

“We've all lived at a time when not only is the trend that science is pointing us away from God, but we've been living for over 100 years with the narrative that says, science is fundamentally at odds with faith, that reason is at odds with religion,” the Christian author, speaker and conservative radio host told The Christian Post…

“The one thing everybody kept saying — science is leading us away from religion. Ironically, in the last 50 years, precisely the opposite has happened. Science is leading us to God. It's big news."

“He doesn't tell you to believe in something that is not true to the bottom. He is truth … either Jesus rose from the dead bodily or He didn't. Either what the Bible says is true or it isn't. Either the Lord created the universe and every detail in it or [He] didn't. "

He added: "This idea that we would sort of put ... our faith as Christians kind of in a corner, we're participating in the marginalization of our faith. Our faith is supposed to touch everything: science, math, history. We need to be much bolder in saying, ‘If this is true, it is true everywhere.”…

… “On the science thing ... I'm thinking, tell me where I'm missing something here? I know I'm not, because I got all this information from scientists. So people are gaslighting us, that Christians have their weird views. It is nonsense. We have to be bold, we have to know what we believe, and we have to act. And, if you don't do it for yourself, do it for your kids and your grandkids.”

thenewstalkers

If atheism is incompatible with science then where is the objective evidence or proof of a creator deity that does not rely on faith or belief to support? Where is the testable evidence for your god or any other god?

 The bible is an unsupported claim and not a proof, no matter how much you claim to believe that it is true. 

 The default stance on any religion is that there is no god/supernatural creator deity until there is some sort of positive objective evidence for any creator deity that can be tested.  You idea that gods exist until you can prove otherwise is 180° out of sync with the basic concepts of scientific thought.

 The idea that god must be true because billions of people believe in it is a form of popularity fallacy.  Its also an example of groupthink.

If atheism is incompatible with science

I can show where theism might be "incompatible" with science. 

Atheism is dead. It was a faith system and now it’s being shattered.  It is atheism that is not compatible with science.

Not sure a claim can be more stupidly wrong.

(from seeded article) ... it is actually atheism that is incompatible with science ...

Okay, what is the supporting argument?   Your seed just makes a claim with no support.   Explain why atheism (the condition of not being convinced a god exists) is incompatible with science.

It comes across as simply an assertion made by someone who understands neither atheism nor science.

I wonder why that would be?

He understands the limitations of the latter field of study and the sheer and utter stupidity of the latter belief system 

Another stupid claim without a shred of supporting facts or logic.  

There is no supporting facts or logic behind the religion of atheism or the faith that no God exists.  

Prove there's a god then!

All you seem to do in this seed is make claims.   Clearly you have no clue what you are talking about as evidenced by the fact that a) your claims are utterly stupid and b) you cannot provide a shred of support for your claims.

Clearly you have no clue what you are talking about as evidenced by the fact that a) your claims are utterly stupid and b) you cannot provide a shred of support for your claims.

and c) he can only offer cut and paste of what others say and not provide a shred of independent thought or analysis. And d) all of the above!

I guess you will have to read his book and find out for yourself.  

In short, you have no clue how to back up your stupid claim or the stupid claim of your seed.

See 1.1.2. And neither my seed nor myself nor what we advocate for are stupid. Such a belittling condescending arrogance to make such a claim

That is nothing but unsubstantiated claims (stupid ones at that) and proselytizing.   

Do you understand what it means to provide supporting facts and logic?

And neither my seed nor myself nor what we advocate for are stupid.

And yet, stupid is exactly what it is! 

Such a belittling condescending arrogance to make such a claim

And yet, you still haven't supported your own or the seeds claims.

And neither my seed nor myself nor what we advocate for are stupid.

Then back it up.   Claims and proselytizing is not an argument.   Show us all some thoughtful insight, facts and sound reasoning.

You really should stop proselytizing on behalf of atheism.  

You really should stop proselytizing on behalf of atheism.

Where specifically is he proselytizing atheism? It seems that is just another empty claim of yours since you have no valid rebuttal to offer.

Show me where I have proselytized atheism (as if that concept even makes sense).   Defining the term 'atheism' for you is not proselytizing;  it is addressing your failure to comprehend a very simple concept.

Show me where I have proselytized atheism (as if that concept even makes sense).  

He can't, because you didn't. Implying you're "proselytizing" atheism is just a lie.

Here are the 10 'proofs' in this video.   (These are presented as 'proof' that God exists.)   These are direct quotes from the transcript:

1. similar geometrical patterns seen everywhere in the nature indicate a single creator the god
2. unbelievable complexity of the dna code and the cell
3. We see intelligent design of the creator in everything in the universe whether it is living or non-living thing
4. similar designs found at the microscopic level of atoms and the planetary system is an indication of god's signature everywhere
5. everything that exists must have a cause therefore universe had a cause which was caused by an uncaused identity known as the god
6. dedicated balance connection and interdependency that we see in the whole universe is again an indication of one supreme power
7. fine-tuned universe and extremely precise nature's physical constants point to a super intelligent creator
8. the whole universe acts as a very big machine subdivided into infinite number of smaller machines, which proves that there must be a single mind behind it
9. non-physical aspects to human consciousness lead to indirect evidence of god
10. there must be a supreme power or supreme intelligence that controls and guides all the objects to their final purpose.

Not one of these is proof of a sentient creator.   They all basically deem complexity and patterns in nature to be ONLY the result of a sentient entity.   As if complexity and patterns could not possibly manifest by the natural interaction of energy.   The other 'proof' is the 'fine-tuning' argument which fails because it views our universe as the result of intent;   if one of the 'fine-tunings' were different, the universe might be entirely different and if it contained life, that life might also make the fine-tuning argument.   Then we have non-physical aspects of human consciousness which is nothing more than god of the gaps:   we cannot explain consciousness yet so, therefore, proof of God.   The final one is that God must exist because there must be one supreme intelligence.  A conclusion based on an unsubstantiated premise.

In short, your YouTube video is contrived bullshit.

How does one proselytize 'lack of belief in a god'?  

atheism is more than an absence of belief.  It is the outright denial of what others believe.  It takes    a truly blind faith and hyper emotional volatility to assert that no god exists but even if one did, the Christian God of the New Testament and still applicable parts of the Old is the only one who couldn’t possibly be real.  

atheism is more than an absence of belief.  It is the outright denial of what others believe.

You clearly have no concept of atheism.

It takes  a truly blind faith and hyper emotional volatility to assert that no god exists

Okay, show me where I have ever asserted that no god exists.   You cannot.   One could, however, quote me countless times noting that it is possible that a sentient creator might exist but that there is simply no evidence of same.

Again, you clearly do not know what you are talking about here.

You are doing what I have observed religious interlocutors do for years.   Instead of honestly dealing with the question (in this case, the definition of atheism), you create a strawman that works for you (in this case, your strawman is to redefine atheism to be the assertion that no god exists).   In other words, you redefine atheism to mean 'gnostic atheism' (denial that a god exists) when the super-majority of atheists are agnostic atheists (not persuaded a god exists).

Since this has been explained to you in detail countless times, you get no benefit of the doubt for an innocent mistake.

God is not Dead

Yet again, you redefine atheism.   That accomplishes nothing.   See, XX, agnostic atheists reject the claim of 'no god exists' as irrational.   There is no way, currently, to prove that there is no sentient creator thus a certain claim (a claim of truth) that none exists is irrational.   The best one can claim is that the lack of evidence suggests that the god hypothesis may be off track.

Note that the gnostic atheist claim of 'no god exists' is just as irrational as your claim that your God exists.   Neither can be demonstrated with evidence, much less proof, thus both are unsubstantiated.   For you to state your claim with certainty (as absolute truth) is thus irrational.

 I'm not going to read his book because I don't enjoy reading fiction.  If you claim that there is objective evidence for any creator deity then where has it been hiding for the previous 2000 years?

Put up or shut up.

 I'm not going to read his book because

a closed minded attitude and position to take on any given issue.  

Well, apparently Xx knows and claims you're doing it. Oddly enough, but hardly surprising, he doesn't explain how that is the case.

Without Willy Wanka, So you think because you believe in God he does exist, but all it really means that you believe in God and your opinion is not a fact.  

This book is not new evidence of any deity existing. It's religious apologetics.  The fact that you are emotionally driven to believe it doesn't make it objectively true.

It's religious apologetics.

Aka: scientifically incompatible.

Arguments why God (very probably) exists

The question of whether a god exists is heating up in the 21st century. According to a Pew survey , the percent of Americans having no religious affiliation reached 23 percent in 2014. Among such “nones,” 33 percent said that they do not believe in God – an 11 percent increase since only 2007.

Such trends have ironically been taking place even as, I would argue, the probability for the existence of a supernatural god have been rising. In my 2015 book, “God? Very Probably: Five Rational Ways to Think about the Question of a God,” I look at physics, the philosophy of human consciousness, evolutionary biology, mathematics, the history of religion and theology to explore whether such a god exists. I should say that I am trained originally as an economist, but have been working at the intersection of economics, environmentalism and theology since the 1990s.

Laws of math

In 1960 the Princeton physicist – and subsequent Nobel Prize winner – Eugene Wigner raised a fundamental question : Why did the natural world always – so far as we know – obey laws of mathematics?

We believe good journalism is good for democracy and necessary for it. Learn more

As argued by scholars such as Philip Davis and Reuben Hersh , mathematics exists independent of physical reality. It is the job of mathematicians to discover the realities of this separate world of mathematical laws and concepts. Physicists then put the mathematics to use according to the rules of prediction and confirmed observation of the scientific method.

But modern mathematics generally is formulated before any natural observations are made, and many mathematical laws today have no known existing physical analogues.

https://images.theconversation.com/files/168655/original/file-20170509-11023-1xtngmq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, images.theconversation 1800w, images.theconversation 754w, images.theconversation 1508w, images.theconversation 2262w" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168655/original/file-20170509-11023-1xtngmq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" >

Einstein Memorial, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. Wally Gobetz , CC BY-ND

Einstein’s 1915 general theory of relativity, for example, was based on theoretical mathematics developed 50 years earlier by the great German mathematician Bernhard Riemann that did not have any known practical applications at the time of its intellectual creation.

In some cases the physicist also discovers the mathematics. Isaac Newton was considered among the greatest mathematicians as well as physicists of the 17th century. Other physicists sought his help in finding a mathematics that would predict the workings of the solar system . He found it in the mathematical law of gravity, based in part on his discovery of calculus.

At the time, however, many people initially resisted Newton’s conclusions because they seemed to be “occult.” How could two distant objects in the solar system be drawn toward one another, acting according to a precise mathematical law? Indeed, Newton made strenuous efforts over his lifetime to find a natural explanation, but in the end he could say only that it is the will of God .

Despite the many other enormous advances of modern physics, little has changed in this regard. As Wigner wrote , “the enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences is something bordering on the mysterious and there is no rational explanation for it.”

In other words, as I argue in my book, it takes the existence of some kind of a god to make the mathematical underpinnings of the universe comprehensible.

Math and other worlds

In 2004 the great British physicist Roger Penrose put forward a vision of a universe composed of three independently existing worlds – mathematics, the material world and human consciousness. As Penrose acknowledged, it was a complete puzzle to him how the three interacted with one another outside the ability of any scientific or other conventionally rational model.

How can physical atoms and molecules, for example, create something that exists in a separate domain that has no physical existence: human consciousness?

It is a mystery that lies beyond science.

https://images.theconversation.com/files/168656/original/file-20170509-7918-1llyulm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, images.theconversation 1800w, images.theconversation 754w, images.theconversation 1508w, images.theconversation 2262w" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168656/original/file-20170509-7918-1llyulm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" >

Plato. Elizabethe , CC BY-NC-ND

This mystery is the same one that existed in the Greek worldview of Plato, who believed that abstract ideas (above all mathematical) first existed outside any physical reality. The material world that we experience as part of our human existence is an imperfect reflection of these prior formal ideals. As the scholar of ancient Greek philosophy, Ian Mueller , writes in “Mathematics And The Divine,” the realm of such ideals is that of God.

Indeed, in 2014 the MIT physicist Max Tegmark argues in “Our Mathematical Universe” that mathematics is the fundamental world reality that drives the universe. As I would say, mathematics is operating in a god-like fashion.

The mystery of human consciousness

The workings of human consciousness are similarly miraculous. Like the laws of mathematics, consciousness has no physical presence in the world; the images and thoughts in our consciousness have no measurable dimensions.

Yet, our nonphysical thoughts somehow mysteriously guide the actions of our physical human bodies. This is no more scientifically explicable than the mysterious ability of nonphysical mathematical constructions to determine the workings of a separate physical world.

Until recently, the scientifically unfathomable quality of human consciousness inhibited the very scholarly discussion of the subject. Since the 1970s, however, it has become a leading area of inquiry among philosophers .

Recognizing that he could not reconcile his own scientific materialism with the existence of a nonphysical world of human consciousness, a leading atheist, Daniel Dennett , in 1991 took the radical step of denying that consciousness even exists .

Finding this altogether implausible, as most people do, another leading philosopher, Thomas Nagel , wrote in 2012 that, given the scientifically inexplicable – the “intractable” – character of human consciousness, “we will have to leave [scientific] materialism behind” as a complete basis for understanding the world of human existence.

As an atheist, Nagel does not offer religious belief as an alternative, but I would argue that the supernatural character of the workings of human consciousness adds grounds for raising the probability of the existence of a supernatural god.

Evolution and faith

Evolution is a contentious subject in American public life. According to Pew, 98 percent of scientists connected to the American Association for the Advancement of Science “believe humans evolved over time” while only a minority of Americans “fully accept evolution through natural selection.”

As I say in my book, I should emphasize that I am not questioning the reality of natural biological evolution. What is interesting to me, however, are the fierce arguments that have taken place between professional evolutionary biologists. A number of developments in evolutionary theory have challenged traditional Darwinist – and later neo-Darwinist – views that emphasize random genetic mutations and gradual evolutionary selection by the process of survival of the fittest.

From the 1970s onwards, the Harvard evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould created controversy by positing a different view, “punctuated equilibrium,” to the slow and gradual evolution of species as theorized by Darwin.

In 2011, the University of Chicago evolutionary biologist James Shapiro argued that, remarkably enough, many micro-evolutionary processes worked as though guided by a purposeful “sentience” of the evolving plant and animal organisms themselves. “The capacity of living organisms to alter their own heredity is undeniable,” he wrote . “Our current ideas about evolution have to incorporate this basic fact of life.”

A number of scientists, such as Francis Collins , director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, “see no conflict between believing in God and accepting the contemporary theory of evolution,” as the American Association for the Advancement of Science points out.

For my part, the most recent developments in evolutionary biology have increased the probability of a god.

Miraculous ideas at the same time?

For the past 10,000 years at a minimum, the most important changes in human existence have been driven by cultural developments occurring in the realm of human ideas.

In the Axial Age (commonly dated from 800 to 200 B.C.), world-transforming ideas such as Buddhism, Confucianism, the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle, and the Hebrew Old Testament almost miraculously appeared at about the same time in India, China, ancient Greece and among the Jews in the Middle East, groups having little interaction with one another.

https://images.theconversation.com/files/168658/original/file-20170509-7904-18g5e6p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, images.theconversation 1800w, images.theconversation 754w, images.theconversation 1508w, images.theconversation 2262w" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168658/original/file-20170509-7904-18g5e6p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" >

Many world-transforming ideas, such as Buddhism, appeared in the world around the same time. Karyn Christner , CC BY

The development of the scientific method in the 17th century in Europe and its modern further advances have had at least as great a set of world-transforming consequences . There have been many historical theories , but none capable, I would argue, of explaining as fundamentally transformational a set of events as the rise of the modern world. It was a revolution in human thought, operating outside any explanations grounded in scientific materialism, that drove the process.

That all these astonishing things happened within the conscious workings of human minds, functioning outside physical reality, offers further rational evidence, in my view, for the conclusion that human beings may well be made “in the image of [a] God.”

Different forms of worship

In his commencement address to Kenyon College in 2005, the American novelist and essayist David Foster Wallace said that: “Everybody worships . The only choice we get is what to worship.”

Even though Karl Marx, for example, condemned the illusion of religion, his followers, ironically, worshiped Marxism . The American philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre thus wrote that for much of the 20th century, Marxism was the “historical successor of Christianity,” claiming to show the faithful the one correct path to a new heaven on Earth.

In several of my books , I have explored how Marxism and other such “economic religions” were characteristic of much of the modern age. So Christianity, I would argue, did not disappear as much as it reappeared in many such disguised forms of “secular religion.”

That the Christian essence, as arose out of Judaism, showed such great staying power amidst the extraordinary political, economic, intellectual and other radical changes of the modern age is another reason I offer for thinking that the existence of a god is very probable .

• Mathematics
• Evolution
• Physics
• Solar system
• Christianity
• Charles Darwin
• God
• Karl Marx
• Calculus
• Isaac Newton
• Theory of relativity
• Human consciousness

theconversation

Make an argument yourself.    Pasting in items that make some people think that a god is likely is pointless.   None of the above provides a shred of evidence for the existence of a sentient creator.

For example, the first one presents mathematics as if it is the rule set for reality.   Mathematics is a human invention.   It is a formal system that we have evolved for thousands of years to model concepts.   It is not a rule book for reality.   Physics, if anything, would be such a rule book, but physics is also nothing more than the rules we have observed of nature.   Physics (as we understand it) is our best approximation of reality and we know we have more to discover.

Make an argument yourself.  

Why bother? [Deleted]

If you cannot defend your claims, you should not make them.

My point has already been made above.  Nothing more need be said by me here.  

[Deleted]

Because you  are making and/or supporting the claims. Clearly you can't back any of it up nor make any logical argument, much refute anything. Instead, you end up looking foolish. 

My point has already been made above.

You have made nothing but stupid claims and have failed (yet again) to provide a supporting argument.

The only thing that’s stupid here is your use of the  term.  

I can defend them.  It’s simply not worth my time to express it in my words… So, others words saying something like mine will have to do.  Deal with it.  

I can defend them.  It’s simply not worth my time to express it in my words…

Do you think that elementary school level bluff is going to fool anyone?   You post here like crazy and write all sorts of crap but now, when you are challenged to defend your stupid claims, it is not worth your time.

Total BS. If you could defend them, you would have rather than waste time avoiding defending them. Obviously you can't defend them in the slightest and continue to dodge. You're fooling no one with such dishonest tactics.

You've made no point and really have nothing of value to say. 

Do I need to explain correlation does not prove causation?

The development of the scientific method in the 17th century in Europe and its modern further advances have had at least as great a set of world-transforming consequences . There have been many historical theories , but none capable, I would argue, of explaining as fundamentally transformational a set of events as the rise of the modern world. It was a revolution in human thought, operating outside any explanations grounded in scientific materialism, that drove the process.

That all these astonishing things happened within the conscious workings of human minds, functioning outside physical reality, offers further rational evidence, in my view, for the conclusion that human beings may well be made “in the image of [a] God.”

Different Forms Of Worship

In his commencement address to Kenyon College in 2005, the American novelist and essayist David Foster Wallace said that: “Everybody worships . The only choice we get is what to worship.”

Even though Karl Marx, for example, condemned the illusion of religion, his followers, ironically, worshiped Marxism . The American philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre thus wrote that for much of the 20th century, Marxism was the “historical successor of Christianity,” claiming to show the faithful the one correct path to a new heaven on Earth.

In several of my books , I have explored how Marxism and other such “economic religions” were characteristic of much of the modern age. So Christianity, I would argue, did not disappear as much as it reappeared in many such disguised forms of “secular religion.”

That the Christian essence, as arose out of Judaism, showed such great staying power amidst the extraordinary political, economic, intellectual and other radical changes of the modern age is another reason I offer for thinking that the existence of a god is very probable .

theconversation

jstor

I have not read so much stupid in one place in a very long time. Nobody worships science. Rational people reject any form of religious worship because our brains do not work that way. Science is a rational tool to discern objective knowledge. It is not something to be worshiped.

I have heard this asinine whine from religious conservatives so many times that I am now collecting old science books and discarded scientific instruments to create a science shrine as a satirical sculpture. I will post pictures when it is finished.

Maybe you should post the science shrine next to the statue of Baphomet?

I'll remember to make it mobile for those Christmas events on taxpayer property.

Maybe you can include the Flying Spaghetti Monster too.

It already has a place in the shrine.  I have half a dozen books I've picked up from used book stores. I have test tubes and beakers. I need a lab coat and maybe a used microscope.

Drape Baphomet with the lab coat and holding the microscope while the FSM has a noodly appendage over Baph's shoulder, the stack of books either on his lap or in a bookshelf placed next to him. Arrange Xmas lights to spell out 'science' too. Now that's a festive holiday.

It was scientists who wrote the article for The Conversation.  Wise ones as it turns out.  

The true object of worship for secular progressives…

It’s gone! I ate it for dinner last weekend.  

If we are secular then we arent worshipping the devil, Brainy Smurf? Did you ever consider that possibility before you light your fake chest on fire in your war on both fact and reality?

The devil isn’t a God and every single human that has ever lived, is living now, and ever will live who isn’t right with God in whatever light He’s shown them is automatically siding with the devil.  

The devil isn’t a God

So? Must one be a god to be worshipped? Or is anyone free to worship whatever or whomever they like?

and every single human that has ever lived, is living now, and ever will live who isn’t right with God in whatever light He’s shown them is automatically siding with the devil.  

That's nice. Prove it!

That claim is religious apologetic nosense.  You cannot even offer objective evidence that any creator deity has ever existed.  There is also no devil.

If a great all knowing and all powerful god is out there and knows how people, that he created think and act; then the God should know many of the people created are not perfect and need some evidence to be convinced, like back in the old days.   Old stories, preachers and the Holy Ghost are not getting his message accepted.

Why is God hiding?  According to the Bible God was not always shy.  God needs to give followers some help by showing God is real and still around

People will believe by faith and be saved or the won’t and won’t.  There’s nothing else to say. No signs and wonders that one might believe  or invent other rationale not to.  Jesus raised a man from the dead and was on a cross less than two weeks later as the leaders attributed it to Satan rather than admit He is the Son of God

People will believe by faith and be saved or the won’t and won’t.  There’s nothing else to say. No signs and wonders that one might believe  or invent other rationale not to.

That's just emotionally driven belief. Nothing scientific about it. It's incompatible with actual science.

Jesus raised a man from the dead and was on a cross less than two weeks later as the leaders attributed it to Satan rather than admit He is the Son of God

See previous statement.

There is no actual science in secular progressive atheism. 

It's obvious you know nothing about either!

I’m not sure that your secular friends who are progressives would appreciate a theocracy in the present day…

I consider myself secular (non-believer) and I don't agree with a lot of "progressive" stuff  and I would not like a theocracy

I have friends on both sides of this topic and will debate it 

If they want, People can have and enjoy religion, just leave me out, don't make religion public policy or law, don't tax me and spend it on religion and keep religion out of Government and don't use it as an excuse to get out of stuff the rest of us have to do.

The point of this is that religious freedom is a core human right and I can’t think of one nation on earth that deprives it’s citizens of that and yet respects all or many other human rights.  

Jesus fecking christus on a pogo stick. Why would any rational person want to live in an abusive theocracy?  Are you jealous of ISIL?

 Your religious rights  do not permit  you to tell others how they may live. They have equal religious and secular rights that you do especially when they have 180° different religious beliefs than you do, Sparky.

 Keep your religious beliefs to yourself and they will do the same. Every time I read your idiotic posts I swear that you were taken to the fountain of knowledge but you gargled and then spit. 

Your secular progressive rights  do not permit  you to tell us how we must live. We have equal religious and secular rights that you do especially when we have 180° different religious beliefs than you do.  Thus secular people can’t compel believers to act or express ourselves in violation of our religious beliefs and free exercise rights. 

 Keep your anti religion beliefs to yourself.  We who are religious believers can not and will not ever be silent about our belief. 

 You can live however you want to live. We didn't care if you set yourselves on fire for your religion but keep it to yourself.

images-cdn.9gag

[deleted]

[Deleted]