latest

(in reference to the woman who has taught her 4 year old child that she is a "wretched little girl")

A lot of atheists heaping condemnation on Jean, but nary a one giving a reason for their judgement! What she has done (we are told) is an evil, disgusting, downright evil, evil evil, disturbing, despicable, morally bankrupt, chilliing, selfish, irresponsible, abysmal, vile and wretched thing by an evil woman seeking to obey an evil god. But no one has told us how these charges can be determined, or, exactly how and why they are bad.

She's committed child abuse, but no one has given us a moral foundation for why child abuse is wrong. Who determines that it is? She's told that she should follow scriptural mandates and just murder her child, but with only a presumption that murdering a child would somehow be wrong. Who determines that murder is wrong? Who determines that Jean's god is evil? What exactly is the standard by which he is to be judged?

The hypocrisy of atheism in making these determinations is that it cannot be made without appealing to Jean's God. But because they cannot accept the reality of Jean's God, the only option left is for atheists to appoint themselves god and therefore the judge of everyone else. That's why Froggie assumes that he can call Jean to the dock and demand from her an answer. Froggie assumes that he is not required to answer Jean's God, but insists that she must answer his.

In the end, these atheists know their hypocrisy, which is why they travel together across the internet in a pack of cowards until they find a loving mother sharing a moment of tenderness with her child and cowardly atack her. When their cowardice is exposed, they can only express hope for their shining warrior and strongest expression of their folly, the intrusive and oppressive state, to intercede for them and save us poor, deluded, evil Christians from our sinful selves.

"I don't believe in God because there is so much evil in the world." Many atheists consider the problem of evil an airtight proof that God does not exist. They often say something like: "I know there is no God because if He existed, He never would have let Hitler murder six million Jews."

A good approach to an argument like this is to say something to this effect: "Since you brought up this issue, the burden lies on you to prove that evil actually exists in the world. So let me ask you: by what criteria do you judge some things to be evil and other things not to be evil? By what process do you distinguish evil from good?" The atheist may hedge and say: "I just know that some things are evil. It's obvious." Don't accept such an evasive answer. Insist that he tell you how he knows that some things are evil. He must be forced to face the illogical foundation of his belief system.

After he struggles with this a few moments, point out to him that it is impossible to distinguish evil from good unless one has an infinite reference point which is absolutely good. Otherwise one is like a boat at sea on a cloudy night without a compass (i.e., there would be no way to distinguish north from south without the absolute reference point of the compass needle).

The infinite reference point for distinguishing good from evil can only be found in the person of God, for God alone can exhaust the definition of "absolutely good." If God does not exist, then there are no moral absolutes by which one has the right to judge something (or someone) as being evil. More specifically, if God does not exist, there is no ultimate basis to judge the crimes of Hitler. Seen in this light, the reality of evil actually requires the existence of God, rather than disproving it.