TPW 43 If God Exists Why Are There Atheists?

This is the condemnation, that light has come into the world, but men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds.

Should be exposed.".

The Protestant Witness and the Plan for Reposting Older Episodes

Welcome to the Protestant Witness, this is Pastor Patrick Hines here at Bridwell Heights Presbyterian Church in Kingsport, Tennessee. And one of the things I'd also like to do in addition to the Genesis series, and just also I wanted to post the rest of the SOLAS conference talks, because those were popular and seemed to help folks, I'm also going to post some old episodes of, way back when I was doing Torday Biblical and Christian Worldview, and Tim Shaughnessy told me that that title's too long, and he's probably right, it was too long.

So we changed it to the Protestant Witness, and I really like that title. But I was looking back at the archives, and I deleted the channel because there was a lot of duplicate material on the YouTube channel, and also on our church's sermon audio page.

I used to upload all those videos that were uploaded to the YouTube channel also to my church's sermon audio page. And so I wanted to pull some of those old video, really just the audio files from the videos, because you don't actually even need the video file, and make them episodes of the Protestant Witness.

Because some of those I think are pretty helpful, I did a lot on Eastern Orthodoxy back then, even though I don't know a whole lot about Eastern Orthodoxy, because I have found it to be a very fluid theological system that is very hard to pin down.

I've had Eastern Orthodox converts point me to flaming liberals, as if they're the end all be all, and then there's others that are more conservative. So what is Eastern Orthodoxy, and what does it really teach about salvation, and heaven and hell, and how we're made right with God, is anyone's best guess.

But there were a number of videos I did, and a number of things I did in response to Atheism. There was a guy whose name is Peter Thurston, he's a British fellow, and he took one of my videos and responded to it.

And I listened to and responded to 7 or 8 minutes of his video. His video was like 48 minutes long, and it was so bad that I just kind of quit after a few minutes, and then I did a couple follow-up things with it.

But he responded to both, to my initial video on Richard Dawkins and child abuse, and then also he responded to my response, like a 50-some-odd minute video, and he eventually took both of those down.

They're not on his YouTube channel anymore. His YouTube channel is called Essence of Thought, or something like that. But I watched one other video on Peter Thurston's channel, and it was called What is a Humanist?

It was literally like, I thought maybe there would be something in that that would be worth maybe responding to, but it was kind of like trying to nail a cube of undercooked Jell-O to the wall. There was just not enough substance there to actually get your teeth into anything, so I just kind of moved on from that.

But I was contacted by and dialogued, did email exchanges with a whole bunch of Peter Thurston's subscribers after he responded to me, and then eventually he took those videos.

Down.

But a lot of them were asking me pretty thoughtful questions, some of them, but a lot of them were just wanting to curse and swear and throw all sorts of profanity at me. And one common theme I noticed among these atheists is they love to mock hell, and just their vitriol against all things religious bespeaks people who have a vested interest in God not existing.

You would think that if God really didn't exist, well first of all, nothing else would exist, there would be no universe or cosmos, and discourse wouldn't even be possible because nothing would exist, but why do they give such, not just so much of their time, but so much just utter hatred and contempt towards the idea of God and the idea of judgment and hell and everything else?

Well, that's a topic that I've done a lot of studying and reading on over the years and have tried to understand, especially from the standpoint of being a Christian and understanding God's revelation.

But I did this video somewhat in response to interacting with a bunch of Thurston's rather acerbic subscribers that had contacted me, and just tried to answer the question, why are there atheists if God really does exist?

And so I hope that you will find this to be helpful. Why are there atheists if there is a God? I wanted to discuss real quick here just my own exposure to evolution and those ideas. I had an individual contact me on my church's Facebook page, I actually don't normally check that, and he made the statement, you're a liar, because we've proven evolution in bacteria.

And I've heard this before, and I just think it's really remarkable to me, the equivocation, it is a logical fallacy, the equivocation of bacteria becoming bacteria with different characteristics. And we're told that that's evolution.

Well, the word evolution does not mean change in the way that it's used to describe that perspective as a theory of origins of species. Again, people need to go back and just re-read Darwin, I've got the original, The Origin of Species, and The Descent of Man, and everything else.

Charles Darwin did not write a book about how species change, he wrote a book on the origin of species. Why there are so many different kinds of animals. Okay, so finch beaks changing their size is not evolution.

Bacteria becoming bacteria is not evolution. What you need to show to give any semblance of credibility to the idea of evolution is the formation of new kinds of animals. And that's what the theory really just doesn't show.

And Darwin himself recognized that, everyone that's into these debates has heard the quotations from Darwin. He believed, very strongly, that as the hard sciences had time to develop, that it would really bear out his ideas.

And as has been pointed out by many, what he was saying about the origin of species was nothing new. The only thing that he gave to it was a mechanism, natural selection. So let's talk real briefly here about the issue of the hard sciences that have developed from the time of Darwin.

There are a lot of former evolutionists who are now creationists. And I want to give a shout out to and promote this book right here, Evolution's Achilles.

Heels.

There's a DVD that went with it too. I've distributed lots of those. People have found them to be very helpful. Basically it goes through eight categories of science and inquiry, and kind of talks about the history of those sciences since the time of Darwin.

Natural Selection, Genetics, and Cumulative Degeneration

Natural selection is the first one. Is natural selection, does that give us a mechanism through which new information is added to genomes? The simple answer is no. What the science of genetics shows us is that what it really looks like is at one point you had intact, very good pools of information in the genome of the various kinds of animals.

And over time, those animals have speciated into various species, not by acquiring new characteristics or new information, but by losing information, by becoming more and more broken. It's called cumulative degeneration.

Over time, the piling on of mutations is what brings us to where we are now. In the final analysis, genetics really has not helped the issue of Darwinism because mutations are supposed to be the thing that gives rise to new traits, new information.

The problem is point mutations don't give new information to genomes. They just don't. And so what you see is over time, things are resting out like a car. They're degrading more and more. We are not evolving.

We are getting worse and worse. All the mutations that were passed on to me by my parents and grandparents and great-grandparents and so on, are piled on to me and will be passed on to my progeny as well.

And so genetics really, really is a problem. The blindness of those who still hold on to this theory of evolution, which I really think is going to be gone in about 50 years, I think it will be over, and it will be a completely discredited idea.

There will always be holdouts, though, because they don't want God to exist, and they'll believe anything. They'll believe that aliens from outer space put us here, like Richard Dawkins has suggested, directed panspermia.

Any creators but God. Any creators but God. As long as it's ET, hey, we're cool with it. I find it very inconsistent that evolutionists and atheists can look at the information that is coded into deoxyribonucleic acid molecules, DNA molecules, that are read by enzymes that are specifically designed to read that language.

It's not just blips and little squiggles. It is a language with characters in the DNA molecules, in the chromosomes of cells. There is so much information in them that it can fill Encyclopedia's worth of information.

And they'll say, yeah, that happened by accident, that there's no intelligent source behind that whatsoever. Although, you know, Richard Dawkins has said, hey, there could have been another intelligent source that's brought information.

Now, why would Richard Dawkins be willing to say something like that? Well, because it is a demonstrable fact that information like that has to come from an intelligence. No one is going to look at Mount Rushmore, at the phases on Mount Rushmore, Lincoln, Jefferson, Roosevelt, and Washington, and think, man, imagine the odds that rain and wind just happened to carve, you know, those four great men, founders of our nation, presidents of our country, who were very influential, very important.

No one looks at it like that. People look at things like that, and they recognize there has to be an intelligence.

Behind it.

No one would ever look at Mount Rushmore and think, I wonder what caused that. No one's going to do that. Everyone looks at it and says, okay, who did that? An intelligence is behind it. People look at the information in the DNA molecule, and they're starting to recognize, okay, well, maybe aliens from another planet came here.

Now there's a reason why they're willing to suggest aliens did it and not God, because aliens can't judge us for our sins. Everything goes back to sin, folks. You have to recognize, all this stuff, evolution, everything else, atheism, it's a cover for the fact that these individuals are in love with sin.

You know, pick your perversion, whatever it is, what are you into, what do you like? That's what this stuff's all about. It's about guarding themselves and guarding the most important thing to them, which is their sin that they love so much.

That's why you get all the nastiness, you get no rational argumentation. You know, Peter Thurston, as soon as you said, in response to the argument that I've made that I've heard atheists make, yes, natural selection, the idea of atheism, evolution, it does not give us any grounds whatsoever to live moral lives.

And to say that it's consistent with that, for these young men to go into Columbine High School and blow the place up, yeah, that goes hand in hand with teaching them that they're just rearranged pond slime, which is exactly what they believe.

They believed in evolution, they believed in natural selection, and so on and so forth. His response, do we therefore discard the science of ballistics, because they used guns, that is the result of educational institutions that have taught individuals what to think instead of how to think.

Why should I spend my time responding to things like that? I'm not going to. And I'm not going to watch the rest of that silliness, because it's not worth my time. So genetics has turned out to be a real problem.

And the fact of the matter is, Darwin, at the time that he wrote The Origin of Species, knew nothing about genetics, because it hadn't even developed as a science yet. And so now, genetics is pushing people to say, well, maybe directed panspermia, maybe other life forms from outer space came to Earth.

Well, hang on a minute, is there any evidence that that happened?

No.

Is it science, therefore?

No.

It's philosophy.

It's religion. It's a worldview. The origin of life is a big problem. Richard Dawkins talks about the first self-replicating proteins, but again, he's still willing to talk about directed panspermia.

How about the formation of life? And what is the mechanism by which allegedly simple forms of life, there are no simple forms of life, they are incredibly complicated. I liked what David Berlinski said about what we know about the cell in terms of its internal workings at the time of Darwin, and what we know today, because of molecular biology and everything else, and because of the use of electron microscopes, he said, how would you compare our knowledge of what we knew about cells at the time of Darwin and what we know today is a comparison between a grain of sand and a galaxy, he said.

And that's true. And we still don't know. It's so complicated. And you see the walking kinesins, and you see the way that these DNA molecules have these unbelievably complicated repair systems, and how they all work together and function.

Together.

Not a single part of those processes are useful by themselves. They all have to appear instantaneously and function together. That's why Michael Behe wrote that book, Darwin's Black Box. What is the black box?

It's the cell.

Cell biology is just, how do you account for this? How could this come about accidentally? But you see, my favorite illustration of that was when Bill Nye was asked a direct question. So what is the evidence that we've all built?

What is the evidence? And his answer was, here we are. See, it's not a question of can I prove it or is there any scientific evidence of it? Has anyone ever observed anything? It's just, look, we're here.

See, it's based on his presuppositions, on his worldview. What's the evidence that evolution happened? Everything is evidence that evolution happened. Because it has to be, because it can't be a god. And so it just happened by itself.

Here we are.

You see, it's not about evidence. It's not about science. It's not about facts. It's about philosophy. These people are committed, philosophical, naturalist, materialist, and there's variations on that.

They have different ways of saying it, but it's really all the same thing. How about fossils? How much have we heard about Archaeopteryx and Tiktaalik and all sorts of other potential candidates? You know, the frauds, you know, Piltdown Man, Java Man, Nebraska Man, blah, blah, blah.

A pig's tooth, and so on and so forth. Becomes an entire human skeleton, and you have these imaginative drawings. The fossils are of no help to the idea of evolution. They just haven't been. They have not borne out the idea of micromutational evolution.

And that's why people like Stephen Jay Gould have suggested, okay, well, evolution happened in such a way as to not leave any evidence behind. Because it happens in punctuated bursts, followed by long periods of equilibrium.

So you're going to see the created kinds just sort of being static, and then all of a sudden it's something else. When I was in sixth grade science, in the public school system here in the United States, we were taught what was called the hopeful monster theory.

And I could not believe this. I felt, at the time, I was, let's see, sixth grade would be 11 years old. That two lizards got together and laid an egg, and a sparrow was born.

And I thought, what?

Yeah.

And then two other lizards nearby laid another egg, and a sparrow of the opposite gender was born. And they somehow found each other, they somehow made it, and started a new species.

Wow.

What's the evidence that that happened? There's none. Well, why speculate like this? Because God's not allowed to exist. And why is God not allowed to exist? Because we like to sin. We love sin. More on that later.

The Limits of Radiometric Dating and the Problem of Morality

Radiometric dating is also fraught with lots of internal flaws. What they're recognizing is that you can't make the kinds of assumptions about the past without being able to observe it, and therefore it's not science.

Unless someone builds a time machine where they can go back in time and say, okay, all conditions have been exactly identical to what they are right now in the past, those dating methods just really don't work.

And of course, there's the issue of ethics and morality. A friend of mine here at the church just gave me two books, and I'm really excited to read.

Them.

In fact, dang it, I left them at home. They're sitting by my bedside, but anyway. The Philosophy of Humanism by Lecomte something, I can't remember. And then The Religion of Humanism, something like that.

And he said these guys are older writers, so they're much more consistent with their worldviews. I like to read stuff like that. I mean, you really can't see it from here, but that's my atheism shelf back there.

So I've got, if you're familiar with the dust covers, that's Michael Martin, the purple one with the white in the middle, that's Michael Martin's book, Atheism and Philosophical Justification. Went through that when I was in seminary.

Also his book The Case Against Christianity is another good one. George Smith's book, Atheism and the Case Against God, Bertrand Russell's stuff is over.

There.

Nietzsche, Hume, and there's some others. Actually not everything fits on that shelf. There's actually some more stuff around my library. But I like reading atheists. I like reading, especially when they were more consistent with their own presuppositions and their own worldview.

And just, you know, took it like man. You know, I think it was Jacques Monod said that the victorious races should stride over the corpses of the vanquished races. I was thinking, yeah, that makes sense, given that perspective.

Ethics and morality really doesn't work in that system. You know, we're told that, well, we just have a social contract. You figure out we evolve to avoid pain and to get along and so on and so forth.

But as long as people recognize, well, that's just an evolutionary leftover. It doesn't actually correspond to a standard that we're going to be held accountable to, and therefore we can rise above it.

That's what the Nazis did. That's what Heinrich Himmler did. He's like, you know, it doesn't matter if it bothers your conscience a little bit. It doesn't matter if you see 400 or 500 or 1 ,000 corpses piled together.

This is the most successful age in the history of the German people and its blood and soil and its conquest of the world. So don't let those things bother you. It's just biological chemical reactions in the brain.

It doesn't correspond to anything that's actually real.

So there you go.

Why Atheists Persist, and Why Passion Is Not the Same as Anger

But why do people hold on to this idea of evolution when, as the hard sciences continue to push forward, they're seeing more and more and more. We don't see animals becoming new kinds. We see mediated design points.

Yeah, you see animals change, but they don't become new kinds of animals. I mean, you can torture fruit flies all you want. They're still going to be fruit flies. People, the San Jose scale, okay, so it's got the ones with darker wings don't get eaten because they blend in better.

Well, that goes without saying. That's not evolution. Evolution does not mean animals change a little over time.

They do.

Everyone understands that. What we are saying is that they don't become new kinds of animals. That's the issue. But why do people hold on to this perspective? Why do they trumpet it? And why is it that only one of these individuals that has contacted me has actually been able to talk to me without cursing and swearing?

It's really amazing to me. These people cannot stop. They can't help themselves. They have to curse and swear and get all nasty. And I just think, isn't that so telling? You know, I'll tell you one thing.

I sleep like a baby at night. You know, when I was younger, I used to, I had a real anxiety problem. I just worried all the time. And as I've grown in my relationship with the Lord and have grown to know and love the one true God who is so gracious and so tenderhearted and so compassionate and has been so good to me my whole life, although I've suffered greatly in my life, he's been so good and faithful to me.

I've just learned how not to worry about anything. And there's no need to blow a gasket. There's no need to go off on people. There's no need to get all upset about things and to start cursing and swearing at people.

Do I have passion?

You bet.

I'm very passionate about what I believe, about the truth. People say, oh, you're getting angry. There's such a thing as real passion. That's not anger.

Okay?

There's no need to be all sensitive about everything. People get all upset. You sound angry. No, it's called passion. Being passionate about what you believe, that's a good thing.

That's a good thing.

Sin, Suppression of Truth, and the Witness of Romans 1

But why do people hold on to this idea of evolution? Well, they hold on to it because they like sin. Jesus is the ultimate whistleblower, and, you know, I love his style. I love the way he gets right to the heart of the matter no matter who he was talking.

To.

He knew exactly what they needed to hear. He was the one who exposed men for what they are. Jesus said this to Nicodemus in John 3, verse 19, this is the condemnation that light has come into the world, but men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were.

Evil.

For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds.

Should be exposed.

In that same gospel in John chapter 7, verse 7, Jesus said this, the world cannot hate.

You.

He said this to his enemies. The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify of it that its works are.

Evil.

Why do people champion a theory that has no scientific credentials whatsoever?

Why?

Because they love sin. They're into something. They're into a sin that has them in a death grip, that has got its claws into them so deep that they just can't get rid of it. They love to sin. One of my favorite early Christian writers is Augustine of Hippo, and he was a debauched individual.

He was arrogant, violent, absolutely detested Christianity, and if you ever get a chance to read his confessions, the fact is for a year of his life, he knew that it was true. He knew that there was one God.

He knew that Jesus Christ was indeed his son and that he was the only way to be saved, but Augustine refused. He would not come to Christ. He would not go to the church. He would not get baptized and take up his cross and follow Christ.

Why?

Because he wasn't done sinning yet. He was too into sex. He was too into arrogance. He was too into being violent and being a man's man and doing all of the things that he loved to do that were evil, that he knew was evil.

And that's really what's going on here. Why are these people so nasty? I would love to have a thoughtful discussion with somebody, but these people absolutely cannot control themselves. This guy comes out, Jeff Ball, I don't even know if that's his real name.

When I clicked on his channel, it looks like it's named something else. I don't even know. I don't know. And he's got a channel, the name of the channel is Profanity, and watched about the first minute of a video, and it's just acid in the face, and I think, where are the thoughtful atheists?

Where are the thoughtful ones? 20 years ago, there was an internet group called the Internet Infidels. I don't know if it exists anymore. And there was the Secular Web. I used to dialogue with some of those folks, and it was actually, they were good dialogues.

Those guys actually made me think. They were thoughtful. At the time, I mean, I was in my early 20s back then. I was a new Christian, and I didn't know much about this kind of stuff, and so I did a lot.

Of reading.

They would recommend stuff. I would read it. We would go back and forth for months and months and months and months. We would have these really interesting, fruitful discussions without people getting all nasty and being just as unpleasant as possible.

What has happened to them? I think that because the theory of evolution really is in crisis, and it's being shown to really have nothing whatsoever to do with science, nothing whatsoever to do with observation, that it really is just a religious philosophy.

Insecurity often causes people to get a little loony when they're defending what they know is indefensible. But what's really going on here is that these individuals are in love with sin. There's some kind of sex perversion.

There's something else that they're into that they really like, and they will defend it at all costs, even if they have to believe that ET came to Earth and put us here. It doesn't matter, as long as I'm not accountable to anybody.

But wanting something to be true doesn't make it true. Not wanting God to exist has nothing to do with whether or not He does exist. The fact is, when your head is the pillow at night, your conscience bears witness against you that you do know this God that I'm talking about, although you work very hard to hide that from yourself.

Why do people do that? Because they succeed. They succeed in suppressing the truth and unrighteousness, as Paul says in Romans 1. Now, there are some Christians who think that atheists are actually lying when they say they don't believe in God.

I don't agree with that. I think that atheists are telling the truth. I think that they are telling the truth. But they have an error about what they believe. They think and are convinced that they don't believe in God.

Now, what I would expect to see if Romans 1 is true, if all men in their heart do know God, but they suppress it in unrighteousness, what I would expect to see is lots of people screaming that there's no God, and yet acting as if He exists.

Acting as if nature is uniform. Acting as if there are moral absolutes that we're obligated to follow. Acting as if we can balance our checkbooks and drive our car and mathematical concepts are real, that the existence of universal, invariant, abstract entities such as laws of logic, human dignity, morality, the validity of inductive reasoning, so on and so forth.

Those things all hold true, even though atheism, if true in principle, would destroy them all. We'll still just proceed forward as if they're all true. That's why I did a video a couple years ago, is it three years ago now?

On Bertrand Russell. Bertrand Russell, Taking Atheism Like a Man. I like reading him because his mind was just so sharp. He had an incisiveness that I've just not seen in any of his counterparts today.

But he recognized that atheism cannot account for inductive reasoning. He knew that. He recognized that atheism cannot account for what he calls the uniformity of nature, what philosophers of the past called the uniformity of nature.

Why is it that the characteristics and properties of the universe, the laws, the physical and chemical laws that govern it, are constant through time? Why are they consistent like that? Russell says, you can't reason from the past or the future to prove it.

You can't say, well, it's always been like that in the past, and it stands to reason it'll be that way in the future. Russell says, that's begging the question. And says in his little book, Problems in Philosophy, we have still to seek some principle that will enable us to believe the future will be like the past.

Years ago when I read that, I thought, wow, isn't that an amazing omission that he would actually say that. So why did Russell continue to live as if God does exist, as if all those things do make sense, when his worldview, by his own omission, destroys them?

Because in his heart of hearts, he does know God, although he believes that he doesn't believe in God. It's just like the mother who has a rebellious child. Let's say there's a mother who has a child, Johnny.

Johnny is 16 years old. Johnny is a bully. Johnny abuses people. Johnny steals constantly from others. Johnny skips out on school. Johnny doesn't do his homework. Johnny is a liar and a thief. And this mother believes that Johnny is innocent and believes that everyone that's ever been out to try to attack him, they're just out to get Johnny.

She's constantly up at the school. You guys have had it out for Johnny ever since we moved here. I've been trying to get my precious Johnny in trouble all the time, but he's innocent. He's being framed and he really is a good boy.

Now, does that mother really believe that?

Yeah, she does. She does.

She believes that she believes Johnny's a good kid, and yet at home, she would never leave her son Johnny unattended in the same room with her purse because she knows that Johnny will steal from her. Does she believe that Johnny's a good kid?

Yep, she does.

She believes that she believes Johnny's a good kid, and yet her actions betray the reality. She knows he's a rogue. She knows he's a bad kid. It's the same thing with atheists. Do they really believe that they don't believe in God?

Yes, they do.

They are telling you the truth. They don't believe in God, and they believe in evolution. They do, and yet by their actions, they betray themselves because they do things that their worldview destroys.

Their worldview cannot account for universal, invariant, non-material entities like logic, like inductive reasoning, like classification concepts, like numbers, mathematics, so on and so forth, chemical and physical laws, et cetera, et cetera, reason, human dignity.

None of those things make any sense in that worldview, and yet they assume that all of them are true all the time. Now, I've asked the question of Peter Thurston, and I, you know, will he attempt to answer?

I don't know. I doubt it. Frederick Nietzsche said, I fear we are not yet rid of God because we still have faith in grammar. Now, I actually Googled that quotation and found a lot of atheists asking on web boards, what does he mean by this?

What does he mean by saying, I fear we are not yet rid of God because we still have faith.

In grammar?

Frederick Nietzsche recognized that grammar is not made of matter. Grammar is a universal, invariant, non-material entity that exists, conceptually. But if there's no God, if there's no governing providence to impose uniformity on creation, of course, as a Christian, I know exactly why God does that, so that man can subdue the created order, do science, figure it out, cure diseases, build houses, and study it and take dominion over it for the glory of God.

That's why God imposes uniformity upon its creation. But Nietzsche recognized, the fact that I'm sitting here writing and making use of laws, laws of grammar that I expect others to know about when they read my books, we're not rid.

Of God yet.

We are not fully rid of him yet, because if we were rid of him, we would not have faith.

In grammar.

Nietzsche was a brilliant man, even though he went insane towards the end of his life. He was a brilliant person. He saw a lot of the same things that Russell saw, and some of these other religious humanists of yesteryear.

The ones writing today, and these guys with YouTube channels, I don't think they've ever even thought about things like this. If you listen to what they say against the transcendental argument for God's existence, it shows they don't understand what we're saying.

They don't understand what their own guys from yesteryear were saying, either. But what's really going on? So why would Nietzsche, after recognizing, if I believe in grammar, which is not made of matter, you can't go to the fridge and get a pound of grammar, grammar is not made of matter.

It is a law of thought. It is a universal, invariant, abstract, non-material entity that I believe in, but if there's no God, there can't be any universal, invariant, abstract entities like that, and we're not rid of God yet, because we still have faith in things like grammar.

You can't have grammar. You can't have laws of any kind if there really is no God. But Nietzsche just kept right on going. Bertrand Russell, after giving away the store and admitting that science isn't even possible because we have no reason to believe the future will be like the past in terms of its law-like properties, he just kept right on doing science, kept right on doing mathematics, kept on protesting nuclear bombs, and kept on living his life.

It's just like the woman who thinks Johnny is a good kid, but she would never leave her purse by him, because in her heart, she does know that Johnny is a horrible kid, but she's convinced herself that he's not.

She just can't handle the idea that her precious Johnny is a horrible kid, and so with her mouth, she says he's a good kid, but by her actions, she betrays the truth. That's what atheists do. The atheist worldview cannot account for what they are doing.

Anytime they react with moral indignation to me or to any other Christian, that's not something that makes sense in your worldview. Every time you use inductive reasoning, every time you try to identify something as a logical fallacy, it doesn't make any sense in your worldview.

It doesn't make any sense in your perspective. Your perspective, if true, would destroy the validity of all those things, and I always wonder. It's such an odd thing to me. Why even care? If there really is no God, go out and live your life and have a good time.