I was pleased that Robert responded to my post this week featuring Dr Martyn Lloyd Jones, thank you Robert. He responded thus:

Dear Chugley,

Lloyd Jones brings up important but difficult points. Original Sin and how it relates to God’s law with respect to humanity then and now?  Interestingly, ignorance of the law, as it turns out, is not a workable defense or excuse. The great flood, which wiped out 99% of humanity and all living things (except, one supposes, the fish), consigned thousands of blameless (sinless) infants to death along with their (possibly sinful) parents. This, even though many were ignorant of God’s law- even though, one might think, at least some were indeed sinless. Speak of throwing out the baby with the bath water!

Since ole Adam and his girlfriend did indeed scarff down the proverbial apple when the dastardly ole snake convinced them it was a great idea, they soon learned that God’s law is nothing to ignore and that forever more humankind would bear the burden of breaking that sacred bond.

Evidence today does indicate that indeed, the flood did, in fact, occur. Some even believe the wreckage of the arc has been discovered. This and other documented facts have emerged about those times arguing convincingly that many of the biblical stories are, in fact, historical realities.

So, the ancient pre-historical world of man was found wanting and God caused them all to be drowned. Presumably, all due to the original fall from grace as indicated in Genesis and their reprehensible and irredeemably bad behavior ever since. Tough penalties for tough times!     

So, assuming that all the above is fact, fact; one must ask why? Why after man’s deplorable and enormously sinful history since being rescued by Noah we haven’t seen another great flood? Of course, we know the answer- Jesus! Jesus died for our sins- all of them! As unbelievable as that sounds- it is the only explanation accounting for God’s restraint. That, of course, works only for those who believe God exists. For the rest of the sinners, I implore you all to read my book Atheists are Idiots. Perhaps, God’s patience isn’t as infinite as some might believe…Chapter 2 Pt 1 follows.

(The Chugley Think Tank considers that the instant Adam and Eve fell into sin, God withdrew a certain power from the support structure of the earth’s living systems, it is impossible for the human mind to comprehend how. Moreover they believe that our Merciful and Gracious God will deal justly with those infants whose lives were prematurely ended. As He will with those who have been murdered by abortion).

Gibber! Gibber!

Chugley

Chapter 2 Pt 1

The philosophy of anti-theism

Arguments for atheist existentialism and Humanism Axiological, or constructive, atheism rejects the existence of gods in favor of a “higher absolute”, such as ‘humanity.’ This form of atheism favors humanity as the absolute source of ethics and values and permits individuals to resolve moral problems without resorting to God. Of course, exactly where these sad people find what ethics and values actually are remains a mystery – I suppose they were just born knowing? Idiots like Marx and some 18th century psychologists, like ole Sigmund F, used similar arguments to convey messages of liberation, full-development, and unfettered happiness. One of the most (and fundamentally accurate) common criticism of atheism has been that denying the existence of God inevitably and directly leads to a kind of ‘moral relativism,’ leaving one with no fast moral or ethical foundation, rendering life meaningless and miserable. French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre identified himself as a representative of an “atheist existentialism” concerned less with denying the existence of God than with establishing that “man needs to find himself again and to understand that nothing can save him from himself, not even a valid proof of the existence of God.” Sartre said a corollary of his atheism was that “if God does not exist, there is at least one being in whom existence precedes essence, a being who exists before he can be defined by any concept, and this being is man.” The practical consequence of ATHEISTS 23 this atheism was described by Sartre as meaning that there are no a-priori rules or absolute values that can be invoked to govern human conduct, and that humans are “condemned” to invent these for themselves, making “man” absolutely “responsible for everything he does.” Of course ole Jean-Paul was well known to hit the bottle more often than not, so perhaps that explains his vapid ramblings?

Phil Zuckerman, a professor of Sociology at Pitzer College in Claremont, CA, analyzed previous social science research on secularity and non-belief, and concluded that societal well being, or not, is positively correlated with irreligion. His findings relating specifically to atheism include: Compared to religious people, “atheists and secular people” are less nationalistic, meaning, that they tend not to be patriots. They are also more prejudiced, anti-Semitic, racist, dogmatic, ethnocentric, close-minded, and authoritarian than religious people. This, of course, is the basic theme for my book. The true atheist is (at best) an unhappy, confused and miserable being and (at worst) is a monster! Because of its absence of a ‘creator’ god, Buddhism is commonly described as non-theistic. People who self-identify as atheists are often assumed to be irreligious, but some sects within major religions reject the existence of a personal, creator deity. In recent years, certain religious denominations have accumulated a number of openly atheistic followers, such as atheistic or humanistic Judaism and even Christian atheists. ( both self- canceling, conflicted and confused) The strictest sense of positive atheism does not entail any specific beliefs outside of disbelief in an omnificent creator. As such, atheists can simultaneously hold any number of spiritual beliefs. For the same reason, atheists can hold a wide variety of often contradictory beliefs, ranging from the moral ATHEISTS 24 universalism of humanism, (whatever that may be) which holds that a moral code should be applied consistently to all humans, to moral nihilism, which holds that morality is meaningless and therefore there is no right or wrong and everything is just ok. (Mao, Hitler and Stalin for example.) Philosophers such as Georges Bataille, Slavoj Žižek, Alain de Botton, and Alexander Bard and Jan Söderqvist, have all argued that atheists should reclaim religion as an act of defiance against theism, precisely not to leave religion as an unwarranted monopoly to theists. This silly idea of course, could never gain traction because it requires that an atheist believe in something that is not himself- not likely or possible.

Although it is a philosophical truism,

encapsulated in Plato’s Euthyphro dilemma, that the role of the gods in determining right from wrong is either unnecessary or arbitrary, the argument that morality must be derived from God and cannot exist without a wise creator has been a persistent feature of political if not so much philosophical debate. Of course, consider a man born in a wild state, completely with out parents or human guidance, where in the world would he learn anything about morality or ethics? Exactly, he wouldn’t! The ten commandants, handed to Moses by God thousands of years ago, are the most perfect set of rules for human civility and civilization ever written – almost all law in the western world is a durative of the commandants. (read them and explain how any bunch of atheists could even come up with something so perfect). Moral precepts, such as “murder is wrong” are seen as divine laws, requiring a divine lawmaker and judge. However, many atheists argue that treating morality legalistically involves a false analogy and that morality does not depend on a lawmaker in the same way that laws do. Other atheists, such as Friedrich ATHEISTS 25 Nietzsche, have disagreed with this view and have stated that morality “has truth only if God is truth — it stands or falls with faith in God.” Therefore, if God was proven dead or to have never existed, there could be nothing to restrain anyone from killing anyone! Rather stupid, but there your are – the unreasonable reasoning of the anti-theist and all the excuse a monster needs to murder!. There may exist a few normative ethical systems that do not require principles and rules to be given by a deity. Some examples include virtue, ethics, social contract, Kantian ethics, utilitarianism, and Objectivism. Sam Harris, the author of The End of Faith, Letter to a Christian Nation, The Moral Landscape, and Free Will, has proposed that moral prescription (ethical rule making) is not just an issue to be explored by philosophy, but that we can meaningfully practice a science of morality. Any such scientific system must, nevertheless, respond to the criticism embodied in the naturalistic fallacy. Philosophers Susan Neiman and Julian Baggini (among others) assert that behaving ethically only because of divine mandate, is not true ethical behaviour, but merely blind obedience.

Baggini, stupidly argues that atheism is a superior basis for ethics,

claiming that a moral basis external to religious imperatives is necessary to evaluate the morality of the imperatives themselves—to be able to discern, for example, that “thou shalt steal or thou shalt kill” is immoral even if one’s religion instructs it. She says that atheists, therefore, have the advantage of being more inclined to make such evaluations. Obviously, such a banal and bizarre argument fails to meet any logical or reasonable test. Consider isolated tribes who decided that head hunting or cannibalism was a “moral duty” for this or that tribe. Did they have our creator’s ten commandants to restrain their actions? Of course not, and look what they did! Read ATHEISTS 26 Golding’s Lord of the Flies to understand better how thin is the veneer of civilization. You can find photos (on the net) of two Negro’s in Africa actually eating a white guy uncooked. These primitive humans actually cooked and ate Belgian nuns, after slaughtering hundreds of whites. What they have done here in America to whites and each other is due to their vacuous mindset and ignorance of human restraint.

The contemporary British political philosopher Martin Cohen has offered the more historically telling example of Biblical injunctions in favor of torture and slavery as evidence of how religious injunctions follow political and social customs, rather than vice versa, but he also noted that the same tendency seems to be true of supposedly dispassionate and objective philosophers. Cohen extends this argument in more detail in Political Philosophy from Plato to Mao, where he argues that the Qur’an played a role in perpetuating many evil social codes from the early 7th century despite changes in the quickly diminishing secular society. Some prominent atheists such as Bertrand Russell, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins, have criticized religion, citing what they perceive as harmful aspects of religious practices and doctrines. Atheists have often engaged in debate with religious advocates addressing the issue of whether religion provide a net benefit to individuals and society. The simple and totally obvious refutation is of course; consider the absence of religion and God’s moral restraint- the USSR, the Nazis, the un-Godly crimes of Mao, Rome and all the human slaughterers throughout history!

One of the more absurd arguments that religion can be harmful was made by the atheist, Sam Harris. He said that “Western religions’ reliance on divine authority lends itself to authoritarianism and dogmatism.” Of course, this is only absolutely true in Islam where, each and every word in the ATHEISTS Hadith and the ‘Islamic manual of Arms,’ the Qur’an, are positively, with no possibility of making any change whatsoever, (under pain of death) to the words of their (small g) god. The Catholic Church stopped using Latin and no longer do they have to eat fish on Friday… many changes have occurred in all Christian denominations such as women becoming ministers etc. Only in Islam has nothing changed and only in Islam will nothing ever change!

WHO IS…

Robert J. Firth.

Robert was educated at the University of Pennsylvania and worked as an airline pilot for 42 years. Captain Firth has lived in many countries throughout his career including 3 years in Vietnam, 5 in Africa with 12 in Europe and Russia along with many years in other interesting and contested garden spots.

Robert has been shot at and shot back all over this tired old globe. He knows well that America’s freedoms were bought and paid for in the blood of her patriotic soldiers. Robert’s opinions and thoughts have been formed in the fires of conflict. He knows well the enemies of all free men.

AIRCRAFT OF THE WEEK