Matt Slick of CARM stated that "Atheism is, essentially, a negative position.  It is not believing in a god, or actively believing there is no God, or choosing to not exercise any belief or non-belief concerning God, etc.  Whichever flavor is given to atheism, it is a negative position."

In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any evidence for the validity of atheism.  There are no "proofs" that God does not exist in atheist circles; at least, none that I have heard -- especially since you can't prove a negative regarding the existence of God. 

Of course, that isn't to say that atheists haven't attempted to offer some proofs that God does not exist.  But their attempted proofs are invariably insufficient.  After all, how do you prove there is no God in the universe?  How do you prove that in all places and all times, there is no God?  You can't.  Besides, if there was proof of God's non-existence, then atheists would be continually using it.  But we don't hear of any such commonly held proof supporting atheism or denying the existence of God.  The atheist position is very difficult, if not impossible, to prove since it is an attempt to prove a negative.  Therefore, since there are no proofs for atheism's truth, and there are no proofs that there is no God, the atheist must hold his position by faith.

Faith, however, is not something atheists like to claim as the basis of adhering to atheism.  Therefore, atheists must go on the attack and negate any evidences presented for God's existence in order to give intellectual credence to their position.  If they can create an evidential vacuum in which no theistic argument can survive, their position can be seen as more intellectually viable.  It is in the negation of theistic proofs and evidences that atheism brings its self-justification to self-proclaimed life.

There is, however, only one way that atheism is intellectually defensible, and that is in the abstract realm of simple possibility.  In other words, the atheist would have to propose that it may be possible that there is no God. But stating that something is possible doesn't mean that it is a reality, or that it is wise to adopt the position. 

If I said it is possible that there is an ice cream factory on Jupiter, does that make it intellectually defensible or a position worth adopting merely because it is a possibility?  Not at all.  Simply claiming a possibility based on nothing more than it being a possible option, no matter how remote, is not sufficient grounds for atheists to claim viability in their atheism.  They must come up with more than "It is possible," or "There is no evidence for God," otherwise, there really must be an ice cream factory on Jupiter, and the atheist should step up on the band wagon and start defending the position that Jupiterian ice cream exists.

At least Christians have evidences for God's existence, such as fulfilled biblical prophecy, Jesus' resurrection, a book of 66 pages with more than just historical coincidences etc.

There is another problem for atheists.  Refuting evidences for the existence of God does not prove atheism true anymore than refuting an eyewitness testimony of a marriage denies the reality of the marriage.  Since atheism cannot be proven, and since disproving evidences for God does not prove there is no God, atheists have a position that is intellectually indefensible. 

At best, atheists can only say there are no convincing evidences for God that have been presented so far.  They cannot say there are no evidences for God, because the atheist cannot know all evidences that possibly exist in the world.  At best, the atheist can only say that the evidence presented so far has been insufficient.  This logically means that there could be evidences presented in the future that will suffice.  The atheist must acknowledge that there may indeed be a proof that has been undiscovered, and that the existence of God is possible.  This would make the atheist more of an agnostic since at best the atheist can only be skeptical of God's existence.

This is why atheists need to attack Christianity.  It is because Christianity makes very high claims concerning God's existence, which challenges their atheism and pokes holes in their vacuum.  They like the vacuum.  They like having the universe with only one god in it: themselves.

All the more, we will thank our God!

Both socialism and idolatry have a way of building a sense of entitlement: "I deserve it." But with God, it's different!  We don't deserve any of His wonderful gifts! Yet His undeserved grace is available for all who will trust and follow Him!

He has given us a mission to this fast changing world of idols and illusions: to share His love! We may feel inadequate, but He will enable us. For when we are weak, He gives us strength! When all looks dark, He is our Light! When the world brings despair, He remains our unfailing Hope!

"Now thanks be to God who always leads us in triumph in Christ, and through us diffuses the fragrance of His knowledge in every place.  For we are to God the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing. To the one we are the aroma of death leading to death, and to the other the aroma of life leading to life. And who is sufficient for these things?" 2 Corinthians 2:14-16

God is! Nothing is impossible with Him! He is our Shepherd, our Savior, our Wisdom, and our Way!  "What a Friend we have in Jesus!"

The Spreading Darkness

I didn't want to read The Lost Symbol, Dan Brown's latest book. But after prayer and some prompting from some friends, I read the first section and last 100 pages. The fact that Freemasons hail Dan Browns latest novel and that the current CEO of the Institute of Noetic Sciences has warmly welcomed it -- made it more relevant. They apparently appreciate Brown's promotions of their mystical beliefs.

“Robert, the Bible does not talk openly for the same reason the Ancient Mystery Schools were kept hidden.... for the same reason the neophytes had to be initiated before learning the secret teachings of the ages....

"Langdon stopped short. What is he saying? 'Peter, I’m talking about the Bible. Why are you talking about the Ancient Mysteries?

Peter turned. 'Robert, don’t you see? The Ancient Mysteries and the Bible are the same thing.'...

“Peter, the Bible and the Ancient Mysteries are total opposites. The mysteries are all about the god within you. . . man as god. The Bible is all about the God above you... and man as a powerless sinner.'

“Yes! Exactly! You’ve put your finger on the precise problem! The moment mankind separated himself from God, the true meaning of the Word was lost. The voices of the ancient masters have now been drowned out, lost in the chaotic din of self-proclaimed practitioners [probably pointing to Christians] shouting that they alone understand the word...Peter continued down the stairs.

“We’ve lost the word, and yet its true meaning is still within reach.... It exists in all the enduring texts, from the Bible to the Bhagavad-Gita to the Koran and beyond. All of these texts are revered upon the altars of Freemasonry because Masons understand what the world seems to have forgotten...  that each of these texts, in its own way, is quietly whispering the exact same message.' Peter’s voice welled with emotion. ‘Know ye not that ye are gods?’...

"Peter lowered his voice to a whisper. 'The Buddha said, ‘You are God yourself.’ Jesus... even promised us, ‘The works I do, you can do . . . and greater.’ [See truth here: Even the first antipope—Hippolytus of Rome—quoted the same message, first uttered by the gnostic teacher Monoimus: ‘Abandon the search for God. . . instead, take yourself as the starting place.'...

“'A wise man once told me,' Peter said, his voice faint now, 'the only difference between you and God is that you have forgotten you are divine.'”

One of the first public celebrities to proclaim this arrogant lie was New Age movie star Shirley MacLaine. "I am God," she shouted to the world back in the 1980s.

I met her at the end of Gorbachev's conference. She happened to walk by, and I asked her what she thought of the conference.

       "It was good. It helped raise consciousness," she answered.

       "But wouldn't it have raised more consciousness if one of the meals had just been rice instead of gourmet meats and elegant desserts?" I asked. After all, some speakers had emphasized global equality and concern for the poor.

       She frowned. "People paid a lot of money to come here," she answered. "They deserved good food."

As George Orwell pointed out, some people in socialist collectives are meant to be "more equal than others!" In a totalitarian system, all the thanks must go to the state and/or its elite rulers -- "equal" or not!