Saturday, March 15, 2014

Atheism vs Jesus: The Academic Battle For The Souls of Humanity

As I pointed out in my post about the world view of Atheism, Atheism dominates the academic world in the United States of America, shaping the minds and hearts of millions of people during the most formative years of their life.  Not only will I point out why this is a problem, but I will also point out how this problem really has been going on for a long time, and how followers of Jesus can combat this problem.

Atheists lie about Evolution, avoid talking about Creationism:  

Since I wrote my previous article on Atheism three months ago, I have continued to study the world view of atheism to see if I could find documentation that shows that there is a deliberate agenda to push God out of the picture in the academic world.  The first thing I found is that atheists/evolutionists with any authoritative capacity intentionally lie to students about evolution in order to get them to believe in it, and they make a concerted effort to avoid even talking about Creationism in schools. 

In an interview on an atheist radio program, PZ Meyers, an atheist, biologist and Associate Professor at the University of Minnesota, was asked whether advancing atheism or advancing the public understanding of science was more important than the other, or if they were one and the same to him.  His answer? 

“They are inseparable.”

So, to Meyers, teaching scientific truth and teaching students how to think through evidence isn't more important than making sure that the students end up converting to Atheism and rejecting God.  Because of that, PZ Meyers is not beyond or above lying to his students about the evidence that supports evolution, or about what the arguments of creationists actually are compared to the Straw-men that he and many other atheists set up in order to tear down.  PZ Meyers has every motive to lie about everything, and as an Atheist, he's justified by his world view if he chooses to lie because his world view tells him that there are no moral absolutes of any kind, so there's nothing wrong with lying in order to get people to believe in Evolution and/or atheism.

While some of you will look at what I just wrote about PZ Meyers and say "that's true in theory, but there's no evidence that him or other atheists/evolutionists lie like that", prepare to stand corrected.  

In an article titled "Why Teaching Evolution Is Dangerous" on from August 25, 2008, Bora Zivkovic, a former blog editor for Scientific American before he was forced to resign in 2013 for sexually harassing multiple women in some shocking ways, sees no problems with lying to students in order to get them to believe in Evolution.  In this article, Zivkovic is praising a Florida teacher and fanatical evolutionary activist, David Campbell, for using an argument about the changing face of Mickey Mouse as an example of evolution. Here is what Zivkovic had to say about that:  

"Mr. Campbell knows how tricky this process is. You cannot bludgeon kids with truth (or insult their religion, i.e., their parents and friends) and hope they will smile and believe you. Yes, NOMA is wrong, but is a good first tool for gaining trust. You have to bring them over to your side, gain their trust and then hold their hands and help them step by step. And on that slow journey, which will be painful for many of them, it is OK to use some inaccuracies temporarily if they help you reach the students. If a student, like Natalie Wright who I quoted above, goes on to study biology, then he or she will unlearn the inaccuracies in time. If most of the students do not, but those cutesy examples help them accept evolution, then it is OK if they keep some of those little inaccuracies for the rest of their lives. It is perfectly fine if they keep thinking that Mickey Mouse evolved as long as they think evolution is fine and dandy overall. Without Mickey, they may have become Creationist activists instead. Without belief in NOMA they would have never accepted anything, and well, so be it. Better NOMA-believers than Creationists, don’t you think?"

Wow, there are so many things wrong with what this man said!  According to this man, getting students to accept evolution is more important than telling them the truth; it is ok to lie to students if doing so will get them to believe in evolution.  Furthermore, it's considered just fine to Zivkovic if the students end up believing in lies the rest of their lives, as long as they believe in Evolution the whole time.  

Secondly, this idea of lying in order to gain their trust to the point where they accept evolution?!  That sounds to me an awful lot like a certain practice in man-made religions that nobody likes.  Instead of calling it "Lying for the Lord", it's more like "Lying for Atheism".  Truth doesn't mean a thing to Zivkovic.

Zivkovic acknowledges that without lying to students about evolution, those students might end up rejecting evolution and accepting Creationism.

Look at Zivkovic's last sentence of the quote.  He is such a rebel against God that he believes that it is better for students and people in general to believe in lies about evolution the rest of their lives than it is to believe in Creationism, and ultimately the God of the bible.

Zivkovic is not the only atheist/evolutionist who believes that if both evolution and Creationism were put side by side, students would reject evolution in favor of Creationism.  On page 23 of Where Darwinism Meets The Bible, Atheist Eugenie Scott, the executive director of the National Center of Science Education from 1987 through 2014, had this to say:

"In my opinion, using creation and evolution as topics for critical-thinking exercises in primary and secondary schools is virtually guaranteed to confuse students about evolution and may lead them to reject one of the major themes in science."

Many people have asked the question:  How come the world's top atheists/evolutionists consistently refuse to have a public debate with the world's top scientifically-trained creationists and followers of Jesus Christ?  The above quote by Eugenie Scott perfectly sums up the answer.  If both evolution and creationism were put side by side and their evidences were examined and compared, people might realize how bogus and full of holes the theory of evolution actually is, and they would reject it in favor of creationism because the evidence better supports creationism than evolution.      

The Long-standing Gameplan of Atheists

Why is it that atheists/evolutionists are so interested in controlling the academic world?  Like me, they realize that by controlling the academic world, they will influence the hearts and minds of the large majority of the population because they will be indoctrinating people during the most formative years of their life into their anti-God world view.      

On page 128 of Humanism: A New Religion, which was written in 1930, humanist Charles Francis Potter said the following:  

"Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism, and every American school is a school of humanism. What can a theistic Sunday school’s meeting for an hour once a week and teaching only a fraction of the children do to stem the tide of the five-day program of humanistic teaching?"

As Potter points out, the atheists/evolutionists have way more time with our children and students during the week than our churches do, so their chances of indoctrinating children/students into the atheistic/evolutionist world view goes up simply because of that. 

In his article titled "A Religion For A New Age", which was in the 1983 Jan/Feb issue of The Humanist, John Dunphy said this:  

"I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects what theologians call divinity in every human being.
These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level—preschool day care center or large state university.
The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism. 
It will undoubtedly be a long, arduous, painful struggle replete with much sorrow and many tears, but humanism will emerge triumphant. It must if the family of humankind is to survive.”
Dunphy points out that the atheist/evolutionist who is a teacher in a classroom has to use the classroom as a pulpit to convey their world view's values, and that the whole point of doing this is to kick God out of the picture.  
In his article titled "A Religion For A New Age", which was in the 1977 November issue of American Atheist, Richard G. Bozarth had this to say:
"And how does a god die? Quite simply because all his religionists have been converted to another religion, and there is no one left to make children believe they need him. Finally, it is irresistible—we must ask how we can kill the god of Christianity. We need only insure that our schools teach only secular knowledge; that they teach children to constantly examine and question all theories and truths put before them in any form." 
Bozarth tells us exactly how atheists/evolutionists who lead in the classrooms can kick God out of the picture.  First off, Bozarth tells us that atheists/evolutionists are to present evolution as the only viable option for explaining the origins of life, the Earth, and the universe; they cannot allow topics like Creationism and The Bible to even be talked about in class, much less considered as legitimate alternatives to evolutionary theory.  Secondly, because Atheism denies the existence of absolute truths, children/students have to be trained to question and criticize everything to the point that no matter how logical and evidence-based the theories and truths of creationists and followers of Jesus are, they'll never be satisfactory to the mind of the atheist/evolutionist.
The Religion of Atheism:

As I have continued to study the atheistic/evolutionary world view over the past three months, I have come to realize that there are a lot of things that occur within their world view that very much resemble the kind of organized religion that they claim they are free from.

Like all religions, atheists/evolutionists are confronted with the big questions in life:  Where do we come from?  Is there such a thing as objective morality?  Does free will exist?  Is there an ultimate purpose in life?  Evolution, a scientific theory that has almost no evidence supporting it due to the fact that you can't go back in time by millions of years to observe it, is supposed to be capable of answering those big questions.

In a debate with Phillip E. Johnson at Stanford University on April 30, 1994, William Provine, a Biology Professor at Cornell, had this to say:

"Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear -- and these are basically Darwin's views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That's the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either. What an unintelligible idea."

On page 15 of TIME—Great Discoveries, An Amazing Journey Through Space & Time, which was written in 2001, the late Stephen Jay Gould, a teacher of biology, geology and history of science at Harvard University, was asked, “Why is your work so popular?”  This was his response:

“Evolution is one of those subjects. It attempts, insofar as science can, to answer the questions of what our life means, and why we are here, and where we came from, and who we are related to, and what has happened through time, and what has been the history of this planet. These are questions that all thinking people have to ponder.”

On page 358 of his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, which was written in 1985, Michael Denton wrote the following:  

"Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century. Like the Genesis based cosmology which it replaced, and like the creation myths of ancient man, it satisfies the same deep psychological need for an all embracing explanation for the origin of the world which has motivated all the cosmogenic myth makers of the past, from the shamans of primitive peoples to the ideologues of the medieval church.”

Another thing I have noticed about the atheistic/evolutionary world view is the hostile way that they tend to treat people who defect from Atheism and convert to a religion that believes in the existence of a supernatural god.  They get especially hostile when that person becomes a follower of Jesus Christ; if you don't believe me, look at the comments section of any internet articles about atheists who converted to Christianity.  The atheists/evolutionists on those comments sections say the same things:  That person is a traitor, they're mentally-ill, they were a pseudo-atheist, they must believe in unicorns as well, they've forfeited their logic and reasoning skills, they were never an atheist in the first place, they're scared of death and hedging their bets, real atheists can never be converted, and so on.   Aside from the very hateful comments, the italicized comments sound awfully religious in nature.    

You see the same kind of hatred towards our fellow man in other religions:  In Islam, a muslim who converts to Christianity, or any other religion for that matter, not only will get disowned by their family/community, but their very lives will be threatened and possibly taken from them.  In Mormonism and with Jehovah's Witnesses, if a member converts to Biblical Christianity or another religion, that person usually ends up getting shunned by their family and community, sometimes to the point where they lose contact with them all together.
Just like in other religions, Atheism is full of intellectual hypocrites.  For example, There are many atheists who believe that things such as pedophilia, bestiality, and child abuse are objectively wrong/evil, and things like helping starving people and being faithful in a relationship are objectively good.  Of course, they usually don't use terms like "objectively good" or "objectively evil", but the passion in which they cling to those values as being good or evil points towards those values being objective. 

The atheistic world view states that there is no such thing as objective good or objective evil, so these values that atheists tends to cling to as being real are not only not real, but the opposite values are just as correct.  Ironically, most atheists become very hypocritical when people push them to realize that according to their own world view of atheism, sexually abusing a child is just as right as not sexually abusing a child, killing someone is just as right as feeding them dinner, and date rape is just as correct as respecting the woman's dignity by not having sex with her before marriage.  When confronted by this, most atheists will lapse right back into claims of objective morality, which can only exist if there is a mind prior to the human mind (God). 

As funny as I find it to be, Atheism took a step in showing that they're just another religion when on January 6, 2013, an Atheist Church opened in Britain.  By November of 2013, we now have Atheist "Megachurches" in the USA.  What is even more ironic and hilarious is the fact that these atheist churches operate exactly like the Emergent churches do:  You have the singing of songs, a rousing sermon meant to make you feel good about yourself, some kind of reading material read out loud, and quiet time to essentially meditate; the only difference between the Emergent church and the atheist church is that the latter takes it one step further and doesn't pretend to believe in God.      


When atheists claim that they aren't part of a religion, I have to laugh myself silly.  Because of the fact that they have a creation myth (Evolution) to explain the origins of the universe and all of life's big philosophical questions, because they are full of hypocrites, because of their hostility towards people who convert to other religions, and because of the fact that they now have their own churches, there is no doubt that Atheism is a religion.  

Because atheism at its core is humanistic, and because there is no objective moral to say that they cannot do it, atheism uses the academic world to indoctrinate people into their world view.  As Potter, Dunphy, and Bozarth point out so brilliantly, by controlling the academic world, atheists use the classroom as the place to indoctrinate children/students into the atheistic world view and to attack Christianity; the way they accomplish that is by only teaching Evolution and humanistic/atheistic knowledge, to not allow topics like The Bible, God, and Jesus to even be brought up in class, and to get people to question and criticize everything that claims to be objectively true that isn't atheistic in nature.

The atheists/humanists in America have been working at using the academic world to indoctrinate people into their world view for roughly the past 100 years, as we can see through the writings of Potter, Dunphy, and Bozarth.  They have also done a great job attacking the Bible, God, and Jesus:  As I was going to church through middle school, my youth pastor, who was going to college at the time, constantly told us stories about how mean and deliberately her professors attacked her faith in Jesus.  In my sophomore year of college, I was taking an Intro to Theatre class, and in one class in particular, the professor claimed that Jesus Christ never existed.  When I was in my senior year of college, I referred to the book of Esther in a class, and my professor thought it was cute that I quoted a "Myth" from the Bible.  In the following term, I took an Intro To Philosophy class that talked about just about every world view out there, from Greek philosophy to Islam and Hinduism, all the way to feminism; the only world view that was left out was Christianity.  

If the Bible is just a collection of myths and fables, and if God and Jesus Christ are just fictional characters, then how come the atheists/evolutionists attack those things a lot more than the other religions?  How come when I was growing up in elementary school, I wasn't allowed to pray or talk about the bible, but my school was allowed to bring in Hindu monks to talk to the class, and take kids on field trips to Portland to see the Dalai Lama?   

At this point in American history, it seems like the atheists/humanists are winning in their rebellion against God; it is so bad that even in many supposed Christian educational institutions, the atheistic/humanistic philosophies and theories are taking hold.        

Having said all that, there is still a chance for followers of Jesus Christ to change the culture around us before it is too late.  We have to do what the atheists/evolutionists don't want us to do, which is put both evolution and creationism side by side, and to analyze and compare the evidences for both; ultimately, we have to preach the Bible and Jesus.  While that might not stem the tide that the atheists/evolutionists have created over the past 100 years, doing so will help people whose minds and hearts haven't been totally indoctrinated into the atheistic world view to reject the lies, and to put their faith in the truth, which is Jesus Christ.              


  1. Well, you're certainly right about certain people trying to make the young into Atheists. They're wrong to do so, but they do it because the religious minds that they see are always close-minded. The loudest Christians and Catholics are almost always the dumbest. Most people like having a logical perspective, but they have to deny it when faced with important questions about their religion, instead of making concessions or doing research, they say that the Bible, arranged and sewn together by religious leaders, is infalliable. By denying other things so vehemently, they paint an image of all religious people being stupid, which is why you have radicalist people like you've mentioned in here trying to eliminate what they see as the issue, religion. That's not really the problem. The problem is when people won't think for themselves and reject dogmatic thinking. If we had more people like Thomas Paine in the world, a man who actually outright rejected the Bible and chose to believe in God anyways, we'd have a much better and more reasonable world, and you wouldn't see such a lashing out against religion.

  2. The main reason I'm, personally, against religion is that I believe in this saying, "That which will not bend must break, and that which can be destroyed by truth should never be spared its demise."

    Also refer to your bible, (I Thessalonians 5:21): “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”

    The bible haven't been proven to be good. Who rape more kids, priests or scientists?