Skeptics, and yeah I mean atheist flavored ones, for some weird reason, think they have something fresh to say to say about Christianity and Christians.
But we get, we got it. How 19th century.
Now they should go live their life someplace else. Obviously, they don’t need or want to be around us. Except to feed the bully mechanism in their simian nervous system.
Free will means they are free to go away.
And anyway, by what right do they feel they possess to come and tell us we’re wrong?
From looking at the world now, back then, and always . . ., the godless and the I-don’t- knowers don’t look all that impressive. I know they think a college degree in something makes them better than the lesser-thans but creeps in a tweed sport coat are still just creeps.
But we have academics with those three letters after their names in our corner as well.
And we do get it. We get. With all of the freedom of human rights, we get it. To believe in what we want to believe. Just like the “freedom from” thugs.
The problem is skeptics think they know better than us. That their choices are somehow more valuable than ours.
Got some news about that. Their ideas and arguments and insults are about as fresh as sweat in a locker room three hours after the arena is cleared out.
(And I’m being nice about the bodily fluids analogy. )
Nothing original in skepticism has been presented since crucifixion was invented.
Let’s see . . . Dawkins or Lewis? Belief or not?
Let’s ask Mr. G K Chesterton:
“But the new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. . . . As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time.
A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. . . . The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything. – GK Chesterton – Orthodoxy
So Dawkins or Lewis? I went with Lewis. As is my God given evolutionary right to do so.
Atheism?
Rejected.