I saw a Tweet today regarding some comments made by arguably the most famous and antagonistic atheist of our day, Richard Dawkins. An article appeared in The Telegraph of London that stated, "The Oxford professor posted a message on Twitter saying would-be parents who learn their child has the condition [Down Syndrome] have an ethical responsibility to 'abort it and try again.'" see article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/11047072/Richard-Dawkins-immoral-to-allow-Downs-syndrome-babies-to-be-born.html
Dawkins posted a Tweet that said, "Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice."
While this position provides the opportunity to comment on various levels, I only want to do so from one perspective. It is not to downplay his murderous stance on abortion or his uncaring/unfeeling comments. However, I only want to point out his hypocrisy from a philosophical standpoint.
Dawkins is an avowed Atheist that mocks and ridicules the idea of a Creator. His main approach is to ridicule the position instead of truly dealing with it on an intellectual level. He believes in Macro-Evolution. When confronted by the presence of design within the natural world, he has allowed a position of Aliens coming and creating. (I know! Hilarious, right?) However. he vehemently denies the God of the Bible.
What is ironic and hypocritical of Dawkins, and almost all other Atheists in history, is that after having denied a Creator and Judge, they make ethical statements!!! They provide statements and positions of how one ought to act, while at the same time denying a standard that tells us how we ought to act.
Dawkins says there is no God. If there is no God, there is no absolute truth. If no absolute truth, truth is totally relative to each person. If that is the case, there is no possible way to say something is right or wrong or moral or immoral. Truth and morality become totally private areas where decisions are left up to each individual. There is no objective standard that applies to all people.
Dawkins, after vehemently and consistently denying God, turns around and says something is immoral! On what basis does he presume to declare something moral or immoral? His hypocrisy is absolutely blatant!
This is why almost all atheists will theoretically deny God, but they will still live as if there is an absolute, objective standard of right and wrong, morality or immorality, and basis for ethics. It is inconsistent, hypocritical, and illogical.
You may ask, "Why don't they live consistently with their philosophy?" It is because when a person denies God and consistently lives that way, you have a Hitler, Stalin, etc. You have an unfeeling, uncaring dictator that seeks to impose his will by any means and all force available. That is the logical conclusion one must reach if there is no Creator and Judge. By God's grace, people still see such horrific persons as monstrous.
May we who believe in Christ seek to understand the issues more clearly and propagate them more courageously. If you believe in God as He has revealed Himself in Creation and Scripture, do you live like it?
Dawkins posted a Tweet that said, "Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice."
While this position provides the opportunity to comment on various levels, I only want to do so from one perspective. It is not to downplay his murderous stance on abortion or his uncaring/unfeeling comments. However, I only want to point out his hypocrisy from a philosophical standpoint.
Dawkins is an avowed Atheist that mocks and ridicules the idea of a Creator. His main approach is to ridicule the position instead of truly dealing with it on an intellectual level. He believes in Macro-Evolution. When confronted by the presence of design within the natural world, he has allowed a position of Aliens coming and creating. (I know! Hilarious, right?) However. he vehemently denies the God of the Bible.
What is ironic and hypocritical of Dawkins, and almost all other Atheists in history, is that after having denied a Creator and Judge, they make ethical statements!!! They provide statements and positions of how one ought to act, while at the same time denying a standard that tells us how we ought to act.
Dawkins says there is no God. If there is no God, there is no absolute truth. If no absolute truth, truth is totally relative to each person. If that is the case, there is no possible way to say something is right or wrong or moral or immoral. Truth and morality become totally private areas where decisions are left up to each individual. There is no objective standard that applies to all people.
Dawkins, after vehemently and consistently denying God, turns around and says something is immoral! On what basis does he presume to declare something moral or immoral? His hypocrisy is absolutely blatant!
This is why almost all atheists will theoretically deny God, but they will still live as if there is an absolute, objective standard of right and wrong, morality or immorality, and basis for ethics. It is inconsistent, hypocritical, and illogical.
You may ask, "Why don't they live consistently with their philosophy?" It is because when a person denies God and consistently lives that way, you have a Hitler, Stalin, etc. You have an unfeeling, uncaring dictator that seeks to impose his will by any means and all force available. That is the logical conclusion one must reach if there is no Creator and Judge. By God's grace, people still see such horrific persons as monstrous.
May we who believe in Christ seek to understand the issues more clearly and propagate them more courageously. If you believe in God as He has revealed Himself in Creation and Scripture, do you live like it?
RSS Feed