As I seek knowledge in the light of truth it must pass the test of Gods word not a mans opinion. The second law of thermodynamics has made me realize that there is nothing man can do to save himself as when energy is all used up hot becomes cold and the rest is blowing in the wind. Light always displaces darkness, try striking a match in pitch black darkness.
Evil enslaves but the truth you know sets you free. So evil is a lost cause so why waste your time believing the twisted word.

HITCHINS is a CHRISTIAN ?

The most intersting thing about Hitchins is that he is not an Atheist but a rather passionate evangelical Christian.

Nope..Not Christopher..but his brother Peter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hitchens

Just goes to show... you can have to closely related people.. both looking at the same evidence..and emerging with totally different conclusions.

In Peter's case...he "began" where Christopher still is, as an Atheist but he is now one of Christs own. I hope and pray all others who explore this thread will come to know that same Lord and Saviour.

I wonder about people who start on the dark side and remain there.... perhaps the 'lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, the pride of life' which holds them back? (1 John 2:16)

It's not for me to say... but that's how scripture describes it.

But for one who has lived that life, and seen a light...'the' light..and follows it.. truly such a person is blessed in this life and the next.

"I am the light of the world, he who follows me will not walk in darkness" (Jesus)

"I am the light of the world, he who follows me will not walk in darkness" (Jesus)
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Tuesday, 31 August 2010 9:40:37 AM

"The second law of thermodynamics has made me realize that there is nothing man can do to save himself as when energy is all used up hot becomes cold and the rest is blowing in the wind. 'Light always displaces darkness' ... "
Posted by Richie 10, Tuesday, 31 August 2010 8:58:55 AM

So, Ritchie10 counters the claim Jesus is the light of the world
.

My logic is obviously too subtle for some of you guys. To say I offer only vague assertions and that there is no “ism” to explain the purpose of reason, only verifies what I am suggesting.

I’ll attempt to break it down some more. Try to keep up.

Christopher Hitchens says, and I agree, that life is innately uncertain. I would have thought the key implication of such a worldview is it’s pointless attempting to define anything of consequence, as all preliminary conclusions are swamped in the end by the unknowable. This being the case, why would you seriously define yourself as an atheist, Christian, whatever? Who you are is self-evident – it needs no tag or statement of authenticity.

The value of atheism/Enlightenment doesn’t lie in discrediting received religious truth (eg God made the universe in 6 days), it lies in its ability to have people see the stupidity of choosing to limit yourself to a set of rules and rites designed to represent your beliefs. By making it about right/wrong, not freedom, atheists fall into the same trap by ending up being defined themselves.

My article is an attempt to point out the nature of this futile battle and suggest a different purpose for reason: why is it that we cannot literally understand the truth? I’m not proposing we ask if God exists or not – that question is pointless, in a direct way, because of uncertainty. We should be asking why it is we cannot grasp such matters.

Western civilisation is built upon lie because all past action is premised on there being an answer at the end “of all this”. This isn’t a problem, however, if this “failure” provides a narrative for answering the real question of why we can’t understand.

I don't think most of us will even bother trying to keep up Mark, as it seems you have already left the planet and are travelling at a speed that is hard to match.

Is there a actual point at the end of all this?

I only ask, because it's kind of hard to spot one.

""By making it about right/wrong, not freedom, atheists fall into the same trap by ending up being defined themselves.

"... why is it that we cannot literally understand the truth?

"... all past action is premised on there being an answer at the end “of all this”. ""

Posted by intempore, Tuesday, 31 August 2010 10:08:26 AM

Atheists can take a passive "absence of belief (in the absence of evidence) in god", or they can try to engage in what absence of evidence means, often leading to frustration.

I agree a lot of action is premised on their being answers at the end, or answers for, yet feel answers in philosophy and science about the present, past or future for the real world are sufficient. Give me Hubble images, Carl Sagan, David Attenborough docos, microscopy images, and I'm grinning and winning
.