Dawkins and Company Seem Upset

I was just reading an article on the exploits of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. Its an interesting and infuriating read. The secular humanists have owned our schools, our media, and government bureaucracies for decades and yet the author of this piece has the audacity to suggest that atheists are "the most reviled group in the country if not the world."
The author implies this revulsion (if it were to exist) is a bad thing. By what moral basis does he make this implication?

I find it offensive to read atheist writings which presuppose morality. What is the moral good in furthering atheism? How does an atheist even define good? The creation can not mandate morality. There is no law without a lawgiver. The very argument that atheism is a better philosophic position presupposes an external system of measure in order to validate what exactly "better" means.

Today's cultural melange of secular humanism (the belief that man is the pinnacle of evolution and the greatest currently known intellect in the universe) and postmodernism (all beliefs are valid) leave us no possibility for rational thought.

What do I mean? God established order. Humanism and postmodernism in concert deny the lawgiver and the laws themselves. The very laws that are placed aside are the ones you and I use to give meaning to words, to give meaning to our senses, and to provide a lens of rationality which focuses reality into something perceptible, understandable, and worthy of consideration. Without an infinite creator God there can be no point on which to hinge truth. The Christian God not only is the one true God, He is Truth incarnate. Jesus is the truth; without Him there can be no meaning because he gives meaning beyond this life. He created the universe, and that fact establishes a basis for accepting reality. If I am merely animated chemicals then how can I trust that I (or anyone else) am capable of rational thought? God created laws of order and rationality that give meaning to our thoughts and provide us an external check to our own processes.

Dawkins and company (though created in God's image and capable of loving and being loved by their creator) can not provide you proof of their coherence because they have no basis to judge coherency except their own fallible thoughts. Why are Dawkin's thoughts more valid than mine? Because he believes so? Because another mortal man agrees? Because a certain number of mortal men or women agree? Truth is not democracy - It was created by God.


Without truth there is no morality - Tell those who don't believe in God to stop using God's standards to judge reality unless they're gonna give Him the credit!