In a recent video released by PragerU (below), psychoanalyst and author Erica Komisar made the argument that children should be exposed to God and religion, even if the parents aren’t believers themselves.
 
She explains that, as a therapist, she is often asked questions about anxiety and depression and why they are so prevalent in children and teenagers. She argues that one explanation for it, which is “almost surely the most neglected” is declining interest in God and religion in the U.S.
 
Komisar cited a Harvard study which shows that children who attended a religious service at least once a week “scored higher on psychological well-being measurements and had lower risks of mental illness.” This weekly attendance was also linked to “higher rates of volunteerism, lower probabilities of both drug use and early sexual initiation, and a sense of purpose.”
 
Regardless of the psychological benefits of weekly church attendance, there has been a 20% decrease in weekly religious attendance in the last 20 years. And in 2018, the American Family Survey showed that “nearly half of adults under 30 do not identify with any religion.”
 
Komisar commented on those surveys saying: “From a purely psychological point of view, this is not a good trend. Nihilism – the belief in nothing – is a rich fertilizer for anxiety and depression.”

As a result, Komisar argues that parents ought to expose their children to God and religion, even if those parents are themselves unbelievers.
 
Generally, I agree with Komisar and also believe that people ought to come to faith, in part, because of the moral and psychological benefits it would bring.
 
However, my one issue with JUST making this argument is that it’s no different from arguing that religion is a crutch for people to deal with their daily lives. This is an argument I often hear from unbelievers “Oh, you just believe in this pie-in-the-sky nonsense because you can’t properly deal with the daily stresses of life. It’s just a crutch for you and those who don’t believe in this unscientific nonsense have more mental/intellectual maturity.”
 
Obviously, such an argument is false and rooted in a misconception of religion, but it’s arguments like the one Komisar gives that sort of fuel that. Again, I am not disagreeing with Komisar on this, and I even understand why she’s making this argument. She’s a therapist, after all, and she wants to help people be better off psychologically and recognizes the mental benefits of religion, belief in God and regular church attendance.
 
I’m not taking away those benefits because they are, of course, very much there. If you’re going to teach your child something, better it be that God has them in the palm of His hands than that the world is on fire and they might not even get to see their adulthood.
 
However, to only argue in favor of religion and God in this manner is to lower them to crutches to deal with the truth of life. It ignores the very fact that there can BE no life in the first place without God.
 
I’m not saying that that’s the argument Komisar is making whatsoever, or that she believes that this is the only purpose of belief in God, but it does have the issue of giving those unbelievers credence they neither have nor deserve.
 
Parents should 100% expose their children to God and religion even if they don’t believe themselves. Komisar actually makes a fantastic point in the video that there are parents who say “I want to give my children the ability to choose what they believe themselves rather than force anything on them.” If that’s the case, then, Komisar argues, shouldn’t you be more willing to expose your children to God and religion? How else are they to make a free and informed decision about what to believe if they aren’t exposed to such options?
 
And that is a great argument. For parents to say that they don’t want to force a religion on their children, and so don’t expose their children to religion, because they want their children to choose for themselves is like parents saying they don’t want to force children to eat a particular type of food, so they don’t expose their children to that food, because they want them to choose for themselves.
 
Ultimately, they are accomplishing the exact OPPOSITE of what they claim to want. They are making that choice for their children to NOT be part of a religion by depriving them of the experience of it.
 
After all, who chooses to be part of something they have no idea what it is about? “I don’t want to tell my child what he should do when he grows up, so I’m not letting him do anything in any field so he can choose for himself what he wants to do.” That is a dumbass argument when put that way, and yet, it’s the standard operating procedure for some parents when it comes to their child’s beliefs?
 
If you expose children to nothing, they will know nothing and believe in nothing.
 
But at any rate, like I said, I generally agree with what Komisar is saying about God, religion and the psychological benefits of both. They definitely are true, and the benefits can be seen in anyone who is actually faithful to God.
 
God teaches us a myriad of things throughout the Bible, from that which He commands of us in the Ten Commandments to what Jesus said was the most important commandment “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind,” as well as another commandment which He said was equally as important: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
 
We are told by God, who is the author of morality (among all other things except for evil and sin), what is good, what is profitable, what must be done and how, all for His glory and His kingdom.
 
I am reminded of a guest speaker I once had for my Religion class in high school who was an atheist but argued in favor of the teachings of the Bible because they were, according to him, “good moral teachings.”
 
They certainly are, and had I known then what I know now, I would have made the same argument I had been making earlier in this article. God is, indeed, moral as He is the author of morality. We are taught that there is no sin in Him and He is not the author of sin and evil. So the speaker wasn’t technically wrong in that regard. However, the Bible is FAR more than just a guide on morality and God and religion are far more than just safe havens from the stresses and harshness of life.
 
The Bible is God’s very word to us. It depicts the history of not just the Jewish and Christian faiths, but of the entire world and its existence. It shows us who the author of the universe is, with the declaration of the very first words of the Bible being: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth,” showing the reader that before everything was, He IS. He is eternal, He is omnipotent, He is omniscient, omnipresent, and the Creator and originator of all.
 
He created the heavens and the earth, all living things on it, above it and underneath it, including mankind. Mankind then was deceived by Satan into rebelling against God, and thusly was punished, along with Satan, for such rebellion, taking away their eternal life and their place in paradise.
 
Following that, mankind continued to rebel against God, sinning and sinning and being evil by nature, which was once not the case but the punishment by God for their original sin of disbelief in God’s word that if they eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that they would surely die.
 
Despite this continual, natural sinfulness and rebellion, God sent His only begotten Son to, among other things, die on the cross for the sins of the people who believe in Him, that they should not perish but have eternal life. God had absolutely no obligation whatsoever to do that, and would be perfectly justified to have sent no savior at all and punish all mankind for its sins. And yet, He did send us a savior, because He is a kind and merciful God who loves His children.
 
When you understand this about God, one cannot possibly relegate Him to being a mere comforter (though He is a comforter) of the downtrodden, anxious and depressed. One cannot relegate His word as mere good guidance for how to live a moral life. One cannot relegate belief in Him and His word to just a crutch for dealing with life.
 
Again, I don’t think that’s what Komisar was saying, at all, and don’t think she believes this is all religion and God are good for. And again, I agree with almost everything she said in that PragerU video, with my biggest gripe being that at one point, she said “[B]etter for kids to use their imagination constructing something positive – such as a God who cares about us – than the dark, nihilistic idea that there’s no creator and protector…” which is problematic because it implies that God is someone we create ourselves, according to our desires. God cannot be created by people and a “god” created by evil people will permit evil deeds. I understand what she was trying to say here, but it’s rather problematic how she put it together.
 
God is a comforter and a protector, yes, but it’s far more beneficial and important to know that He is the Master of the Universe and not a single thing that happens happens without His permission. Even Satan, in all his evil deeds, is held back by God in his wickedness.
 
God created the world. God controls the world. God created you. God is in control of your life and has you in the palm of His hands. More than just a good psychological answer to the stresses of life, He is the Lord Almighty, in whom people can find comfort. And they can find said comfort precisely because of who He is, not because of who we want Him to be.
 
Yes, parents ought to expose their children to God and religion, even if they don’t themselves believe, and even if they only do it for the psychological benefits of it, because it can lead to a calling from the Lord to Him. But it is also very important to understand WHY God is even a good source of comfort to begin with and that begins with understanding WHO He is.
 
John 6:44
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.”

This Saturday marks a very important anniversary for our country: the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing. 50 years ago, the United States embarked on a historical adventure to reach and set foot on the moon before the communist Soviets, who had managed to reach outer space before us on April 12th, 1961. Despite that, the Apollo 11 Eagle lunar module set an even bigger milestone, allowing for Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins to be the first people to reach the moon, Neil being the first to set foot on it, Buzz being the 2nd and Collins staying behind to tend to the ship.
 
And while the entire expedition was iconic, virtually everyone who knows the minimal amount on this subject knows of the legendary words: “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.” However, other words could’ve also become rather iconic with those.
 
Buzz Aldrin, after the module had landed on the moon, sent the following message back to ground control: “I would like to request a few moments of silence. I would like to invite each person listening in, wherever and whomever he may be, to contemplate for a moment the events of the past few hours and to give thanks in his own individual way.”
 
That message was sent to ground control, but NASA went on to censor this: “I am the vine, you are the branches. Whosoever abides in me will bring forth much fruit. Apart from me you can do nothing,” quoting from the Gospel of John, in the 5th verse of the 15th chapter. Aldrin would then open “two small packages containing consecrated bread and wine from his church in Texas,” according to The Daily Wire. Aldrin would later recall: “In the one-sixth gravity of the moon, the wine curled slowly and gracefully up the side of the cup.”
 
One of the first things to have been done on the moon, apart from setting foot on it and walking on it and planting the American flag on it, was the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, with the bread signifying the body of Christ and the wine signifying the blood of Christ, both of which were given up for our sins.
 
Do you have any idea just how important and magnificent it would’ve been to see and hear Buzz Aldrin lead that Sacrament ON THE MOON?! And yet, that historic moment was taken away from us, indeed from mankind, because of militant Leftist atheists.
 
You see, NASA had been fighting a legal battle against a woman named Madalyn Murray O’Hair, a militant atheist who was widely considered “the most hated woman in America” (wonder why) who, seven months earlier, had sued NASA for allowing Apollo 8 astronauts to read from the Book of Genesis on Christmas Eve during a broadcast sent from lunar orbit.
 
So because a militant Leftist atheist was annoyed that anyone would enjoy hearing the Book of Genesis THE DAY BEFORE WE CELEBRATE THE DAY OUR LORD WAS BORN, NASA eventually kowtowed to the woman’s will and censored the Lord’s Supper broadcast that Aldrin had given, robbing generations of a deeply important and incredible religious moment on the surface of the closet thing we have come to the heavens while alive.
 
Due to the misery of some people who can’t stand to see others enjoy the sincere joy and happiness of faith in Christ, the very people who were brave enough to send mankind to the moon wasn’t brave enough to stand up to a miserable, hateful woman who refused to allow others to think differently from her.
 
I get annoyed and agitated when these hateful bigots try to bully government officials into getting rid of the 10 Commandments on the grounds of government buildings or when they try to get rid of Christian symbols in places like cemeteries, etc., but this honestly tops all of these things. What I would’ve done to hear Buzz Aldrin reading from the Gospel of John and perform the Lord’s Supper WHILE ON THE MOON! To have heard and seen it, even if just on a YouTube video half a century later, would’ve been ecstatic. Just thinking about it gives me goosebumps.
 
And yet, because some miserable people hate the Lord and will bully others into also hating the Lord, we were robbed of that glorious moment. These people’s hatred knows no bound, does it?
 
Do you want to know what is rather ironic? The verse immediately following the one Aldrin quoted says the following: “If anyone does not remain in Me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers. Such branches are gathered up, thrown into the fire, and burned.”
 
It’s extremely easy to see the contrast between those who remain in Christ, such as Buzz Aldrin, and those who do not remain in Christ. Those who remain in Christ, as Buzz Aldrin does, bears much fruit. He is widely famous for being one of the biggest American heroes alive and is pretty much universally loved. Those who do not remain in Christ, such as Madalyn Murray O’Hair, do not bear any fruit and are like the branches that are thrown away and wither up. As it stands, Buzz Aldrin, if he still remains in Christ today, will bear far more fruit once he joins our Lord in Heaven. But as far as Madalyn goes, she passed away (murdered, tragically) in 1995, having led the Murray v. Curlett lawsuit which challenged mandatory prayer and Bible reading in Baltimore public schools in 1963, which led the way for getting God out of the classrooms.
 
I don’t know if the Lord ever reached her heart at any point late in her life, but I have my doubts that He did. And because she did not remain in Christ as a result of the Lord not reaching her, it’s almost certain that she is now suffering eternal damnation in Hell (and for those who will call me “hateful” or “judgmental” for saying that she is likely in Hell right now, do me a favor and pick up the Bible. What does it say about those who are unbelievers? What happens to them? I’ll give you a hint: they don’t go to Heaven).
 
And while it is tragic that she was murdered (by a former employee of the organization she founded), what is even more tragic is that, while she had her entire life to find the Truth of Christ that is made patently obvious by the very existence of the creation itself, she spent her life challenging said Truth and suffered both the first and second death as a result (in all likelihood). As Paul writes in his letter to the Romans, in chapter 1 verse 20: “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.”
 
Man really has no excuse for not knowing the Truth of God and of the Gospel. The very world around us is the proof of a Creator. I always say we were not created by chance because chance has no intrinsic power to do anything. Chance is simply a mathematical calculation of a probable outcome or effect of a cause. It has no power to affect the effect because it is not a cause in itself. For someone to say and insist that the universe was created by chance is to say a nonsense statement because chance can’t DO anything.
 
The Truth of the Lord is made patently obvious to all, and so Man has no excuse. No one can tell the Lord, upon receiving judgment, that they simply did not know Him or of Him because everything around them points directly to Him as the Creator. For this reason, Madalyn had no excuse not to know about the Lord, especially in a country founded on Judeo-Christian principles that acknowledges the Truth of God. She challenged the notion of an existing God and tried to bully others into rejecting Him as well, but I have no doubt that she knows of Him now. Unfortunate that it is too late for her.
 
But returning to the religious moment that was taken away from us by a hateful bigot and a spineless NASA, while it is a tragedy that Buzz’s words were never heard by those paying attention to the broadcast (apart from ground control) and while his actions were never seen or talked about much, we all know that God was there to witness it, and I know He was smiling at the event.
 
Just knowing of this in the first place makes me angry that NASA allowed itself to be bullied as they were, but happy that Aldrin did what he did where he did it anyway. I’m happy that the moon got a little taste of the Word of God.
 
John 15:5
“I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!

There are a lot of people in this day and age that seem to think that God, or at least religion, and science are completely incompatible with one another. That one strictly requires faith, but not backed up with facts and evidence, and the other strictly requires facts and evidence, but not supported by any faith.
 
That is 100% erroneous and unrealistic. And I will explain just what I mean in a moment.
 
First, let me introduce you to Marcelo Gleiser, an Astro-physicist who has won the Templeton Prize, a prize given to those who have “made an exceptional contribution to affirming life’s spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works.” The prize also gives out $1.5 million, which is more than the Nobel prize gives.
 
Gleiser recently told Agence France Presse that “Atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. Atheism is a belief in non-belief. So you categorically deny something you have no evidence against.”
 
He also told Yahoo News: “I’ll keep an open mind because I understand that human knowledge is limited,” sort of taking a Socratic approach to knowledge and understanding that we truly know nothing.
 
Gleiser also points out that “everybody wants to know how the world came to be… Science can give answers to certain questions, up to a point. This has been known for a very long time in philosophy, it’s called the problem of the first cause: we get stuck.”
 
He also says that those who believe the universe and everything that exists was literally created in six days “position science as the enemy… because they have a very antiquated way of thinking about science and religion in which all scientists try to kill God. Science does not kill God.”
 
And I have some things to say about this. First, a good number of scientists are atheists and devote their careers to finding out more about the universe, yes, but with the particular point of trying to disprove God or suggesting that there is an answer as to how things came to be that do not include God.
 
People like Neil DeGrasse Tyson come to mind as such scientists (and I would include Bill Nye the Science Guy, but he only has a Bachelor’s degree in mechanical science, soooo…). But both of these guys often try and insist that God is 100% not real, cannot possibly be real, and that science already has proven that He is not real, when nothing could be farther from the truth.
 
So we certainly have good reason for not being keen towards scientists who try to prove God does not exist using evidence that does not allude to that in the slightest. If anything, the more we find out about our universe and the more complex we see it to be, the more it goes to show that it couldn’t have come from a massive cosmic accident and that it had to have been specifically designed this way, as it works in perfect synchronization with everything else.
 
The more we find out about DNA, while scientists try and prove evolution using it, we see more and more evidence of the complexity of the creation and the intricate design by an omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient being, who is the only being who could possibly have created such a thing.
 
But it is precisely because of this that I also have to agree with Gleiser when he says that science does not kill God. If anything, it further goes to show that God does, indeed, exist.
 
But now, allow me to return to something I said earlier and the explanation I promised for it. In the beginning, I said that people seem to think God and science are incompatible with one another; that one strictly and exclusively requires faith but with no evidence and the other strictly and exclusively requires evidence but no faith. Like I said, that is erroneous.
 
From what I just mentioned about DNA and other things, it does not require blind faith to believe in God. We see, every day, His creation at work. Everything we see, touch, smell, hear, taste, etc. is proof of God’s creation. The further we investigate the things we see, and even do not see with the naked eye; the things we can touch and cannot touch; the things we smell and cannot smell; the things we hear and cannot hear; and the things we taste and cannot taste, the more we can become convinced that the theory of everything coming from nothing by pure chance (which is nothing but a mathematical calculation of probability) is ludicrous.
 
Seeing just how everything works, discovering what composes every little thing in the universe does more to PROVE God’s existence than disprove Him.
 
What’s more believable and requires less faith? Believing that an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent being created everything or that everything we know of this universe came from nothing and it was all a massive coincidence that it all works as it does and there are no complications with it that would disrupt the entire universal ecosystem?
 
Personally, I think it requires more blind faith to discover more and more about the universe and think that God is definitely not real.
 
But that’s just one part of the equation. There’s also the notion that “the other”, or science, requires nothing but evidence and no faith. Again, that’s completely wrong.
 
The scientific method REQUIRES a hypothesis. What’s a hypothesis if not some sort of belief or faith that something will be the way one thinks it will be? Science REQUIRES faith to work to its fullest extent, otherwise one would find it much more difficult to use the scientific method.
 
Not to mention that science is not always correct about its evidence. Take the brain, for example. Neurobiologists are constantly finding new things about the brain that they thought were in other places in the brain. The information they previously had about the brain, including the evidence, was not 100% correct.
 
So how can one be 100% sure that God does not exist when one can’t be 100% sure of the brain’s functions in how it works? How can one dismiss the idea of a higher being existing when we know so exponentially little about the universe we live in? We haven’t even fully explored the Earth yet, at least when it comes to the oceans!
 
So Gleiser is right in saying that science doesn’t kill God. Naturally, as nothing can kill God. The problem arises when people use science to further their own agendas that do nothing to advance humanity. The problem with the theory of evolution (and really, there are a LOT of problems with that theory) is that it only goes back so far – to the single living organism that evolves into everything else in the span of millions and millions of years, but it does nothing to explain how that single living organism got there in the first place. If something evolves, it had to have come from something that was already there. And if something living evolves from something else that is living, that previous living thing had to have already been there.
 
Never mind that the theory does nothing to explain just HOW one species can evolve into an entirely different one (I agree that things can adapt and evolve to better suit their environments, but believing a human can come from a monkey, a monkey can come from a reptile and a reptile can come from a fish, which can come from whatever else honestly takes more faith than believing in God).
 
So even the theory of evolution HAS TO INCLUDE GOD FOR IT TO BE FULLY EXPLAINED AND MAKE SENSE!
 
But in any case, the relationship between science and God isn’t antagonistic. One does not hate the other nor does one try to destroy the other. God CREATED everything, and that includes science. God gave humanity the ability to use logic and reason, and thus, the ability to study the things around it.
 
It is only in man’s sinful nature that we find people who pervert science to further a selfish cause. Those who adamantly insist that God is not real and can’t possibly be do a disservice to science, not to mention to God.
 
As I said, the more we find out about our universe, the more we discover its complexity and the improbability of it all being the result of a simple mathematic calculation of probability that has no actual power to dictate anything.
 
Chance does not decide the outcome of a coin flip, it only calculates the probability of an outcome. So chance can’t possibly decide the outcome of the entire universe’s history, only calculate the probability of it all happening. It has no actual power to DO anything. It's not a thing. Those who believe in chance are giving it a power it does not have - they're giving chance the power of "being".
 
God, on the other hand, has ALL the power to do everything. The dismissal of His existence as being antiquated does nothing to progress science itself or humanity. It only serves to further pervert both.
 
John 1:3
“All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!

​And David?

Keep on reading to find out...
​
When King Saul was ruling Judea, David made a covenant with Saul’s son, Jonathan. Jonathan, the Prince, loved David because it was David who had saved Judea and Saul. He was the warrior who fought and succeeded in every single battle for King Saul. Jonathan knew that without David he would have nothing, and he respected David so much as the anointed one, that he gave David his robe and his clothing symbolizing Jonathan’s power and possessions were now transferred to David.

This was a big deal – it was the recognition that, while Jonathan was the Prince, David was the rightful heir to the throne. Jonathan and David sealed this deal with blood – like in those old western movies - by cutting an incision on their wrists and joining them together in blood.

As the story goes, King Saul grew jealous of David’s popularity in the kingdom, so he decreed that David was to be killed. Jonathan alerted David, as he felt much closer to David than to his own father, so David had no choice but to flee for his life.

Soon after, King Saul and Jonathan were both killed in battle. As a result, David finally returned home as the anointed King. By then, every single one of King Saul’s aides had been chasing David to kill him, but now David would become their king. You can imagine the panic among these servants – ‘what is David going to do? Have us all killed?’

Among Saul’s aides was a nurse who was taking care of baby Mephibosheth - she was certain that David would come back to kill the little boy. Running with the baby she tripped and fell on him, crippling him for the rest of his life.

As he grew up, young Mephibosheth would ask his nurse why he was crippled – she would obviously explain ‘because we’re running from David. He wants to kill you and when you were a baby, I fell on you trying to save you’.

You have to understand that this young man grew up FEARING and HATING David. Mephibosheth is a PRINCE who’s barely getting by, poor as he can be in an unknown land, unable to walk – all because of David. That’s what he grew up to BELIEVE.

But David had a covenant with Mephibosheth’s father, Jonathan, which he intended to honor. David wanted to find Mephibosheth.

2 Samuel 9: 1
David asked, “Is there anyone still left of the house of Saul to whom I can show kindness for Jonathan’s sake?”

Did you notice? David is asking whether or not there’s anybody left of the house of Saul ‘to whom I can show kindness'. Remember, all this time Mephibosheth thinks David wants to kill him.

When David learns about Mephibosheth he immediately sends his aides to bring the young man to the palace. Now, pay attention to what went on when Mephibosheth and David finally met:

2 Samuel 9:7-11
“Don’t be afraid,” David said to him, “for I will surely show you kindness for the sake of your father Jonathan. I will restore to you all the land that belonged to your grandfather Saul, and you will always eat at my table.” Mephibosheth bowed down and said, “What is your servant, that you should notice a dead dog like me?” Then the king summoned Ziba, Saul’s steward, and said to him, “I have given your master’s grandson everything that belonged to Saul and his family. You and your sons and your servants are to farm the land for him and bring in the crops, so that your master’s grandson may be provided for. And Mephibosheth, grandson of your master, will always eat at my table.” (Now Ziba had fifteen sons and twenty servants.) Then Ziba said to the king, “Your servant will do whatever my lord the king commands his servant to do.” So Mephibosheth ate at David’s table like one of the king’s sons.

Did you notice? Mephibosheth grew up fearing and hating David, and all David wanted to do was to BLESS Mephibosheth – because of the blood covenant David and Jonathan had made.

With Jesus it’s the same. If you’re like Mephibosheth – crippled emotionally or spiritually – please know that ALL YOU NEED to be blessed and SAVED is the blood covenant that Jesus made with YOU on the CROSS. It’s a GIFT. All you need to do is RECEIVE IT. Jesus LOVES you and He WANTS TO BLESS YOU! But You have to BELIEVE first…

Merry Christmas!
Angels of Truth​

You know how atheists go about life angry at Jews and Christians for believing in God – they mock us, they say we’re idiots or bigots and the nicest thing they say about us is that we’re ignorant.

‘How can anybody believe in something they’ve never seen? That’s dumb!’ they say.

Never mind that they’ve never actually seen an ape turn into a human being. They don't even have one piece of evidence that suggests it ever happened! – but they believe in evolution!

Never mind that they’ve never actually seen the Big Bang, an event that just sort of happened out of nowhere – but they believe in the Big Bang Theory too! 

But why are they so obsessed with God? Why don’t they direct their attacks to the tooth fairy? Or Santa? Why the obsession with God himself?

Simple.

Because they KNOW God exists – they just don’t want to admit it publicly.

As a former atheist myself, I can tell you that every time somebody asked me if I believed in God and I said ‘no’, I wasn’t sure. I said what I was taught to say growing up. I said what was more comfortable to say just to fit in the group I was with. But I wasn’t really 100% sure. Because nobody can be 100% sure God doesn’t exist. Now, the idea that there is somebody who created me and knows my every move and every thought was a little disturbing. And the idea that I was supposed to bow down to the King of Kings was also questionable at the time. But I never believed with my heart that there was no God. I just simply said there wasn't one.

But apart from my own experience, how do we know that atheists KNOW God exists?

​Let me explain.

You may be aware that polygraph tests used to be used by employers to test applicants. You may also know that this use of the lie detector was banned in 1988. But did you know that before it was banned some employers used to ask their applicants the question ‘Do you believe in God?’

Just as an example, Brown Trucking Company in Georgia used polygraph tests abundantly before the 1988 ban. The company’s experience with the machine is very telling. They say that in every instance when they asked the question ‘Do you believe in God’ and the answer was ‘No’, something amazing happened: 

That’s right. Atheists are the only ones who would answer 'no' to this question. And their answer was a lie. Every single time. And Brown Trucking used this polygraph test on 15,000 applicants before the 1988 ban.

I’m not surprised because I wouldn’t have passed the test either back when I was an atheist.

This is just one example, but there are many. So many that atheists decided to start a war on the lie detector and indicate that it really doesn’t work – although it’s used by the government.  They also question the validity of the results saying that people are likely to be brought up in a culture where there is God and therefore in this particular instance the ‘No’ they give is inconclusive – but to that I say thieves also are brought up in a culture where they KNOW stealing is wrong, and if they lie about stealing, the lie detector will pick it up.
​
Regardless of the culture, if the lie detector detects you’re lying about not believing in God, then you’re lying. Period.

Romans 1:18-19
'For God’s wrath and indignation are revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who in their wickedness REPRESS and HINDER the truth and make it inoperative. For that which is KNOWN about God is EVIDENT to them and MADE PLAIN IN THEIR INNER CONSCIOUSNESS, because God has SHOWN IT TO THEM’ (emphasis mine)

God has given us a conscious for us to use. In other words, we were born to BELIEVE.

God has given us CREATION as evidence – seeing the Creation and denying the CREATOR is like thinking the coffee in your cup just sort of appeared in there. That it wasn't beans before, that nobody actually picked up that bean of coffee and nobody transported it to the manufacturer. You can see that coffee in your cup, but you’re denying the existence of the coffee grower, the maker and the transportation company. You see, LOGIC tells us that if you have coffee in your cup, SOMEBODY grew that coffee, SOMEBODY picked it up, SOMEBODY shipped it to the manufacturer and SOMEBODY transported it to the grocery store even if you've never SEEN any one of these middle men in the supply chain.  With Creation it's the same. Since there’s creation, there HAS TO BE a Creator.

​Who's really the fool?
​
Proverbs 18:7
A fool’s mouth is his ruin, and his lips are the snare of his soul.