Want Some Answers ???


David is chair of the Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc

Hi David,

I went to church today, they all believe in a creator God, is there anything you want me to tell them?

>>Hello Mark, Yes, I am an agnostic because someone who suffers from religious indoctrinations says so. You have no idea about Atheism, have you!<<

Well, originally you insisted “Atheists do not have any beliefs about Atheism”. But you do however? Genuine atheists don’t exist. Dawkins has doubts, “It is almost probably certain God doesn’t exist….” There are 2 kinds of agnostics – those who search for truth and those who don’t.

>>I have explained about your dismal ethical ‘standards’. They are nothing but unthinking, robotic nonsense.<<

The problem with your belief in 'standards', justice, right and wrong etc., is that Dawkins insists such things can’t exist. If we are just animals nothing is right or wrong, just opinions.

Your so-called higher '
standards' (than mine) speaks of absolutes. Think about it. Absolutes, can only exist if GOD EXISTS. Are you 100% sure absolutes don’t exist?

>>You have no evidence for the Yahweh/Jesus god or you would supply it. Thank you.<<

But you don’t accept any evidence. You ignored the arguments pointing to ‘evidence’. What’s the definition of evidence when you have none proving “the Yahweh/Jesus god” doesn’t exist.

>>Only someone who doesn’t understand logic, rational discourse and proper reasoning would ask for the anti-proof of the assertion there are fairies, leprechauns, gods etc. Do you understand how stupid that is?<<

I'm not asking for proof of fairies etc. We agree that evidence is non-existent. You mix delusions with reality. A big difference between fairies and a Creator God. This is 'accepted' by billions worldwide. To me your wild comparisons are unpersuasive. To me it sounds 'stupid' to say God doesn’t exist without arguments or evidence.

>>Bruno and Galileo etc were persecuted for their anti-heliocentric views, by Christianity. They were Christians as were most European people then. The argument is more than stupid to use people of bygone days as though they were creationists. If they were alive today, only a very small percentage would be creationists as I have explained to you. <<

The Dark Ages were dark because the Catholic Church withheld the bible from the populace. When people finally read and understood it, a reformation occurred. The Roman religious authorities of that day are not the Christianity of today. Universities originated from the Church. All dissention from Rome was heresy. Hence the Universities turned Rome against Galileo, who believed the bible. He didn't disprove it, he would have been shocked at the thought. He accepted biblical authority more than the Catholic Church. He (and those I mentioned) were creationists.

Yet modern science was born from Christianity. Not in the thoughts of men like Giordano Bruno. Bruno’s humanism led him into the occult.

>>Isa.40:22 Circle not Sphere. “It is he that sits on the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretches out the heavens as a curtain, and spreads them out as a tent to dwell in”<<

The Bible refers to the circle of the earth because from every point in the earth it appears as a circle. Which it must of course, if it is a sphere. The English word ‘circle’ is translated from the Hebrew 'chuwg' meaning something spherical, rounded or arched.

Note also with ‘stars’. Jer.33:22 “The host of the heaven cannot by numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured”. When this was written 2,500 years ago no one knew how vast the stars were, since only about 1,100 were visible. Now we know there are billions which can’t be numbered. They all look alike to the naked eye but the bible says each is unique (1 Cor.15:41).

>>Job.26:7 Very clever considering the moon is an obvious example to go by. “He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing”<<

At a time when it was believed the earth sat on a large animal (1500 BC) the bible spoke of the earth’s free float in space. Science didn’t discover the earth hangs on nothing until 1650 AD. And how would we explain the date 2010, if God doesn’t exist?

>>Lk.17:24 What has this to do with revolving? “For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day.”<<

The bible says that Christ's Second Coming will happen at light speed (1 Cor.15:51-52) and some are asleep by night and others are working by day (Mt.17:34-36). Hence a revolving earth, day and night at the same time. Science didn’t discover this until 15th century.

>>Psa.104:2 What has this to do with expanding? “Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:”<<

Interesting that scientists are beginning to understand that the universe is expanding or stretching out. There are 17 similar verses, 15 use 4 different Hebrew verbs to convey the idea of ‘stretching out’ or ‘spreading out’.

>>You could make our interaction easier if you would answer the questions I pose in an intelligent manner and not refer to ambiguous bible quotes.<<

Or is it that anything atheists don't want to understand is 'ambiguous'? You claimed science disproved the bible and believers are stupid. Instead it appears science is catching up.

The bible is a source of information about the creator and evidence for His existence. Usually those who don’t believe the Bible is true are those who have never studied it. Usually those who don't know much about the Bible don't know much about God. Ignorance of it has caused most of the scepticism concerning it. Yet it solves the question of truth, meaning to life and the problem of man. It has information not provided by any other source of investigation. Otherwise all you can say is 'I don't know'.

>>I can see it if pointless in engaging you in rational discussion, Mark. Some of your phrasing does not make sense and I haven’t the time to unravel it. If you wish to impress me with the correctness of creationism, it is very simple to achieve. Just give me the references in accredited scientific journals that have been peer reviewed by real scientists. Just the ones disproving evolution will be fine.<<

Young earth creationists CANNOT publish scientific research in secular journals because the evolutionary worldview has a stranglehold on scientific publishing (as in many other areas) -


Discrimination is experienced with Awards withheld, Professors fired, doctorates denied, teachers fired, jobs lost withheld, etc. So they set up their own peer-reviewed scientific journals. If their research was so blatantly obviously flawed it would be easy to refute by peer-review and allowing submission. But this doesn’t happen. And such studies to be accepted they must pass peer-review even before publication. By editors who do not believe the research validity. The ‘peers’ are proponents of an 'old earth'. Lately some climate scientists experience similar discrimination and called ‘pseudoscientists’. But its nonsense to assume scientists who believe the bible are not real scientists. Refuted here -


Many here have written journal articles and books. To think they are not “real scientists” with real qualifications is rubbish.

This discrimination restricts all learning. Eg, did you hear about Dr Schweitzer? In 1990's while cutting a T Rex bone for removal. It smelt rotten. In the lab she discovered fresh dinosaur tissue. She had always believed dinosaurs died out 64 million years ago. After testing 17 times it was confirmed dinosaur blood cells & tissue. She tried to get the information published in scientific journals, they refused. Because it was contrary to what editors believed ‘fact’. Pictures -


After more tests on other dinosaur bones, she found the same (T.rex 2005, Squishosaur 2007)


How does one get tissue out of rock? http://www.icr.org/article/5148/

>>It is obvious your mind is filled with a whole lot of creationist wishful thinking. A lot of it from this site and others like it. http://www.answers.net.nz/Other/atheis1.htm Why not try thinking for yourself?<<

No not 'wishful thinking'. The Dino tissue is real. If evolution is bankrupt (as experts insist) you are not thinking. But sound like an indoctrinated evolutionist.

>>That you really think I believe there is a creature called the devil demonstrates you have a problem with comprehension. Lighten up laddie, this is the only life available and you and you are wasting it on fantasy. <<

Yes a silly comment for a atheist. You haven’t shown the creator God to be ‘fantasy’. This young 'laddie' has a lot to learn, so if you are such a wise old "animal", perhaps you can tell me all the answers about life?

>>Out of interest, what are you a Doctor of and where did you study to become one? David<<

I'm not as clever as you. I'm called 'stupid', lacking 'comprehension', senseless, 'indoctrinated', believer of fantasy, lies, fairies, a non-thinker, so why would you care? Atheists have a long history of denying and rubbishing creationists ‘qualifications’ and claiming they are stupid and dishonest. Ie Dawkins (who doesn’t believe in absolutes) believes in one at least. He says,

It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that)” (R. Dawkins Ap. 9 1989 Book Review D. Johanson & Maitland Edey’s Blueprint. NY Times. Sec. 7, 34).

He (like you) would rather avoid issues about good or evil because on that atheism has no answer.

God bless,


David declined to comment further due to lack of time.