Friday, November 18, 2005

Did atoms exist before we could see them?

From "Has Satan Hijacked Science?" by John P. Pratt at Meridian Magazine

Materialism is a doctrine that has been introduced into science, declaring (without a shred of evidence) that nothing else exists beyond that which can be observed, either by humans or instruments. If that were true, then it would follow that science is the study of everything that exists.

False Principle: Nothing exists which cannot be observed.

Note that this is a patently absurd and unscientific statement! It is amazing that so many modern scientists have accepted some form of materialism without question. Why? Why would so many accept materialism as a true doctrine, when it flies in the face of true science? Real scientists seek to know how the universe actually is, rather than to declare beforehand that only certain kinds of events are allowed to exist, namely those in the tiny realm of what man can observe....

In seeking an answer as to why otherwise intelligent scientists would agree to such a limiting principle, let us now consider the possibility that Satan is indeed involved. If Satan were promoting his own special form of science, would he not choose materialism as the foundation? Think of the huge rewards he would get just for adopting this one principle.

First, in one sweep of his hand, Satan can dispose of God, Satan himself, heaven, hell, the spirit world, all spiritual phenomena, including the human spirit, evil spirits, and also of all knowledge of the future. Having thus decreed God out of existence, the next crucial steps follow immediately: If there is no God, then there are no God-given commandments. If there are no commandments, there is no sin. If there is no sin, then there is no need for a Savior to atone for sin, no need to accept Jesus Christ. Also, there would be no afterlife in which we will be judged as to how well we followed God's laws and the example of our Redeemer. If that were the case, man might as well follow the so-called "law of the jungle," the "survival of the fittest."

One proponent of this doctrine of materialism more than two thousand years ago, who later admitted to having been taught directly by the devil, declared, "You cannot know of things which you do not see," and, "Man fares in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospers according to his genius, and every man conquers according to his strength; and whatsoever a man does is no sin."

Thus, atheism is not new, and it does not need to be the official religion of scientists. Very few scientists before the Twentieth Century were atheists, and the top scientists have been, and continue to be, predominantly Christian. In fact, materialism, and its child atheism, have no place in true science at all.

Read the full text here.
(I adore Dr. Pratt's work; if you haven't read it, I highly recommend you do!)

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Half of all children will sleep tonight in a home where their father does not live

From "Feminism's devolution from hoaxers to whores" by Kathleen Parker (emphasis mine)

Men haven't turned away from smart, successful women because they're smart and successful. More likely they've turned away because the feminist movement that encouraged women to be smart and successful also encouraged them to be hostile and demeaning to men.

Whatever was wrong, men did it. During the past 30 years, they've been variously characterized as male chauvinist pigs, deadbeat dads or knuckle-dragging abusers who beat their wives on Super Bowl Sunday. At the same time women wanted men to be wage earners, they also wanted them to act like girlfriends: to time their contractions, feed and diaper the baby, and go antiquing.

And then, when whatshisname inevitably lapsed into guy-ness, women wanted him to disappear. If children were involved, women got custody and men got an invoice. The eradication of men and fathers from children's lives has been feminism's most despicable accomplishment. Half of all children will sleep tonight in a home where their father does not live.

Did we really think men wouldn't mind?

Meanwhile, when we're not bashing men, we're diminishing manhood. Look around at entertainment and other cultural signposts and you see a feminized culture that prefers sanitized men -- hairless, coiffed, buffed and, if possible, gay. Men don't know whether to be "metrosexuals" getting pedicures, or "groomzillas" obsessing about wedding favors, or the latest, "ubersexuals" -- yes to the coif, no to androgyny.

As far as I can tell, real men don't have a problem with smart, successful women. But they do mind being castrated. It's a guy thing. They do mind being told in so many ways that they are superfluous.

Even now, the latest book to fuel the feminist flames of male alienation is Peggy Drexler's lesbian guide to guilt-free narcissism, Raising Boys Without Men. Is it possible to raise boys without men? Sure. Is it right? You may find your answer by imagining a male-authored book titled: Raising Girls Without Women.

Read the whole thing here.
<< ? | LDS Blogs | list >>