Townhall can damage your brain

At least, that's the conclusion I reach from this stupidity.

Let's start with the headline.

Atheists Better Pray to God They’re Right

I'm sure that the writer of the piece, Doug Giles, thinks he is being clever, but to everyone else, that headline is moronic. He might have gotten away with the headline if he had left out "to God", but he had to go for full-blown stupidity instead of trivial banality.

The tragic part is, that the headline seems witty and intelligent compared to the rest of the article.

Paul (not the lead singer of the Beatles, but the apostle Paul) states that God has made Himself known, via creation, to all men. According to the apostle, God’s revealed Himself not just to Christians and to Jews, but to every one everywhere (see Romans 1:18-21).

Given the fact that there is no evidence of the involvement of God in the creation of our world, nor of our species, I think it can be safely said that Paul took some liberty with the truth.

This means that from Jo-Jo the Brazilian monkey boy, to the Cameroon pygmies, to the whiny lesbian agnostic smoking clove cigarettes at Starbucks, to the beer swillin’ dillweeds (What’s up, dudes? I’ll see after I pen this column! Keep ‘em cold.), to the brooding British atheists, all people know God exists—even if they can’t really put a finger on some of the finer points of His person.

Yet a majority of the World's population doesn't worship the Christian God. As a matter of fact, a fairly large part of the world's population doesn't believe in any of the versions of God based on the old Testament.

Apart from that, I don't "know God exists" at all - I know that I have seen absolutely no evidence that shows me that there are any supernatural beings at all, and given that I don't think such beings exist. If I could be said to know anything regarding God, or any other supernatural being, it would be that I "know" that there are no such things.
I've stated before that annecdotal evidence is not real evidence, except as counter-evidence to extreme positions, such as Giles' drivel.

Yes, through what has been made, God has plastered on the souls of earth’s citizenry the general revelation that He’s present. In addition, they also know when they’re being a jack ass and when they’re being cool (more on that next week).

I know the above 411 hurts the atheists to hear, seeing that they’ve staked so much of their imago on God’s non-existence. But c’mon, you know there’s Someone “out there,” so cut the crap, shave your goatee and find some other way to pick up chicks—okay, James Dean?

Very few atheists depend on their lack of religion to defined themselves. Without haveing any statistical evidence, I would guess that a larger part of religious people depend on religion to define themselves, than the part of atheists who depend on their lack of religion to define themselves.
Speaking for myself, I don't know that there is someone out there - I suspect that there might be other living creatures out in space, but I certainly don't belive that there are any supernatural beings hiding behind the moon (or some other such notion).

Oh, and cut trying being hip while writing, ok? You just end up looking like a fool.

Look, if Paul’s right and people know that they know Him (even if it’s in some dull sense of the word), why do some trip over themselves and tie their brains in knots in order to curb this knowledge? Why do people go nuts looking for loopholes and supposed contradictions in the scripture, hypocrisies within the church and some shared semblance to an ape in order to convince themselves that God’s not here, there or anywhere and never has been nor ever will be?

Maybe it's because Paul isn't right? Evidence is not exactly on his side - neither for his claim about tehre being a god, nor for his claims that people know.

Is it because . . .

They are Johnny Quest truth seekers looking to answer man’s $64,000 question?

They are evolutionary luminaries uncommonly endowed with more smarts than us poor cattle and are here to help us club foot our way up the Darwinian ladder and away from such primal fairy tales? Or is it simply because . . .

The existence of God, His standards and a day of personal accountability really, really, jacks with their efforts at autonomy and their chances of getting laid tonight?

The apostle Paul states it’s the latter.

Atheists, according to Santo Pablo, have suppressed the truth because God really cramps their style. It’s hard to persistently indulge the appetites of the flesh if there is a holy God to whom you must give account. The truth is that all men, who have not bowed their knee to God and His way, hate Him and are intrinsically geared against God. (I know that’s tight, but it’s right)

If I wrote a piece like the Townhall piece, I would be very careful about using arguments that begs for getting refuted by a reference to Catholic priests and alter boys. Yet, Giles is not stopped by such considerations, and thus he writes the above nonsense.
Now, ignoring the obvious bit, which can easily be addressed with a the above reference, I think I should point out that you don't hate what you don't believe in. Atheists don't hate any gods, though some hates religion, simply because they don't believe in such things. Much like I suspect that Giles don't hate the Fenris Wolf, even though it's said that it will eat the Sun when Ragnarok comes.

I think Giles, and many other religious people, cannot grasp how little god(s) mean to the lives of atheists. Organized religion, especially in the US, is an entirely different matter, since it can influence the daily life of atheists (for example through legistration), but whatever deity others believe in, is irrelevant.

Jesus put it forcefully up fallen humanity’s tailpipe when He exposed why men reject the knowledge of God when He said, “Men love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil. For everyone who does evils hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed” (Jn. 3.19-20).

This is easy math, folks: A man who has no remorse and thus no desire to repent from his sins is probably not going to be a big advocate for the existence, person and work of God.

Historically evidence would indicate that a belief in a deity is absolutely no guarantee for ethical behaviour. Many religious people have in the past done things which any decent person would consider evil.
I would actually say, that if only the belief in eternal punishment after you die, keeps you from doing "evil" deeds, you are a sociopath, and don't belong in civilized society.

You know that all the various no-God arguments—which, to be sure, are fun to debate and write about and blah, blah, blah—actually stem from the root of the atheist’s refusal to curtsy to what he already internally knows is true. It is this denial and refusal to embrace the general knowledge of God given through creation that officially pisseth off the Lord thy God and puts the atheist in a precarious position. My advice to my atheist buddies is this: you’d better pray to God that you’re right and that He doesn’t exist—because if you’re wrong, eternity is going to be rough.

Pascal's Wager doesn't impress anyone, no matter how it is put. Does Giles also pray to Vishnu that he is right in his choice of deity? I don't think so, yet by his astonishing logic, he should do so.

The first part of the paragraph is pretty much the equivalent to saying "na-na-na I can't hear you".

To be continued . . .

That's the most scary part.