Christians Voting for Marxists, Secularists Then Surprised When They Vote to Oppress Freedom of Religion

Goal of Democrat Party for America

I've been saying for years that Marxism, Socialism, Communism, the Democrat Party and the rest of the totalitarian government philosophies and entities are antithetical to Christianity and have sat in wonderment that so many Christians vote Democrat or Socialist.

We had Barack Obama famously comment on those that cling to their guns and religion, directed at Christians here which don't, while he supports the Islamofascists in the Middle East that do. What else not supported are public displays of Christianity. Obama and the Democrats have turned freedom of religion found in the Establishment Clause to freedom from religion  and freedom to worship. Freedom to worship means if you're a Christian, shut the hell up except when you're with you own kind on Sundays.

I've chronicled how government officials have helped the Democrat Party, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), the Communist Party founded ACLU going to schools, colleges and universities, to the middle of the desert, to the deep woods, and anywhere a Cross or Ten Commandments monument or engraving is found, and sue to get them removed. Even to the point of a Ten Commandments monument on school grounds, voted on by the Democrat City Council to be removed. A solution was offered to have the monument moved to a nearby church. That was rejected because it was still in public view. Seriously.

Look for the day when churches will have to remove Crosses if that's the case.

It's the Democrat Party that's forcing the Catholic Church and other religious institutions to pay for birth control, abortion pills, abortion, infanticide according to government dictates, violating centuries of tradition, values and belief.

It's the Democrat Party and other anti Christians that keep Christian clubs forming on Campuses. It's the Democrat Party and other anti Christian intolerant bigots forcing existing clubs to accept and vote into leadership positions atheists and secularists to meet with "diversity" guidelines. It's the Democrat Party that is trying to stop Bible study groups from meeting in homes. Only Christian groups; Islamists are given a pass in the name of 'diversity".

Given all that, many Christians will still vote Democrat. They will vote for the city council members that remove Christian symbols from the public square. The will vote for state and federal Democrat officials that have a history of anti Christian bigotry and belief in the State before God. For example, a Catholic politician voting for abortion and infanticide, using as an excuse they don't want to force their values on other's. It's not a value if you use the power of the State to force others to obey the State and violate Christian practices; that person values the Secularist State over Christianity. He\She values killing babies over saving them. Yet many Christians will vote for these supporters that ignore or turn the Establishment Clause on its head. They will vote for those that oppose Christianity but give Islamists a pass. They will vote for those that ignore Biblical Principles.

The Founding Fathers made it quite clear that there must be a [Christian] religious moral foundation and virtuous people for our republic to survive. Many Christians for decades have voted against Christianity and for the State the oppresses them, then complain when the State, the people they voted for, actually starts removing all public practice and symbols of Christianity from the public square.

"If My people, who are called by My Name, will humble themselves and pray and seek My Face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven, forgive their sin, and heal their land."  2 Chronicles 7:14 

I can't help but think what happened to the Old Testament Jews every time they turned their back on God. It wasn't pretty.

  

Yeah! Another Win for Intolerant Bigoted Atheists

An Offensive Display in Santa Monica

Atheists have scoured another victory based on hate and intolerance, which is the foundation of their religion. Another Nativity scene will not be displayed this Christmas, this time in Santa Monica. I’ve always understood atheism to mean one didn’t believe in any deity; that’s it. Now it’s just another intolerant hate group.

The Santa Monica nativity scene has been around for about sixty years and was about two blocks long showing fourteen scenes. To replace it the anti-Christian hate group, the Santa Monica city council, had a lottery to decide what displays are presented. There are twenty-one plots; atheists won eighteen of them. Well, color me surprised! That sounds about right. Atheist’s holiday displays are nothing more than hate speech against Christians. What a great religion they have!

Before Christianity, in the pagan world, there was no such thing as charity. Atheists are against charity. Before Christianity there were no hospitals. Atheists hate hospitals. Before Christianity, in the pagan world there were only dictatorships; Judeo-Christian principle formed the foundation for a constitutional republic. Atheists hate democracy and love dictatorships; one of the first things a communist dictator does is crush religion. Atheist’s campaign of intolerance and hate works toward that end.

I’ve posted before who has provided most to the well being of people, equality, and a stable society, atheists or Jews and Christians? Who’s contributed most to the arts and architecture, atheists or Jews and Christians? Who said all people are equal, and started treating women as more than sex slaves to the passions of men, to be there only for child-bearing; Atheists or Christians?  

Atheism has offered nothing, contributed nothing, and believes in nothing but intolerance and hate. Used to be, since they didn’t believe in God, they didn’t care about religion. What happens when one doesn’t believe in God, there’s a vacuum, and it usually gets filled with something bad.     

Thank you atheists for all the great music you've written that was inspired by your belief.

Thank you atheists for all the great architecture; the buildings and communities built that was inspired by your belief.

Thank you atheists for all the great literature written that was inspired by your belief.

Thank you atheists for all the thousands of years of wisdom you have provided us inspired by your belief. 

Thank you atheists for showing us (especially at Christmastime) how to be tolerant inspired by your belief.

Don’t dis them that brung ya to the dance

If you are against Christianity, yet care about children, charity, humanity, love, the old, the homeless, and the sick, why?

Secularists, in whatever form, anti-traditionalists, atheists, communists, statists, pagans, all claim to be charitable, care about the sick, the disabled, the mentally ill and the rest, at the same time saying hateful things about Christians. I’ve been reading quite a bit lately about the ancient world, especially about the ancient Mediterranean; their beliefs and behaviors.

In the pagan world infanticide, murder, slavery, letting the sick, poor, old people and children just die because of they were of no value or use, was the way of philosophy and life. Women had fewer rights than male slaves.

We in the West have the opposite view and practices. It all began because of what Jesus taught. Jesus Christ said to let the children come to Him, “Jesus took children in his arms and blessed them. ‘Let the children come to me; do not hinder them.’ . . . And He took them in His arms and blessed them, laying His hands on them.”   Even the Disciples were against this. Children at that time were seen as a burden, another mouth to feed. Girl babies were often left to die or outright killed right after birth, and any baby not seen as fully healthy was killed. Many were abandoned. As a result, over the centuries, abandoned children were taken care of by Christians. Christians created orphanages or cared for them in their own homes (precursor of the foster care system) rather than buy into the notion that children were of no value. Those against Christianity will point out all the failings of orphanages and foster care. I can only suppose then they approve of leaving abandoned children to die.

Leaving children to die, not seeing the worth and sanctity of human life extended to all people. Life had no value. Murder was acceptable. Infanticide was acceptable. Abortion (as it is now) was acceptable; thousands were slaughtered in the arenas of the Roman Empire, and human sacrifice was acceptable all over the world. Jesus taught all life was sacred. This was antithetical to the pagan beliefs of the time. Secularists and atheists claim to care for people. This is a Christian belief. Secularists and atheists being true to their rejection of Christianity, to be true to their beliefs, would advocate for murder, infanticide and human sacrifice.

Before Christianity marriage was for political and child bearing reasons. Men wanted an heir, and women’s purpose was to have babies. They were baby factories with no rights. Unmarried women were often, if not usually, prostitutes. Temples were glorified brothels filled with prostitutes. Jesus had many women followers, cared and ministered to them against the norms of His society. Jesus had women spread the news of His Resurrection. The early church met primarily in homes, usually run by women. In that society, such things were just not allowed. Women weren’t even allowed to speak in public, but in Christian services they were. Are atheists and secularists for the abuse of women, forcing them to be silent, forcing them into prostitution?

Marriage was not between equals in pagan society as it is now. Based on Jesus’ teachings, the Apostle Paul wrote extensively about the equality of women in marriage, that men should love and listen to their women, should share equally in the marriage. Divorce then was a one way street. The man could just throw his wife out on the street with no possessions or money; that was divorce. A husband could commit adultery as long as it wasn’t with another man’s wife. Not out of any concern for the wife, but because the wife was property, and adultery was using (stealing) another man’s property. Plus there were plenty of prostitutes around, so it was just insulting to use another’s wife.

Slavery was the social norm of the day. It was until the 19^th century. It was Christians, using the teachings of Apostle Paul and Jesus that put into practice the notion that we are all created in God’s image, so all equal before Him, and so to each other. In pagan times one was free man or slave (or woman). It was Christians that fought to free slaves all over the world. Do atheists and secularists endorse slavery, or embrace the Christian belief and practice that men are equal and slavery is evil.

There was no such thing as charity and compassion. There was no caring for the sick, poor, or homeless. If one were in such a condition, it was punishment from the gods. Based on Jesus’ teaching, Apostle Paul said, “Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others”. At that time looking after others was thought of as useless and a waste. The thinking of the time was that the poor and sick should be left to die if they can’t work. They weren’t worthy of help. Jesus showed compassion for the sick and poor. If atheists and secularists so reject Christianity, then they reject the notion of caring for the sick and poor, like those before Christianity did.

There were not charitable organizations before Christianity introduced them. There wasn’t any charity at all. Jesus said, “Whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.” An absolute contradiction to the mores of the time. Rejecting the teachings of Christianity, would secularists and atheists reject charities for the sick or the homeless, the poor?

Part of caring for the sick was the creation of hospitals, that didn’t exist in pagan times. Atheists and secularists accept this as just a part of modern society. Schools, the idea that everyone, even women, should be taught, regardless of class or ethnicity, was a Christian development and practice. Before Jesus Christ, education was only for the sons of free men. There was of course push back against this, even among Christians, but the idea became the reality we have today.

Art, music, architecture, literature all benefitted and improved as a result of Christianity. That’s a whole other posting. My point here is atheists and secularists all embrace, practice and benefit from the beliefs and sacrifices of Christians. Maybe they should reconsider their wholesale attack on Christianity since it is what gives them their own sense of humanity, care, compassion and love. Such things did not exist before Jesus Christ. Don’t dis them that brung ya to the dance.

Atheists Declare Pogrom Against Christians

Al Stefanelli

One can’t help conclude the religion of Atheism is no more than a platform of hate speech and oppression. For a group that doesn’t believe in God, they sure spend an enormous amount of time and energy campaigning against Him. Of course they say they’re campaigning against organized religion, but Christians call the Church, “The Body of Christ”, so they are attacking God. By attacking organized religion they’re attacking the US Constitution too since it protects freedom of religion. Now they're calling for the eradication of Christians.

These intolerant bigots twist the establishment clause to mean “freedom from religion”, but that’s too stupid a statement to even begin to seriously consider. Now they’ve taken their bigotry even farther by calling for the “eradication” of Christians. They designate “fundamentalist” Christians and Islamists, making a comparison of the two. There is a big problem, to be sure, of “fundamentalist” Christian suicide bombers, car bombers, and members of that radical group taking to the streets destroying property, beating people to death, shooting people that don’t believe like them, flying planes in to buildings and all the rest. The similarities are astonishing.

Al Stefanelli, American Atheists’ Georgia State Director, on their blog, states:

“It should come as no surprise that the individuals who abide by fundamentalist Christian and radical Islamic doctrines would be the first to cry out that they are being persecuted when their dangerous, damaging and disingenuous beliefs come under attack. Most of these people lack the maturity and intelligence to act in a socially acceptable manner.  Many of them are sociopaths and quite a good number of them are psychopaths.  All of them are clearly delusional.” Full blog here.

If you link to the blog you’ll see an icon stating, “Notice, Intolerance will not be tolerated”, and this whole blog is full of intolerance, name calling and insults of the most vile sort. This guy even brings up the Westboro Baptist Church, which is not Baptist and is rejected by the Christian community.

Blinded by hatred and intolerance, claiming their beliefs and freedoms, maybe even their very lives are in jeopardy due to Christians, the whole post, like most of what atheists have to say about Christianity are blatant lies. All the freedoms they claim to enjoy are based in Judeo-Christian beliefs and practices. One can focus on some obviously bad things and say that’s what the whole of the religion is about, but that’s so dishonest no thinking person can accept it. They call themselves “free thinkers” yet think alike.

These guys are allowed to spew intolerant hate speech at the same time claiming others are oppressive and intolerant and denying their right to do so. How stupid is that? No one is denying them their right to do anything, yet they want to eradicate Christians. Not that that's oppressive and denying rights or anything. Jeeez. 

We’ll be coming up on Christmas soon, and they’ll be in full throated howl. They’ll offer nothing positive, only attacks, lies, and hate. Atheism, the religion of hate and intolerance. They don’t believe in God, so what’s the deal with all the attacks against something that doesn’t exist? Just love it when people are the very thing they criticize others of being. Think there's a word for it.  

Fr. Barron Comments on Atheism

Comments on how engaged atheists are challenging religion, and how it's a call to religionists to know who these people are and what they're saying, and the counter arguments provided by religious philosophers.

http://youtu.be/OOJjI5Yv5TU

I've written about atheists before here and here. There are several more, to be found searching 'atheists' in the search bar.

Atheism Explained

The "New Atheists" Need To Practice Self-Honesty and Tolerance

The “New Atheists” aren’t content with just stating they don’t believe, but have concocted a religion of intolerance of their own making with the soul premise of insulting believers. The attack is a forked tongue…if you believe in God you’re a stupid idiot that believes in fairy tales; and Christianity has caused more wars and bloodshed than anything or anyone else. The second we can just toss out because it’s a demonstrable lie.

Atheists seem to think they’ve developed their ethics and morality all on their own without the Judeo-Christian Ethic. In pagan societies there were no charities, women existed only for sexual pleasure and bearing children, and if the born child was not well formed or an unwanted female, or even if just unwanted, it was taken out and left to die. Pretty much what goes on in China (atheist State) presently. Archeological sites exist with just the bones of babies piled up, a disposal ground. Human life has value?

Human beings by nature are self centered, selfish creatures. We’re born bad, and that’s much, but not all, of what is meant by the phrase, “we’re all born sinners”.

We live in a culture that mostly reveres birth and children, unlike the ancient pagans. We live in a culture that allows women to vote and work, and contribute to society. Pagans didn’t. We live in a culture that condemns murder, and the pagans gave mixed messages about it. Our culture for the most part honors our parents, pagan cultures didn’t. Pagan cultures practiced slavery on a massive scale. Atheists contend we would have eventually abolished slavery without religion. Really? Did any of the pagan cultures do it? It was primarily Christians that lead the movement against slavery. Didn’t see any pagans, or atheists chiming in.

Much is made of equality in our culture. Atheists say we would have gotten here anyway. Really? Didn’t happen in pagan cultures. It’s because of the Judeo-Christian tradition, the idea that God created us in His image making us all equal that brought forth the idea of equality between men. Like all things, this had to evolve…so slave owners had to recognize the human equality of their slaves and set them free, and men had to recognize the human equality of women and open society for their participation and growth.

The “New Atheists” contend that their ethics and values, that match those that have been the foundation of Judeo-Christian values, would have manifested in modern society without religion. If so, why didn’t it? It was the Jews that first talked about equality among men (the starting point for equality of all), that talked about altruistic love, “love your neighbor” not just your family and fellow tribesmen. It wasn’t the ancient pagans that first came up with the notion. They lived during the same time period, and not a word about universal love. It was the early Christian movement that created the concept of charity, flying in the face of the selfishness. That too evolved into something that atheists see as a good thing. Not an idea pagans came up with, living in the same time period. Even now in Atheist China and the barbaric Islamic Middle East, women don't even rise to the level of second class citizens, and slavery is still practiced. If equality is so self evident, now that we're in modern times, why isn't it being practiced there?

Our culture values charity, universal love, the value of women, the value of children, the value of others not of our tribe. Not one that I can see is the result of pagan thinking or atheists’ philosophy. If these values were so universal that we would have come to embrace the same values, why aren't they, in modern times, embraced by China or Islamic countries?

Atheists should not be so intolerant of the religions, the Judeo-Christian Ethic that gave them the values they claim to hold dear. It should be enough for them, like traditional atheists, to just say “I don’t believe” and let it go. Speaking with a forked tongue about the source of the good things about our culture just shows bigotry and bad form. They should be thanking the Western Religions for these things, not lying and insulting them.

Some Questions for "Brights" (Atheists)

The new militant, proselytizing atheist movement, instead of just saying they don't believe there's a God and stopping there, spend a lot of time insulting us "Dulls". If you haven't been paying attention, that's what Believers are called by them. I really don't care if someone doesn't believe in God, but I do care when lies and insults are thrown about.

As a "Dull" I have some questions for our "Bright" friends. I need to have these explained to me, to us (believers), because we're unintelligent, weak, and believe in fairy tales.

First question is how does insulting people that believe something different add to the discussion of the existence of God? Does being insulting help prove God doesn't exist?

Second question is how to justify the claim that atheists in charge would have better results than "Dulls" have had? (During this questioning I'm focusing on Judaism and Christianity because that's my religious tradition.) The atheist regimes in history brought Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Communist Soviet Union, and Communist China, to name the big ones. I saw one defense of this observation stating Hitler was a Catholic, so he was (secretly) religious; as if that explained it all. I don't think being a member of a church makes anyone a Christian any more that sitting in the garage makes one a car. David Berlinski: "What Hitler did not believe and what Stalin did not believe and what Mao did not believe and what the SS did not believe and what the Gestapo did not believe and what the NKVD did not believe and what the commissars, functionaries, swaggering executioners, Nazi doctors, Communist Party theoreticians, intellectuals, Brown Shirts, Black Shirts, gauleiteres, and a thousand party hacks did not believe was that God was watching what they were doing." Anything bad we "Dulls" have done doesn't even come close to the results of these "Bright" regimes.

On the flip side of that is good works. Why do "Dulls" give more than "Brights"? I'm thinking of all that charitable work, and charitable organizations that the "Dulls" have founded and support. Hospitals, shelters, feeding the poor, paying attention to prisoners, universities, ending slavery, civil rights ("Dull" Christian Minister Martin Luther King), actually a whole range of things that improve the plight of humanity. I remember a "Bright" say after the worst of cleaning up after Katrina was done, that mostly what he saw were Christians and their organizations helping. (Note that the government wasn't of much help.) He said he had to hand it to them, they were there when needed, and the "Brights" really didn't help out that much, if at all. Christians have given $billions to the suffering and poor all over the world. "Dulls" give far more than "Brights" in charitable donations. Lots of stats from many sources bear this out. "Dulls" volunteer far more than "Brights". The question is, what's to recommend, what evidence is there, that "Brights" care for others? Or don't "Brights" care about others? I know some individuals do, but as a group or movement? Not so much. Side note here. "Brights" are all for governments taking care of people in trouble, just not them personally, and taking money from others to do it, which in turn empowers the Nazi, Fascist, Socialist, Communist expression of "Brights".

God made it quite clear to us "Dulls" that service to others is job one. Question to "Brights", what is your job one?

Next question is about the arts. "Dulls" have some incredible architecture, music so lovely I tear up, literature that takes the breath away with its expressions, paintings and sculptures that's so gorgeous it make one's eyes glow with appreciation, philosophy that really forces us to think about how we relate to life, nature, each other. The question is, what have "Brights" provided us in architecture, painting, literature, music, philosophy, sculpture? What aesthetics have "Brights" provided us that compares?

Back to insults. I've noticed when engaged in dialectic, when an opponent begins loosing ground, insults happen, from them. Another tactic is to point out something singular, and event or person, as if that's of consequence.

Answers to the questions here I'm sure will clear things up, and help us "Dulls" understand better why "Brights" have so much more to offer, and why we should denounce God.

"Invention of Lying" -Anti-Religious, Anti-Christian, Pro-Atheist Movie?

Initial reports on this movie is that it's a pro-atheist anti-religious movie. The trailers show it as a cute comedy. The director, Ricky Gervais, is reportedly a militant atheist. Reviewer Kyle Smith says the movie "is a full-on attack on religion in general and Christianity in particular. It might be the most blatantly, one-sidedly atheist movie ever released by a major studio, in this case Warner Bros."

In the movie the biggest lie is belief in God. In a society where everyone tells the truth, the main character hits upon the idea of lying. According to this review, the rest of the movie is about the "man in the sky" lie used to launch into a full on attack on religion and Christians.

Two Thoughts on Religion-A Physicist and an Atheist

"I see no way to draw up a balance sheet, to weigh the good done by religion against the evil and decide which is greater by some impartial process. My own prejudice, looking at religion from the inside, leads me to conclude that the good vastly outweighs the evil. In many places in the United States, with widening gaps between rich and poor, churches and synagogues are almost the only institutions that bind people together into communities. In church or in synagogue, people from different walks of life work together in youth groups or adult education groups, making music or teaching children, collecting money for charitable causes, and taking care of each other when sickness or disaster strikes. Without religion, the life of the country would be greatly impoverished." ~~Physicist Freeman Dyson

"I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there's is not God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that.
"My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind." Philosopher Thomas Nagel

My personal experience matches Dyson's, and I appreciate the honesty of Nagel.

Stubbornness: Religious and Atheist World Views

I watched a debate on my Facebook page about Atheism, Creationism (Intelligent Design), Evolution and Christian belief. I was grieved by the unthinking application of the belief templates from both sides. Same age old arguments, degenerating into the same insults. Christians objecting to science, Atheists objecting to the spiritual world view. They are not mutually exclusive, and the arguers painted each other into a corner so that the corners became defended. The corners being defended was not the beliefs of each, but how the other thought the opposition believed. A lot of other things were expressed, including insults, which didn't advance the discussion. A lot of ignorance was displayed, by the Atheists about Christianity, and Christians about Science and objectivitism. Sadly, much misunderstanding by Christians about their own beliefs. Incorrect templates all around.

Some advice to Christians, from no less than Augustine, about arguing science vs religion:
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world. About the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show a vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but the people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books and matters concerning the resurrections of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learned from experience in the light of reason?"

To the Atheists and others that reject the spiritual world view:

Einstein: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

John Polkinghorne: "The poverty of an objectivistic account is made only too clear when we consider the mystery of music. From a scientific point of view, it is nothing but vibrations in the air, impinging on the eardrums and stimulating neural currents in the brain.

How does it come about that this banal sequence of temporal activity has the power to speak to our hearts of an eternal beauty? The whole range of subjective experience, from perceiving a patch of pink, to being enthralled by a performance of the Mass in B Minor, and on to the mystic's encounter with the ineffable reality of the One, all these truly human experiences are at the center of our encounter with reality, and they are not to be dismissed as epiphenomenal froth on the surface of a universe whose true nature is impersonal and lifeless."

Astronomer Arthur Eddington relates a parable of a scientist studying deep sea life, and drops a net with three inch squares. He catches a lot, and notices that there is no life less than three inches long. He concludes there is no sea life less than three inches.

There are objective and spiritual elements to the truths of life. One view, excluding or not giving credence to another, is not going to reveal any truth. Both are necessary to understand ourselves, each other, our relationships, and our physical universe.

A Thought for Those That Say ONLY Mind and Reason Exist

Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow: "At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Stephen Hawking, writing about the possibility of discovering a unified theory, in "A Brief History of Time": "Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason-for then we would know the mind of God."

More poetically, from Annie Dillard (if you haven't read her, you're in for a treat. Highly recommend "Pilgrimage at Tinker Creek", a very influential book in my life.)
This is from "Teaching a Stone to Talk":

"Now we are no longer primitive. Now the whole world seems not holy...We as a people have moved from pantheism to pan-atheism...It is difficult to undo our own damage and to recall to our presence that which we have asked to leave. It is hard to desecrate a grove and change your mind. We doused the burning bush and cannot rekindle it. We are lighting matches in vain under every green tree. Did the wind used to cry and the hills shout forth praise? Now speech has perished from among the lifeless things of the earth, and living things say very little to very few...And yet it could be that wherever there is motion there is noise, as when a whale breaches and smacks the water, and wherever there is stillness there is the small, still voice, God's speaking from the whirlwind, nature's old song and dance, the show we drove from town...What have we been doing all these centuries but trying to call God back to the mountain, or, failing that, raise a peep out of anything that isn't us? What is the difference between a cathedral and a physics lab? Are they not both saying: Hello?"

If there is no more to existence than existing, do my atheist and rationalist friends contend that there is no meaning in life? If that's true, why do any act of love or compassion? Why isn't murder and destruction just as acceptable as an act of mercy? I ask them, why are humans the only life that is self aware? The rational mind being omnipotent, they should be able to explain this, and our existence.