# News & Current Events > Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies >  The Theist Hatred Of Atheists

## Kade

Great article.

----------


## Dieseler

Don't sweat it Kade.
You guys will be able to openly persecute, rat out and maybe even kill some of us evil and insane Christians soon enough.
The stage is set and the script is already Pre-written for you.
Christians will be the new delicacy on the menu soon, so grab a knife and a fork and dig in!
Hurray for you!! No more God to stand in your way!!
Or will their be??? 
lols at you I reckon for you will finally have the master you've always served so unknowingly soon enough.
I wish you luck, You're gonna need it.

----------


## fireinme

http://www.persecutionblog.com/

Can you boast as many Atheists killed for their belief? 

This is just to point out something you might not have noticed. I do not hold to all the views expressed on this blog but I do not pretend that Christian persecution does not occur. 

It is absolutely unchristian to do anything but good to your "enemies." Thus if any in the name of Christ were to persecute anyone they would be unchristian.

----------


## theczar1776

great article.

i am very sick of being treated like a plague-infested rat by theists, religious FREAKING FREEDOM. if i don't want do believe your crap, i am no less American then you you SCUM!!

----------


## fireinme

Love you man, I do not think you are any of those things. For all I know you just might be more American than me. If you posted in response to my post I want to tell you that I am sorry that you have been mistreated by "theists." I hope you know that not all are as as unchristian.

Jesus said you will know Christians not for what they profess but by what they do. this is why Christianity has a bad name. I also would say that it goes the other way that not all who are atheist are intrinsically going to be more evil  or less good than the average person. 

Matthew 7:16-24 (KJV)16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?   17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.   18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.   19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.   20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.   21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.   22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?   23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.   24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

----------


## Mini-Me

Quite frankly, I think the animosity on both sides is ridiculous...far too many people on both sides are arrogant and utterly overconfident that they "know the real truth" to the exclusion of everyone else, and then they proceed to publicly exalt themselves and belittle others for their beliefs.  Richard Dawkins is a prick about this, George H.W. Bush is a prick about this (his quote is in the article), and the laws in Tennessee, Arkansas, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas forbidding nonreligious people to hold office are just absurd.

When will people finally understand that Atheists and Christians (and plenty of other groups) do not have to be enemies?  Both sides are so busy demonizing each other that they totally ignore the people who want to control government and expand its power to control what *all* of us believe.  We're being divided and set against each other for a reason, folks...Christians are led to imagine that Atheists are trying to destroy Christianity, so we have crazies like Huckabee who want to make "Christian values" part of the Constitution!  Then, nonreligious people are led to believe that religious fanatics are out to get them, so we have crazies like Elton John who say we should abolish religion!  Sadly, people get drawn into the hype and the fear of persecution so much that they start entertaining and supporting the extreme ideas at both crazy ends of the spectrum, so slowly but surely, this "imaginary" battle starts to become real.  *Everyone needs to take a chill pill, reaffirm freedom of religion, and unite to fight off our real oppressors.*

Both believers and nonbelievers have their place, and both must exist in balance so neither side goes way overboard.  When we're all of the same belief, we're all able to be easily manipulated and controlled by the same method.  Several hundred years ago, corrupt organized religion held tyrannical power over Europe, and they were able to keep people in line because of their uniform "fear of God."  If everyone becomes religious, *this same tactic will be used once again to control people.*  Hence, having a healthy number of Atheists and other nonbelievers is a check against a tyrannical government that uses religion to control the people.  Similarly, Christians and other theists are also important, because they have a built-in allegiance to a power other than the state.  Hence, having a healthy number of Christians and other theists is a check against a tyrannical secular government that desires everyone to have allegiance to it alone.

*We need each other, guys!*

----------


## Publius Freeman

America's dual foundational pillars remain Civil and Religious Liberty.  

If either one is lost, tyranny ensues (like it did in the Old World, before 1776).

The "New" World Order is not new...


Something to think on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKXkZWIIEiU

"Fifty thousand men were sent to do the will of one.
His claim was phrased quite simply, though he never voiced it loud,
I am he, the chosen one.

In his name they could slaughter, for his name they could die.
Though many there were believed in him, still more were sure he lied,
But they'll fight the battle on..."

Genesis "One for the Vine" lyrics
http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.n...25696000155637

----------


## jon_perez

> Great article.


From the article:

_"State laws instill and perpetuate this attitude. Article IX, Sec. 2, of the Tennessee constitution states: No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments shall hold any office in the civil department of this state. Arkansas, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas have similar laws."_

Doesn't Ron Paul talk about giving the States more power?

----------


## Mini-Me

> From the article:
> 
> _"State laws instill and perpetuate this attitude. Article IX, Sec. 2, of the Tennessee constitution states: “No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.” Arkansas, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas have similar laws."_
> 
> Doesn't Ron Paul talk about giving the States more power?


Yup...tyranny can occur at all levels of government, but at least you have somewhere else to run when it isn't centralized.   For instance, most states do not have this ridiculous requirement as part of their Constitutions.  Also, you have more representation at more local levels of government...in other words, if some people in Tennessee want to amend their Constitution, it would probably be a *much* easier battle against far less entrenched powers than the one we face in trying to restore the federal government to its Constitutional limits.  That said, although it probably wouldn't do much for this particular instance, state-level abuses like this are among the reasons a "real" incorporation doctrine may in fact be a good idea.  (If so, we'd have to do it with a new, properly ratified, clear-cut amendment...and we'd also have to find an elegant way to get around the fact that outright incorporation would make state libel and slander laws unconstitutional, among other things )

----------


## wildflower

What is the point of this thread, other than to divide, stir up emotions and rile up animosity?

----------


## Mini-Me

> What is the point of this thread, other than to divide, stir up emotions and rile up animosity?


That may have been the OP's intent, but hopefully people might consider my point about how atheists and theists need each other to fight off tyranny

----------


## WilliamC

Theists versus atheists, false dichotomy.

The real problem is collectivists versus individualists.

I'll take all the theists allies I can find just so long as they value individualism more than forcing me into their collective religion.

And from what I've seem there are more than a few atheists who are more than willing to use government to force their views on believers. 

Those kind of atheists are simply worshiping a different kind of supreme power as far as I am concerned, and I will work against them.

Why should anyone feel threatened over what an individuals personal beliefs about life, the universe, and everything are?

----------


## truelies

> great article.
> 
> i am very sick of being treated like a plague-infested rat by theists, religious FREAKING FREEDOM. if i don't want do believe your crap, i am no less American then you you SCUM!!


No one is denying you the freedom to not believe and/or to so shout such from the rooftops........... BUT Believers ALSO have the Freedom to decline to associate with,  employ or do business with you if they so choose.

----------


## RiderX

Live and let live, man! 
Everyone should just leave everyone else alone. ~~ Peace.

----------


## Kade

> Theists versus atheists, false dichotomy.
> 
> The real problem is collectivists versus individualists.
> 
> I'll take all the theists allies I can find just so long as they value individualism more than forcing me into their collective religion.
> 
> And from what I've seem there are more than a few atheists who are more than willing to use government to force their views on believers. 
> 
> Those kind of atheists are simply worshiping a different kind of supreme power as far as I am concerned, and I will work against them.
> ...


I agree with this.. more than you. I started this topic for more dialogue. I am mildly anti-religious, as opposed to simply atheist... the equivalent would be someone who claimed to be anti-socialist, or anti-fascist. I am against dogma.

I believe wholeheartedly that most atheists are tolerant people... just look at the first few posts in this thread... who are the ones with reasonable responses? 

I'm from the deep south. There was no tolerance. Simply because I don't believe!? How ridiculous is that... and people are killed... in fact, it's much worse than being killed...

Consider that atheism was the rarest of philosophical stances after the rise of the great monotheisms... history has destroyed the freethinkers, we have so very few... Atheists were not just killed, they were completely and utterly silenced. It is one thing to be a martyr for a religion, it's another to be the end of any voice... we don't hear about atheists in the past, because nothing of them remains. If a person even questioned the churches on policy during this period, they were skinned alive and fed their own testicles and set afire... 

I want tolerance, and I want people to understand here that the separation of church and state is of UTMOST importance to many people. It is not a policy against religion, it is a policy of religious freedom for all... I don't understand what the difficulty comprehending that here is... this board is filled with real theocrats.

----------


## Pianist4Freedom

I have found that for any imaginable combination of beliefs and characteristics, even apparently contradictory ones, you can find a human being that has that combination.  Thus, I think there are a vast spectrum of human beings who are atheist and who are theist. There are kind, generous and understanding atheists and kind, generous and understanding theists.  There are vociferous, vehement, vitriolic atheists and also theists.

I just want everyone to shut up about how awful the other side is and just live side by side, in freedom. As long as we all agree on the absolute morality of respecting each other's lives and rights, I don't think that religious beliefs will ever be a problem--and we'll just continue to try to persuade one another peacefully.

----------


## Theocrat

I don't hate "atheists," but I do hate "atheism." In my opinion, it is the most irrational, dangerous, diabolical, contradictory, and foolish theories that mankind has ever formulated as a philosophy and view of the world. Therefore, I, as a Christian theist, will continue to seek its destruction until it is eradicated from the world as a system of thought and lifestyle.

In passing, I would say that "atheists" hate theists more than theists hate them because "atheists" love sin and hate God, by nature. One can only think of the Christian hate speeches of Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris, as international spokesman of "atheism." If you want to witness hatred and aggression as you've never seen in a human being, just read any of their works or listen to their speeches. It will definitely send chills up your spine and make your blood boil. It's just too bad these guys will have to face an angry and righteous God on Judgment Day to give an account of their perpetual hate, aggression, and ridicule towards God's people (unless they turn from their wicked ways and believe in the truth of God's revelation).

Anyway, for me, "atheists" aren't the problem because they are made in the image and likeness of their Creator, though they daily refuse to acknowledge Him as such. It's "atheism" that's the problem, and as I've said before, I will work diligently to bring its demise to the human race as long as the living God blesses me with breath in my body and His Spirit in my soul. Having said that, I try hard to love "atheists" as my neighbors on God's earth, though I fail to do that at times, I admit.

So much for "atheists" trying to attain peace in the world. As long as theists exist, you will never have peace because your "atheism" will be a threat to us. Oh, what will you do?

----------


## Kade

> I don't hate "atheists," but I do hate "atheism." In my opinion, it is the most irrational, dangerous, diabolical, contradictory, and foolish theories that mankind has ever formulated as a philosophy and view of the world. Therefore, I, as a Christian theist, will continue to seek its destruction until it is eradicated from the world as a system of thought and lifestyle.
> 
> In passing, I would say that "atheists" hate theists more than theists hate them because "atheists" love sin and hate God, by nature. One can only think of the Christian hate speeches of Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris, as international spokesman of "atheism." If you want to witness hatred and aggression as you've never seen in a human being, just read any of their works or listen to their speeches. It will definitely send chills up your spine and make your blood boil. It's just too bad these guys will have to face an angry and righteous God on Judgment Day to give an account of their perpetual hate, aggression, and ridicule towards God's people (unless they turn from their wicked ways and believe in the truth of God's revelation).
> 
> Anyway, for me, "atheists" aren't the problem because they are made in the image and likeness of their Creator, though they daily refuse to acknowledge Him as such. It's "atheism" that's the problem, and as I've said before, I will work diligently to bring its demise to the human race as long as the living God blesses me with breath in my body and His Spirit in my soul. Having said that, I try hard to love "atheists" as my neighbors on God's earth, though I fail to do that at times, I admit.
> 
> So much for "atheists" trying to attain peace in the world. As long as theists exist, you will never have peace because your "atheism" will be a threat to us. Oh, what will you do?



Bump for Bat$#@!.

----------


## Theocrat

> Bump for Bat$#@!.


Way to be *rational*, Kade.

----------


## integrity

Agnostics ROCK!

----------


## WilliamC

> I don't hate "atheists," but I do hate "atheism." In my opinion, it is the most irrational, dangerous, diabolical, contradictory, and foolish theories that mankind has ever formulated as a philosophy and view of the world. Therefore, I, as a Christian theist, will continue to seek its destruction until it is eradicated from the world as a system of thought and lifestyle.


Welcome to the collectivist mold. Anything you disagree with must be destroyed, yes?

The only reason I don't try and "promote" atheism is because I have absolutely no concern with what peaceful people choose to believe about the Universe and their place in it.

You, however, seem far from peaceful. You, if I'm not mistaken, have threatened to destroy me in a previous post as well.

How then can you claim to support Ron Paul, or even Christ for that matter, if you seek to destroy folks like myself who aren't out to do you or yours any harm?




> In passing, I would say that "atheists" hate theists more than theists hate them because "atheists" love sin and hate God, by nature.


Not I. Speak for yourself when you talk about hating and such, Theocrat.





> One can only think of the Christian hate speeches of Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris, as international spokesman of "atheism."


They don't speak for me. Personally while I agree with their views on some things I do not agree with their curious desire to try and push those views on others.  Most of what I've seen from the first two (the only ones whom I've read anything by) simply seem to be strongly worded arguments for their worldviews and positions. 

I can't rightly claim to have read anything by them where they are seeking to use the power of government to force religious folks to give up their religion.

Now that I would be completely opposed to. 

Who am I to decide what peaceful folks wish to believe and teach their children? 

I'm not out to destroy any peaceful persons culture either, no matter how irrational I may find it to be.  




> If you want to witness hatred and aggression as you've never seen in a human being, just read any of their works or listen to their speeches. It will definitely send chills up your spine and make your blood boil. It's just too bad these guys will have to face an angry and righteous God on Judgment Day to give an account of their perpetual hate, aggression, and ridicule towards God's people (unless they turn from their wicked ways and believe in the truth of God's revelation).


Well speaking only for myself there will be no judgment day since I have no soul. All I am will end when my brain shuts down for the final time upon my death. So I agree with the atheists on that much.

If others are of a different opinion about themselves, why should that concern me?

Unless they seek my destruction that is. Then it does concern me. Seems there are some insane Islamic fundamentalists who would want to destroy me because I laugh at their insistence that I believe in their imaginary Allah and want me to live according to some dead persons set of ignorant rules. Good thing I live in a Country whose laws and people see fit to separate religion from government, for a handful of them and for me.





> Anyway, for me, "atheists" aren't the problem because they are made in the image and likeness of their Creator, though they daily refuse to acknowledge Him as such.


All humans should be treated equally under the law because of our common humanity, yes. 





> It's "atheism" that's the problem, and as I've said before, I will work diligently to bring its demise to the human race as long as the living God blesses me with breath in my body and His Spirit in my soul. Having said that, I try hard to love "atheists" as my neighbors on God's earth, though I fail to do that at times, I admit.


The only way you will bring about the demise of atheism is to kill those who don't believe in your gods. So keep your language to peaceful persuasion and voluntary  conversion or run the risk of being a part of what you (at least I assume by your support of Ron Paul, which is also an assumption on my part) claim to be against.

Collectivism. In your case, it would be intolerant religious collectivism. Profess belief in god or die, is that how you see it?

Or is "be destroyed" not really meant to be a threat?




> So much for "atheists" trying to attain peace in the world. As long as theists exist, you will never have peace because your "atheism" will be a threat to us. Oh, what will you do?


Self-defense will work just fine should you seek to act on this violent desire you have to destroy me or mine.

----------


## Theocrat

> Welcome to the collectivist mold. Anything you disagree with must be destroyed, yes?
> 
> The only reason I don't try and "promote" atheism is because I have absolutely no concern with what peaceful people choose to believe about the Universe and their place in it.
> 
> You, however, seem far from peaceful. You, if I'm not mistaken, have threatened to destroy me in a previous post as well.
> 
> How then can you claim to support Ron Paul, or even Christ for that matter, if you seek to destroy folks like myself who aren't out to do you or yours any harm?
> 
> 
> ...


Whether you believe it or not, WilliamC, there is a war going on for men's minds, and it's *spiritual* in nature. It's a *war of ideas*, and I believe it's more important than any of the current wars going on around the world today. That is where I choose to fight against all those who seek to dishonor God and His Son Jesus Christ by rejecting His authority and ignoring His revelation in nature and in His word (the Bible). I don't need to use bullets or swords to fight and win this war because my weapons are not carnal in nature (2 Corinthians 10:4).

As I've brought to your attention in the post you've formerly mentioned, I stipulated that it's your *ideas* I seek to challenge and destroy, *not you as a person*. I've dealt with many "atheists" and agnostics on these forums who simply have dangerous and foolish ideas/philosophies that not only contradict God's word, but they also go against Dr. Paul's political platform and philosophy.

The only way peace will be restored to these united States (and really, the whole world) is through the power, wisdom, judgment, and love of the Lord Jesus Christ Who has all authority bestowed upon Him (Matthew 28:18). He is the Prince of peace, and one day the government will rest upon His shoulder (Isaiah 9:6, 7). Heaven is His throne, and the Earth is His footstool (Acts 7:49). As soon as we all come to terms with that truth, the better our world will be, guaranteed.

If it seems that I'm not peaceful or loving, forgive my flesh because my spirit earnestly desires those things for all of God's creation. It's just frustrating to me how some people continue to downplay God's dominion and existence while trying at the same time to attain those things which only come from His hand, such as peace, prosperity, and freedom from tyranny. So, once again, WilliamC, I do *not* wish to destroy your life, but I have a *major problem* with your worldview because it is an *affront* to my God. Therefore, I will continue to battle "atheism," agnosticism, humanism, or any other belief system which willfully and ignorantly dismisses the sovereign God of the universe (revealed in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments) as the central point of all knowledge, wisdom, understanding, and truth. I guess you could call it a "holy war," but not all wars are bad.

----------


## Conservative Christian

The OP's article is an enormous load of BS.

By his own admission, Adolf Hitler completely rejected Christianity by the age of 14.

In _Mein Kampf_, Hitler clearly states that Christian anti-semitism is virtually useless, because all the Jews had to do was convert to Christianity in order to avoid harm.

Being a devout atheist and evolutionist, Hitler called for a "scientific" solution to the Jewish "problem".

----------


## Kludge

This article is based on everyone being a vengeful collectivist.

I'm sure some murderers are atheist... Are all atheists murderers?

----------


## Publius Freeman

> The OP's article is an enormous load of BS.
> 
> By his own admission, Adolf Hitler completely rejected Christianity by the age of 14.
> 
> In _Mein Kampf_, Hitler clearly states that Christian anti-semitism is virtually useless, because all the Jews had to do was convert to Christianity in order to avoid harm.
> 
> Being a devout atheist and evolutionist, Hitler called for a "scientific" solution to the Jewish "problem".


Some pictures of the 'devout atheist' found on the net:

http://alamoministries.com/content/e...togallery.html

----------


## CountryboyRonPaul

> Don't sweat it Kade.
> You guys will be able to openly persecute, rat out and maybe even kill some of us evil and insane Christians soon enough.
> The stage is set and the script is already Pre-written for you.
> Christians will be the new delicacy on the menu soon, so grab a knife and a fork and dig in!
> Hurray for you!! No more God to stand in your way!!
> Or will their be??? 
> lols at you I reckon for you will finally have the master you've always served so unknowingly soon enough.
> I wish you luck, You're gonna need it.


Is this humor?

The fear between Theists and Atheists is misplaced. The majority of Atheists don't want to stop celebrating Christmas, and the majority of Christians don't want a Theocratic rule (maybe Huck's folks).

I don't understand why everyone feels the need to get worked up about it.

Freedom of Religion, Seperation of Church and State. 

Seperation meaning no Theocracy, and no Middle Ages Roman Catholic Church style control in government. Prayer in school is fine, let the community decide if you want prayertime or not.

Is that so hard to live with?

----------


## theczar1776

guys, there are better things to do than argue theogly, it is impossible to win ether way because each side BELIEVES they are right, i dont know but whatever, i love a good brawl, what am i talking about!! FIGHT!

----------


## pinkmandy

> Quite frankly, I think the animosity on both sides is ridiculous...far too many people on both sides are arrogant and utterly overconfident that they "know the real truth" to the exclusion of everyone else, and then they proceed to publicly exalt themselves and belittle others for their beliefs.  Richard Dawkins is a prick about this, George H.W. Bush is a prick about this (his quote is in the article), and the laws in Tennessee, Arkansas, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas forbidding nonreligious people to hold office are just absurd.
> 
> When will people finally understand that Atheists and Christians (and plenty of other groups) do not have to be enemies?  Both sides are so busy demonizing each other that they totally ignore the people who want to control government and expand its power to control what *all* of us believe.  We're being divided and set against each other for a reason, folks...Christians are led to imagine that Atheists are trying to destroy Christianity, so we have crazies like Huckabee who want to make "Christian values" part of the Constitution!  Then, nonreligious people are led to believe that religious fanatics are out to get them, so we have crazies like Elton John who say we should abolish religion!  Sadly, people get drawn into the hype and the fear of persecution so much that they start entertaining and supporting the extreme ideas at both crazy ends of the spectrum, so slowly but surely, this "imaginary" battle starts to become real.  *Everyone needs to take a chill pill, reaffirm freedom of religion, and unite to fight off our real oppressors.*
> 
> Both believers and nonbelievers have their place, and both must exist in balance so neither side goes way overboard.  When we're all of the same belief, we're all able to be easily manipulated and controlled by the same method.  Several hundred years ago, corrupt organized religion held tyrannical power over Europe, and they were able to keep people in line because of their uniform "fear of God."  If everyone becomes religious, *this same tactic will be used once again to control people.*  Hence, having a healthy number of Atheists and other nonbelievers is a check against a tyrannical government that uses religion to control the people.  Similarly, Christians and other theists are also important, because they have a built-in allegiance to a power other than the state.  Hence, having a healthy number of Christians and other theists is a check against a tyrannical secular government that desires everyone to have allegiance to it alone.
> 
> *We need each other, guys!*


Amen. It's _all_ a diversion...we bicker among each other while they do what the hell they want. While America is fighting over whether or not global warming exists (come on people! just take care of the earth and stop fighting!) or whether someone can read a Bible in class or whether a gay couple can adopt a child *they* are busy erasing our borders, undermining our Const, and starting wars.

----------


## theczar1776

> Amen. It's _all_ a diversion...we bicker among each other while they do what the hell they want. While America is fighting over whether or not global warming exists (come on people! just take care of the earth and stop fighting!) or whether someone can read a Bible in class or whether a gay couple can adopt a child *they* are busy erasing our borders, undermining our Const, and starting wars.


yep, germany in the 1930's was worrying about gay marriage, not hitler

----------


## theczar1776

there are some twisted cookies on here

----------


## IPSecure

Instead of being selective:

Why don't you just go All Out - and Hate Everybody?

----------


## jon_perez

> So much for "atheists" trying to attain peace in the world. As long as theists exist, you will never have peace because your "atheism" will be a threat to us. Oh, what will you do?


Sounds like islamic jihadism by another name.

----------


## WilliamC

I see you don't bother to reply directly to any of the points I made but rather wish to talk in generalities. Oh well, I'm more interested in learning about myself and communicating to the wider audience reading our discourse anyway.




> Whether you believe it or not, WilliamC, there is a war going on for men's minds, and it's *spiritual* in nature. It's a *war of ideas*, and I believe it's more important than any of the current wars going on around the world today.


In so much as peaceful people wish to argue among themselves about their religious beliefs I'm all for it. I just am against anyone wanting to use coercion and violence, especially government sponsored coercion and violence, to make others conform to their beliefs.

That goes equally for theists or atheists. 

The only "war" I am fighting is against those who are pushing collectivism in any form over the rights of the individual.

I really don't give a hoot about someones internal religious beliefs, although it can be entertaining to talk about.




> That is where I choose to fight against all those who seek to dishonor God and His Son Jesus Christ by rejecting His authority and ignoring His revelation in nature and in His word (the Bible). I don't need to use bullets or swords to fight and win this war because my weapons are not carnal in nature (2 Corinthians 10:4).


My understanding of Christ and his teachings is that they are only valid if spread through peaceful means and voluntary conversion.

All your talk about wanting to destroy me (as you have said in another thread) or my beliefs does not in any way sound peaceful or voluntary.

As far as I'm concerned Christ was a great philosopher who died 2000 years ago. If you want to live your life for his ideas that's your choice.




> As I've brought to your attention in the post you've formerly mentioned, I stipulated that it's your *ideas* I seek to challenge and destroy, *not you as a person*.


My ideas are inherent to my life and my liberty. The only way you will destroy them is by doing violence against me. 

I would advise against it though as I have a strong self-survival instinct that my come into play should I be physically threatened. 

But if you just want to talk about things in a non-threatening way that's fine. 




> I've dealt with many "atheists" and agnostics on these forums who simply have dangerous and foolish ideas/philosophies that not only contradict God's word, but they also go against Dr. Paul's political platform and philosophy.


I don't deny that many non-believers are not peaceful people and do not wish to peacefully coexist with believers. I'm just not one of them. 




> The only way peace will be restored to these united States (and really, the whole world) is through the power, wisdom, judgment, and love of the Lord Jesus Christ Who has all authority bestowed upon Him (Matthew 28:18).


If you insist that everyone must follow your religious beliefs or there will be no peace then you are threatening peaceful folks like me who could care less what Matthew 28:18 says. 

There's plenty of room in the world for people of all faiths and none to live. Why do you insist that everyone  must believe as you?

 Are you beliefs so fragile that they can't stand dissent?




> He is the Prince of peace, and one day the government will rest upon His shoulder (Isaiah 9:6, 7). Heaven is His throne, and the Earth is His footstool (Acts 7:49). As soon as we all come to terms with that truth, the better our world will be, guaranteed.


Great, wonderful, but I seem to hear tale of lots of Muslims who think their Mohammad is the end-all-be-all of  religion and some of them are willing to kill others who won't go along with their absurd ideas.

Is that where you want to take your belief in Jesus if you had the power to do so? Convert or be destroyed?





> If it seems that I'm not peaceful or loving, forgive my flesh because my spirit earnestly desires those things for all of God's creation. It's just frustrating to me how some people continue to downplay God's dominion and existence while trying at the same time to attain those things which only come from His hand, such as peace, prosperity, and freedom from tyranny.


Well if there is anything in your religion that leads you to wish to do violence against peaceful folks like myself who think Jesus has been dead and gone these past 2000 years then I respectfully suggest you seriously need to re-examine those beliefs.

The only people I wish to do violence against are those who, by their behaviour, have already demonstrated they are incapable of coexisting with others in a civil society. And  I don't care what their motivations are. 




> So, once again, WilliamC, I do *not* wish to destroy your life, but I have a *major problem* with your worldview because it is an *affront* to my God.


Then why not let him deal with it? Seriously, I'm not afraid to tell him the exact same things I'm telling you. Except I really don't think there is some superpower entity out there in the ether listening to us anyway.




> Therefore, I will continue to battle "atheism," agnosticism, humanism, or any other belief system which willfully and ignorantly dismisses the sovereign God of the universe (revealed in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments) as the central point of all knowledge, wisdom, understanding, and truth. I guess you could call it a "holy war," but not all wars are bad.


Just don't go threatening any peaceful folks with violence or trying to defraud them out of their property and you can preach your religion all you want to. I'll even defend your right to do so from those who would do violence to prevent you. 

"But when you talk about destruction, yeah, don't you know that you can count me out."

----------


## WilliamC

> Sounds like islamic jihadism by another name.


They become what they claim to be against as soon as they resort to using violence the threat of violence to achieve what they cannot obtain through peaceful persuasion and voluntary conversion.

----------


## Kade

> Whether you believe it or not, WilliamC, there is a war going on for men's minds, and it's *spiritual* in nature. It's a *war of ideas*, and I believe it's more important than any of the current wars going on around the world today. That is where I choose to fight against all those who seek to dishonor God and His Son Jesus Christ by rejecting His authority and ignoring His revelation in nature and in His word (the Bible). I don't need to use bullets or swords to fight and win this war because my weapons are not carnal in nature (2 Corinthians 10:4).
> 
> As I've brought to your attention in the post you've formerly mentioned, I stipulated that it's your *ideas* I seek to challenge and destroy, *not you as a person*. I've dealt with many "atheists" and agnostics on these forums who simply have dangerous and foolish ideas/philosophies that not only contradict God's word, but they also go against Dr. Paul's political platform and philosophy.
> 
> The only way peace will be restored to these united States (and really, the whole world) is through the power, wisdom, judgment, and love of the Lord Jesus Christ Who has all authority bestowed upon Him (Matthew 28:18). He is the Prince of peace, and one day the government will rest upon His shoulder (Isaiah 9:6, 7). Heaven is His throne, and the Earth is His footstool (Acts 7:49). As soon as we all come to terms with that truth, the better our world will be, guaranteed.
> 
> If it seems that I'm not peaceful or loving, forgive my flesh because my spirit earnestly desires those things for all of God's creation. It's just frustrating to me how some people continue to downplay God's dominion and existence while trying at the same time to attain those things which only come from His hand, such as peace, prosperity, and freedom from tyranny. So, once again, WilliamC, I do *not* wish to destroy your life, but I have a *major problem* with your worldview because it is an *affront* to my God. Therefore, I will continue to battle "atheism," agnosticism, humanism, or any other belief system which willfully and ignorantly dismisses the sovereign God of the universe (revealed in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments) as the central point of all knowledge, wisdom, understanding, and truth. I guess you could call it a "holy war," but not all wars are bad.


WilliamC gave you a VERY rationale response. I am not as tempered as him, and I'm going to come out and say it... You are insane.

----------


## A rope leash

Just a couple hundred years ago, atheists were shunned, banished, imprisoned, and executed for "heresy" by Christians and other religions.  I suppose it still goes on today in some parts of the world. Is there one instance in history where a group of atheists got together to destroy the religious?  No? Not yet? Well, keep doing the stupid $#@! you do that endangers all of us, and that could change.  You want Armageddon?  I want to stop you from wanting Armageddon, because a self-fulfilling prophecy is just that...fulfilled by men, not gods.

To me, irrational thinkers are a threat, especially when they hold positions of power.  How much of this goofy war has to do with Bush's strange obsession with his re-born faith, and Israel's insistance that "god gave them" some land? In fact, this ain't nothing but a religious war...we've spent way more than what it is worth just for the resources. The Iraqi parlament wear mostly suits and ties now.  Did we tell them to dress like us or else? The Jews and Christians are out to destroy the Muslims, plain and simple...if we had atheist leaders, this would not be happening.   

The religious, who run everything, have every office in the land, and whose organizations get tax-free status, claim "persecution" whenever they are criticised.  It's called being a "sociopath"...nothing is out of the question or unforgivable so long as they get what they want...so really, it's not too far out of line for someone to hate them.  As for hating "god", that would be like hating the Tooth Fairy.

Wake up.  The world is in pain.  You are not helping, preacher.

----------


## WilliamC

> Just a couple hundred years ago, atheists were shunned, banished, imprisoned, and executed for "heresy" by Christians and other religions.  I suppose it still goes on today in some parts of the world. Is there one instance in history where a group of atheists got together to destroy the religious?  No? Not yet? Well, keep doing the stupid $#@! you do that endangers all of us, and that could change.  You want Armageddon?  I want to stop you from wanting Armageddon, because a self-fulfilling prophecy is just that...fulfilled by men, not gods.
> 
> To me, irrational thinkers are a threat, especially when they hold positions of power.  How much of this goofy war has to do with Bush's strange obsession with his re-born faith, and Israel's insistance that "god gave them" some land? In fact, this ain't nothing but a religious war...we've spent way more than what it is worth just for the resources. The Iraqi parlament wear mostly suits and ties now.  Did we tell them to dress like us or else? The Jews and Christians are out to destroy the Muslims, plain and simple...if we had atheist leaders, this would not be happening.   
> 
> The religious, who run everything, have every office in the land, and whose organizations get tax-free status, claim "persecution" whenever they are criticised.  It's called being a "sociopath"...nothing is out of the question or unforgivable so long as they get what they want...so really, it's not too far out of line for someone to hate them.  As for hating "god", that would be like hating the Tooth Fairy.
> 
> Wake up.  The world is in pain.  You are not helping, preacher.


Uhh...my understanding is that the communists were pretty much as atheist as you can get and they sure as heck persecuted the religious. 

They still are in China.

I don't know much about the Falon Gong but they've suffered terribly at the hands of the atheist Chinese.

As have Christians and Budists.

Heck, from a purely tactical point of view I'd like to see the Islamic terrorists get all riled up and attack the Chinese for a change, give us Westerners a break.

----------


## Theocrat

> I see you don't bother to reply directly to any of the points I made but rather wish to talk in generalities. Oh well, I'm more interested in learning about myself and communicating to the wider audience reading our discourse anyway.


I was explaining the intent of my first post on this thread to you. I find it interesting, WilliamC, that you constantly talk about problems with "collectivism," yet your adherence to "individualism" is itself the product of a collectivist mindset because you wish all people would acknowledge the individuality or individual rights of each other together. It seems to me you've overlooked your own collectivism.




> In so much as peaceful people wish to argue among themselves about their religious beliefs I'm all for it. I just am against anyone wanting to use coercion and violence, especially government sponsored coercion and violence, to make others conform to their beliefs.
> 
> That goes equally for theists or atheists.
> 
> The only "war" I am fighting is against those who are pushing collectivism in any form over the rights of the individual.
> 
> I really don't give a hoot about someones internal religious beliefs, although it can be entertaining to talk about.


I agree with you that it's good for people to argue in peace without coercion and violence. I've never advocated that in any of my posts. I try to deal with arguments based on *absolute and objective truth*, but it seems to me that you don't believe in that sort of truth. I don't have to push my beliefs on anyone, but I do believe that people are wrong when they don't accept absolute truth, which comes from *God*, not me.




> My understanding of Christ and his teachings is that they are only valid if spread through peaceful means and voluntary conversion.
> 
> All your talk about wanting to destroy me (as you have said in another thread) or my beliefs does not in any way sound peaceful or voluntary.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned Christ was a great philosopher who died 2000 years ago. If you want to live your life for his ideas that's your choice.


The message of Jesus Christ and His gospel are peaceful (Romans 10:15; Ephesians 6:15), and He does give men everywhere the opportunity to hear it and believe. However, there are eternal consequences for those who reject His message and count His gracious and loving offer of salvation as nothing but foolishness. Jesus gives a parable about the terrible consequences of those who refuse to accept His authority as God and Savior. I encourage you to read that account here.

I don't know how many times I have to reiterate to you, WilliamC, that *I do not wish to destroy you as a person*. You keep wanting to state that, but it's simply not true, so please refrain from making that an issue. It's your ideas that I have a problem with, and they have no connection to me on what happens to your physical life.

Jesus Christ was more than just a "great philosopher." As He's declared Himself in His own word, Jesus was God (Hebrews 7:3; John 1:1-3; John 8:56-58; Colossians 1:17; et. al.). At this point, you are simply wrong to suggest Jesus was just a philosopher.




> If you insist that everyone must follow your religious beliefs or there will be no peace then you are threatening peaceful folks like me who could care less what Matthew 28:18 says.
> 
> There's plenty of room in the world for people of all faiths and none to live. Why do you insist that everyone must believe as you?
> 
> Are you beliefs so fragile that they can't stand dissent?


It's not necessarily about people believing as I believe, but rather it's about people believing and obeying *God*. I am nothing! God has declared that those who believe Him and keep His commandments will be blessed, but those who ignore Him and act in rebellion towards Him will be cursed and receive eternal punishment. Those aren't my words; those are His (Matthew 25:46; 2 Thessalonians 1:6-8; Malachi 4:3; Luke 16:22-26; Revelation 21:8; 2 Peter 2:9; et. al.) Therefore, the fragility of a belief has nothing to do with the consequences of dissent against that belief. These are the conditions God has given to all of mankind, whether they would love Him and experience His grace and mercy, or hate Him and experience His wrath and anger due to sin. Are you so "fragile" that you won't submit to God's authority?




> Great, wonderful, but I seem to hear tale of lots of Muslims who think their Mohammad is the end-all-be-all of religion and some of them are willing to kill others who won't go along with their absurd ideas.


Muslims are fatally wrong about their conceptions of God because they reject God's true revelation in His holy Scriptures. Therefore, Islam is just superstition.




> Then why not let him deal with it? Seriously, I'm not afraid to tell him the exact same things I'm telling you. Except I really don't think there is some superpower entity out there in the ether listening to us anyway.


How do you know *with absolute certainty* that there isn't a "superpower entity out there listening to us," as you've put it?




> Just don't go threatening any peaceful folks with violence or trying to defraud them out of their property and you can preach your religion all you want to. I'll even defend your right to do so from those who would do violence to prevent you.


Aren't you *threatening me* by telling me what I shouldn't be doing?

----------


## Dr.3D

Why do people fight so much about something they don't believe in?
If you don't believe in God, that is not my problem.  I have a hard time understanding why those who don't believe in God, work so hard to get those who do, not to.

To each his own.  I don't try to argue the existence of God nor should you the non existence of God.  There is no reason for either of us to argue over something neither of us can prove.

----------


## WilliamC

> I was explaining the intent of my first post on this thread to you. I find it interesting, WilliamC, that you constantly talk about problems with "collectivism," yet your adherence to "individualism" is itself the product of a collectivist mindset because you wish all people would acknowledge the individuality or individual rights of each other together. It seems to me you've overlooked your own collectivism.


Only if you wish for words to mean the opposite of what they mean.

Doublespeak eh Theocrat?

Just as the opposite of good is evil, the opposite of individualism is collectivism.





> I agree with you that it's good for people to argue in peace without coercion and violence. I've never advocated that in any of my posts.


Well then when you say you want to destroy me you must mean something different than the true meaning of the word destroy.

Why not simply say you think I'm wrong and you want to peaceably convert me to your religion?




> I try to deal with arguments based on *absolute and objective truth*, but it seems to me that you don't believe in that sort of truth. I don't have to push my beliefs on anyone, but I do believe that people are wrong when they don't accept absolute truth, which comes from *God*, not me.


The only absolute and objective truth I know of comes from the study of mathematics, since it is the language of the natural Universe.

All philosophy and religion is based on human experience, therefore it is all subjective.





> The message of Jesus Christ and His gospel are peaceful (Romans 10:15; Ephesians 6:15), and He does give men everywhere the opportunity to hear it and believe. However, there are eternal consequences for those who reject His message and count His gracious and loving offer of salvation as nothing but foolishness. Jesus gives a parable about the terrible consequences of those who refuse to accept His authority as God and Savior. I encourage you to read that account here.


No thanks, I'm not interested in fairy tales about ghosts and spirits.

I prefer to deal with the realities of this world. It's the only one that I have.

If you want to work for a better life after you die, well that's your choice.




> I don't know how many times I have to reiterate to you, WilliamC, that *I do not wish to destroy you as a person*. You keep wanting to state that, but it's simply not true, so please refrain from making that an issue. It's your ideas that I have a problem with, and they have no connection to me on what happens to your physical life.


But do you want to use coercion or force to make me change my beliefs? If you remove that option then I don't have a problem with you.

My ideas are a result of my experience and my free-will decisions to adopt them. Only by denying my free-will and seeking to harm me will you be able to take them from me.

I could care less what you believe about religion or some afterlife, it's your choice. I'm not trying to destroy you or your ideas, even though I don't agree with them.





> Jesus Christ was more than just a "great philosopher." As He's declared Himself in His own word, Jesus was God (Hebrews 7:3; John 1:1-3; John 8:56-58; Colossians 1:17; et. al.). At this point, you are simply wrong to suggest Jesus was just a philosopher.


Yes, he was a great philosopher. If you and others want to look to him for your salvation then that's your choice. I don't care.

Just don't try to force us peaceful non-believers to agree with you on pain of being destroyed. Christians have done that for hundreds of years and it isn't very...Christ-like.





> It's not necessarily about people believing as I believe, but rather it's about people believing and obeying *God*. I am nothing! God has declared that those who believe Him and keep His commandments will be blessed, but those who ignore Him and act in rebellion towards Him will be cursed and receive eternal punishment. Those aren't my words; those are His (Matthew 25:46; 2 Thessalonians 1:6-8; Malachi 4:3; Luke 16:22-26; Revelation 21:8; 2 Peter 2:9; et. al.) Therefore, the fragility of a belief has nothing to do with the consequences of dissent against that belief. These are the conditions God has given to all of mankind, whether they would love Him and experience His grace and mercy, or hate Him and experience His wrath and anger due to sin. Are you so "fragile" that you won't submit to God's authority?


I don't submit to Allah, or Zeus, or Brahama, or any number of imaginary superpower beings that people have lived and died for all throughout history.

Why should God be any different? Just another name for the same old idea, some unknowable entity who supposedly is immortal and has superpowers and yet somehow needs us humans to worship him.

No thanks. 




> Muslims are fatally wrong about their conceptions of God because they reject God's true revelation in His holy Scriptures. Therefore, Islam is just superstition.


Pot. Kettle. Black.

I reject your religion for the same reason you reject theirs. I don't trust the source of them. 





> How do you know *with absolute certainty* that there isn't a "superpower entity out there listening to us," as you've put it?


I don't. I'm just willing to take that chance since I'm not scared of what happens when I'm dead. 





> Aren't you *threatening me* by telling me what I shouldn't be doing?


Only if you seek to implement your plan to destroy my beliefs by doing violence to me or mine. 

If not then preach on.

----------


## WilliamC

> Why do people fight so much about something they don't believe in?
> If you don't believe in God, that is not my problem.  I have a hard time understanding why those who don't believe in God, work so hard to get those who do, not to.
> 
> To each his own.  I don't try to argue the existence of God nor should you the non existence of God.  There is no reason for either of us to argue over something neither of us can prove.


You are largely correct, and I must confess to a certain propensity to debating for the sake of debating sometimes.

However, Theocrat has come out and said (in another thread) that he wants to destroy me. I'm just trying to clarify if this is meant as any sort of physical threat or threat to use fraud to harm me or mine.

Now he seems to say he isn't out to destroy me physically, but still there are ways to harm someone by lying about them or such, so I still don't know exactly what he means.

Taken at face value though, he has threatened me, which is why I'm engaging him in prolonged debate.

Personally I could care less about his religious beliefs, and as long as he is peaceful in practicing them I will fight for his right to hold them even though I don't share them.

----------


## A rope leash

Sure, the commies oppress the religious. But, do they kill them? Why do the commies hate the religious so much?  Could it be their crazy ideas? Could it be the fact that religious institutions drain power from the commies by extorting resources from simple folks by claiming that they will be rewarded in an afterlife? Did it ever occur to you that religion could be considered a criminal sham by some governments?

There's a church on every streetcorner in America, the vast majority of which are Christian.  "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is among their top ten "traditions".  Yet, the government under which they live is engaged in a war that is basically against peoples of another "god".  These churches could have millions in the streets protesting this, but no.  That's because religion is not about saving souls and helping the poor or oppressed.  It's about a few people making a good tax-free livelihood by scaring the $#@! of already pre-conditioned "citizens", and making them think that they have another life coming, one where they'll be punished or pleasured according to their subjectively judged behavior in this life. The war, for them, is about taking out the competetion.

----------


## A rope leash

Whoever we are
Wherever were from
We shoulda noticed by now
Our behavior is dumb
And if our chances
Expect to improve
Its gonna take a lot more
Than tryin to remove
The other race
Or the other whatever
From the face
Of the planet altogether

They call it the earth
Which is a dumb kinda name
But they named it right
cause we behave the same...
We are dumb all over
Dumb all over,
Yes we are
Dumb all over,
Near n far
Dumb all over,
Black n white
People, we is not wrapped tight

Nurds on the left
Nurds on the right
Religous fanatics
On the air every night
Sayin the bible
Tells the story
Makes the details
Sound real gory
bout what to do
If the geeks over there
Dont believe in the book
We got over here

You cant run a race
Without no feet
n pretty soon
There wont be no street
For dummies to jog on
Or doggies to dog on
Religous fanatics
Can make it be all gone
(I mean it wont blow up
n disappear
Itll just look ugly
For a thousand years...)

You cant run a country
By a book of religion
Not by a heap
Or a lump or a smidgeon
Of foolish rules
Of ancient date
Designed to make
You all feel great
While you fold, spindle
And mutilate
Those unbelievers
From a neighboring state

To arms! to arms!
Hooray! thats great
Two legs aint bad
Unless theres a crate
They ship the parts
To mama in
For souvenirs: two ears (get down!)
Not his, not hers, (but what the hey? )
The good book says:
(it gotta be that way!)
But their book says:
Revenge the crusades...
With whips n chains
n hand grenades...
Two arms? two arms? 
Have another and another
Our God says:
There aint no other!
Our God says
Its all okay!
Our God says
This is the way!

It says in the book:
Burn n destroy...
n repent, n redeem
n revenge, n deploy
n rumble thee forth
To the land of the unbelieving scum on the other side
cause they dont go for whats in the book
n that makes em bad
So verily we must choppeth them up
And stompeth them down
Or rent a nice french bomb
To poof them out of existance
While leaving their real estate just where we need it
To use again
For temples in which to praise our god
(cause he can really take care of business!)

And when his humble tv servant
With humble white hair
And humble glasses
And a nice brown suit
And maybe a blond wife who takes phone calls
Tells us our God says
Its okay to do this stuff
Then we gotta do it,
cause if we dont do it,
We aint gwine up to hebbin!
(depending on which book youre using at the
Time...cant use theirs... it dont work
...its all lies...gotta use mine...)
Aint that right? 
Thats what they say
Every night...
Every day...
Hey, we cant really be dumb
If were just following gods orders
Hey, lets get serious...
God knows what hes doin
He wrote this book here
An the book says:
He made us all to be just like him,
So...
If were dumb...
Then God is dumb...
(an maybe even a little ugly on the side)


Frank Zappa

----------


## Theocrat

> WilliamC gave you a VERY rationale response. I am not as tempered as him, and I'm going to come out and say it... You are insane.


Yeah, I love you, too, Kade.

----------


## WilliamC

> Sure, the commies oppress the religious. But, do they kill them?


Yes.

And I don't care why.

All peaceful people should be allowed to live free.

I don't care what they believe or teach their children to believe.

I just care about how they behave in society.

So I will fight against the collectivist atheists and for the individualist believer, even though I am not a believer and even if I think the religious man is wrong or foolish in their belief.

----------


## Hancock1776

The reason people argue so vehemently over this issue is because deep down, they realize that your worldview about existence and the meaning of life ultimately affects how you view everything else. In the current environment it also means your view of government and its role is different.

Government is force, and since this force permeates every aspect of our lives, its management by theists versus atheists matters a great deal, and both options are bad. We've already seen in this thread that some resent the tax-exempt status of religious institutions. Because we are all at the mercy of the State, this kind of resentment will happen when one group enjoys more largess (or in the case of tax exemption: less persecution) from the State than another. Meanwhile, many Christians resent legalized abortion or state sanction of gay marriage.

There are theists and atheists in the world, and the State drives us apart. The State is the entity which may use coercion in your life, and if someone whose beliefs are alien to yours are steering that coercion, you should certainly feel threatened. We shouldn't be debating whether theists or atheists should be in charge. We should  be debating whether anyone should be "in charge" at all.

Since I assume all of us believe in liberty, being on the Ron Paul forums, we believe in a system under which this difference of existential worldview would matter very little, because our ideal is that of a government WITHOUT the ability to exert this kind of force on your life.

----------


## WilliamC

> The reason people argue so vehemently over this issue is because deep down, they realize that your worldview about existence and the meaning of life ultimately affects how you view everything else. In the current environment it also means your view of government and its role is different.
> 
> Government is force, and since this force permeates every aspect of our lives, its management by theists versus atheists matters a great deal, and both options are bad. We've already seen in this thread that some resent the tax-exempt status of religious institutions. Because we are all at the mercy of the State, this kind of resentment will happen when one group enjoys more largess (or in the case of tax exemption: less persecution) from the State than another. Meanwhile, many Christians resent legalized abortion or state sanction of gay marriage.
> 
> There are theists and atheists in the world, and the State drives us apart. The State is the entity which may use coercion in your life, and if someone whose beliefs are alien to yours are steering that coercion, you should certainly feel threatened. We shouldn't be debating whether theists or atheists should be in charge. We should  be debating whether anyone should be "in charge" at all.
> 
> Since I assume all of us believe in liberty, being on the Ron Paul forums, we believe in a system under which this difference of existential worldview would matter very little, because our ideal is that of a government WITHOUT the ability to exert this kind of force on your life.


What he said.

----------


## Theocrat

> Only if you wish for words to mean the opposite of what they mean.
> 
> Doublespeak eh Theocrat?
> 
> Just as the opposite of good is evil, the opposite of individualism is collectivism.


Evidently, you didn't understand what I saying. If you truly wanted to be consistent in your view of individualism, then you should not take issue with *individuals* or *individual institutions*, such as governments, businesses, and churches, that adhere to collectivist ideas, policies, and sanctions upon a society. After all, they have their "individual" rights to believe and/or behave in that fashion. By the way, there's nothing wrong with collectivism. You, as an individual, are a part of many groups of people within society. You are the son of *two parents in a family*. You are a citizen of the *United States of America*. If you work, you are an employee of a *business*. Your identity is contingent upon these groups, in some way. Even as a Ron Paul supporter, you are one of many enthusiastic, well-informed Americans who also supports Congressman Paul's message.




> Well then when you say you want to destroy me you must mean something different than the true meaning of the word destroy.
> 
> Why not simply say you think I'm wrong and you want to peaceably convert me to your religion?


Can you please show me where I ever said to you I "want to destroy you"? I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself, WilliamC. I keep telling you that I don't want to destroy you as a person, but you apparently keep missing that point. Seriously, dude, what are you, a cry-baby or something? "Oh, the big bad Theocrat wants to hurt me because he said my views were wrong and he means to destroy them. Boo who." Oh, man! For the sake of a more peaceful discourse between us, I'll just say that you're wrong, and there's nothing I can do to convert you. That's God's job.




> The only absolute and objective truth I know of comes from the study of mathematics, since it is the language of the natural Universe.
> 
> All philosophy and religion is based on human experience, therefore it is all subjective.


Oh, yeah? What *mathematical formula* was used to formulate these statements of yours?




> But do you want to use coercion or force to make me change my beliefs? If you remove that option then I don't have a problem with you.
> 
> My ideas are a result of my experience and my free-will decisions to adopt them. Only by denying my free-will and seeking to harm me will you be able to take them from me.
> 
> I could care less what you believe about religion or some afterlife, it's your choice. I'm not trying to destroy you or your ideas, even though I don't agree with them.


I am not capable to force or coerce you or anyone else to my beliefs, neither would I want to. That's not my method at all.

I would say that no man has free-will to choose to do good or choose to do evil because we all are born with sinful natures. That's a subject for a different forum altogether.




> Yes, he was a great philosopher. If you and others want to look to him for your salvation then that's your choice. I don't care.
> 
> Just don't try to force us peaceful non-believers to agree with you on pain of being destroyed. Christians have done that for hundreds of years and it isn't very...Christ-like.


You don't even know what it means to be "Christ-like." You don't even like Christ because you refuse to keep His commandments everyday.




> I don't submit to Allah, or Zeus, or Brahama, or any number of imaginary superpower beings that people have lived and died for all throughout history.


Oh, yeah, but you will submit yourself to those *imaginary forces of random chance* in the universe which is responsible for creating everything we see today out of nothing...




> I reject your religion for the same reason you reject theirs. I don't trust the source of them.


That's not true. I reject their superstition because it's not based on *absolute truth* from the Bible. You reject the truth of my beliefs because of your own arbitrary feelings, which are only *subjective* in nature.




> Only if you seek to implement your plan to destroy my beliefs by doing violence to me or mine.
> 
> If not then preach on.


Thank you very much for giving me permission to preach my beliefs on this forum, based on the condition of your own thoughts of what's right and wrong.

----------


## Hancock1776

> The only absolute and objective truth I know of comes from the study of mathematics, since it is the language of the natural Universe.


You're not alone. Reasoning from self-evident truths puts you in the company of Reneé Descartes, Ludwig von Mises, and some very famous Christians. A recent issue of _The New American_ had a great article about faith being the triumph of reason.

You may not share my belief system, but Christianity is no stranger to logic.

----------


## mkeller

> Is there one instance in history where a group of atheists got together to destroy the religious?  No? Not yet?


Ahem.

----------


## WilliamC

> Evidently, you didn't understand what I saying. If you truly wanted to be consistent in your view of individualism, then you should not take issue with *individuals* or *individual institutions*, such as governments, businesses, and churches, that adhere to collectivist ideas, policies, and sanctions upon a society. After all, they have their "individual" rights to believe and/or behave in that fashion. By the way, there's nothing wrong with collectivism. You, as an individual, are a part of many groups of people within society. You are the son of *two parents in a family*. You are a citizen of the *United States of America*. If you work, you are an employee of a *business*. Your identity is contingent upon these groups, in some way. Even as a Ron Paul supporter, you are one of many enthusiastic, well-informed Americans who also supports Congressman Paul's message.


Only individuals have rights. Groups do not. While I belong to many groups I have no rights because of them. My rights are inherent as an individual human.

The problem with collectivism is when a group wants to assume some sort of authority over individuals against the will of individuals not in the group.

Governments do this by definition, but I seek to limit the role of governments to only protecting the rights of peaceful individuals. 

Do you think that any group or collection of people somehow gains new rights because of their affiliation with the group, or do you think that rights are something that only an individual can lay claim to?




> Can you please show me where I ever said to you I "want to destroy you"?


Yes. Try here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...lliamC&page=20




> These are questions I'm just eagerly waiting for you to answer, WilliamC. But don't be surprised if the "electrical-chemical processes" in my brain force me to disagree with you and conclude that you are simply a fool and need to be extinct...


and here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=90262




> I didn't threaten you, but what I meant was that your *reasoning is dangerous*, and thus, needs to be *destroyed*. I guess I should have phrased it better.


Sorry, but when you call for me to become extinct, or that I need to have my reason destroyed, I kind of take that as a personal attack.

Will you now retract your statement that you wish to see me become extinct and that you want to see my reasoning destroyed?




> I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself, WilliamC. I keep telling you that I don't want to destroy you as a person, but you apparently keep missing that point. Seriously, dude, what are you, a cry-baby or something? "Oh, the big bad Theocrat wants to hurt me because he said my views were wrong and he means to destroy them. Boo who." Oh, man! For the sake of a more peaceful discourse between us, I'll just say that you're wrong, and there's nothing I can do to convert you. That's God's job.


There you go, that's not so hard is it?

Just say you are merely trying to peacefully convert me and not make me extinct or see my reasoning destroyed, and I will cease to believe you are out to do me harm.

Personally I don't use the language you do when engaging in civil discourse. I'm not out to destroy your beliefs even if I don't agree with them.





> Oh, yeah? What *mathematical formula* was used to formulate these statements of yours?


Mathematics is inherently self-evident and, presumably, will work the same for any non-human intelligence in the Universe. While we don't have any examples of higher mathematical ability in other organisms there is good evidence that animals have a math instinct which allows them, among other things, to migrate long distances accurately.

see http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_03_05.html

But if you aren't interested in learning mathematics that's ok, your life, your choice.




> I am not capable to force or coerce you or anyone else to my beliefs, neither would I want to. That's not my method at all.


So saying you want to destroy my reasoning and you think I need to be extinct is just...a poor choice of words?

Ok, apology accepted. 




> I would say that no man has free-will to choose to do good or choose to do evil because we all are born with sinful natures. That's a subject for a different forum altogether.


And here I thought the entire idea of sin relied on the fact that humans had free-will and could choose to do good or evil.

Shows how much I know. 





> You don't even know what it means to be "Christ-like." You don't even like Christ because you refuse to keep His commandments everyday.


Who was it that said something about removing the beam from one's own eye before trying to remove the speck from anothers?

You know nothing of how I conduct myself Theocrat.




> Oh, yeah, but you will submit yourself to those *imaginary forces of random chance* in the universe which is responsible for creating everything we see today out of nothing...


This makes no sense at all.

I am as much at the mercy of the laws of nature as anyone, but I don't "submit" to them.

If I decide not to jump off a building it's not because I submit to gravity, it's just because I don't want to get hurt or die. 




> That's not true. I reject their superstition because it's not based on *absolute truth* from the Bible. You reject the truth of my beliefs because of your own arbitrary feelings, which are only *subjective* in nature.


Your bible, their koran. It's one and the same to me. I reject both. 





> Thank you very much for giving me permission to preach my beliefs on this forum, based on the condition of your own thoughts of what's right and wrong.


You are welcome, although it is the moderators who decide what gets to stay and what gets deleted.

----------


## WilliamC

> You're not alone. Reasoning from self-evident truths puts you in the company of Reneé Descartes, Ludwig von Mises, and some very famous Christians. A recent issue of _The New American_ had a great article about faith being the triumph of reason.
> 
> You may not share my belief system, but Christianity is no stranger to logic.


Well if god expresses his word through mathematics I am a very poor follower, but I do try and learn more most every day. 

There is something about truly understanding how math works that is very satisfying to me.

Darn this stupid political stuff that takes my time away from it!

----------


## A rope leash

"All peaceful people should be allowed to live free."

...and they should be TAXED equally.

If anyone believes that the United States is a "Christian nation", they cannot believe that Christians are a "peaceful people".  The USA has been for and about war for a couple of centuries now.  Christians have participated whole-heartedly. Yeah, they talk a lot about peace, but when the caller comes calling, they send their young off to kill. Hail Jesus.

Communists oppress the religious, but there's no indication that they are participating in any sort of genocide of the religious. The history of religion, however, is fraught with crusades, inquisitions, witch-burnings, and "manifest destinies". I'm not trying to defend idelogical fantaticism against religious fantaticism, I'm just trying to display the blatant hypocrisy evident in the dominant paradigm.  The commies imprison religious leaders because they see religion as a scam against the people.  In a capitalist society, a scam is just business as usual, so why do these guys get a break on the taxes? 

Here we are, in the 21st century, still fighting wars over religion.  You know what the Judeo-Christian tradition really hates about Islam?  Islam does not tolerate usury. In Muslim cultures, the bank takes some of the risk on a home loan.  Imagine that...you only wind up paying a little more than the selling price of the house, not three times the selling price.  Corporations cannot build sky-touching glass and steel phallic structures under such a system. Muslims don't understand Western business at all, so "it's best to just get rid of them" seems to be the prevailing Judeo-Christian view. That's what this war is about...not WMD, not terrorism, not "Islamo-fascism". It's about one religon subjecting another to their will. 

Two little Hitlers will fight it out until one little Hitler does the other one's will.  

Sorry I ever thought mankind would rise above it. If you want to talk peace to me, preacher, get your congregation out in the street demandiing an end to these wars, and I will then call you a "peaceful people".  Otherwise, you're nothing but platitudes and prayers...that, and a tax-free Cadillac.

----------


## jon_perez

> I was explaining the intent of my first post on this thread to you. I find it interesting, WilliamC, that you constantly talk about problems with "collectivism," yet your adherence to "individualism" is itself the product of a collectivist mindset because you wish all people would acknowledge the individuality or individual rights of each other together. It seems to me you've overlooked your own collectivism.


Huh?    What sophistry.




> I agree with you that it's good for people to argue in peace without coercion and violence. I've never advocated that in any of my posts. I try to deal with arguments based on *absolute and objective truth*, but it seems to me that you don't believe in that sort of truth. I don't have to push my beliefs on anyone, but I do believe that people are wrong when they don't accept absolute truth, which comes from *God*, not me.


It's the 21st century and precious few educated people are going to falling for this sort of "It's not me that's talking, It's God" crap. 




> I don't know how many times I have to reiterate to you, WilliamC, that *I do not wish to destroy you as a person*.


No, you just want to take over people's minds.  




> It's not necessarily about people believing as I believe, but rather it's about people believing and obeying *God*.


Sure, as the Muslims say, there is no God but Allah.  So apparently, by ranting on about Jesus Christ being God, you are neither believing in nor obeying God.

But of course, the simple logic here is that you *arbitrarily* chose to accept one set of religious teachings over another and, much like many extremists of another ilk, you make no room for any flexibility of viewpoint.




> Muslims are fatally wrong about their conceptions of God because they reject God's true revelation in His holy Scriptures. Therefore, Islam is just superstition.


See what I'm talking about?

----------


## jon_perez

> Originally Posted by Theocrat
> 
> I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself, WilliamC. I keep telling you that I don't want to destroy you as a person, but you apparently keep missing that point. Seriously, dude, what are you, a cry-baby or something? "Oh, the big bad Theocrat wants to hurt me because he said my views were wrong and he means to destroy them. Boo who." Oh, man! For the sake of a more peaceful discourse between us, I'll just say that you're wrong, and there's nothing I can do to convert you. That's God's job.
> 
> 
> There you go, that's not so hard is it?


Don't be so quick to come to that conclusion that Theocrat has somehow returned to the land of the sane, WilliamC, by "God's job" of course, Theocrat means "God working through him"... much like suicide bombers believe they are doing "God's work".

----------


## HazardPerry

This thread is fascinating, as is the article Kade posted. The article itself was a bit sensational, to be honest. It was designed to appeal to atheists, likely written by an atheist. There is nothing wrong with that, but it could hardly be taken as exhaustive or objective. Again, as it is an opinion piece, there is nothing inherently wrong with that.

However, I take some exception to the notion that




> ...an intellectually free America, as intended by our founders, remerges_[sic]_ as more and more atheist/agnostic freethinkers come out of the closet and stand against theism’s last bigoted prejudicial stronghold of intolerance.


I would reason that in "an intellectually free America," atheists and theists could live side by side, sharing, tolerating, and even intermixing their ideas. The implied premise that intellectual freedom requires atheism is rather tired, I think. I also find the notion that said premise was articulated by the founders rather far-fetched. *Indeed, I believe the founders to be a shining example of rational theism.* Acting upon humanist and core Abrahamic principles, the founders crafted possibly one of the finest of all human documents. Would that the author would recognize this.

I was amused at how many negatives the author managed to tack onto the final sentence. "_...last bigoted prejudicial stronghold of intolerance._" My, what a mouthful. *The last sentences of an article are of disproportional import.* They are the last words digested before the reader can reflect on the full writing, and, unconsciously or not, often comprise a restatement of the paper's core thesis. I find the argument - his thesis - that bare theism promotes bigoted, prejudicial intolerance rather...one-dimensional. 

In short, the author seems as intolerant as those who are intolerant towards him. I feel that the _rational_ approach would be to set aside invective and emotion and investigate what precisely causes such a divide. Perhaps if the causes were identified, the friction could be lessened by dialogue and conversation. Maintaining a collectivist view of the situation, as in so many disparate cases, only serves to exacerbate tensions. There are always individuals who do not fit neatly into the artificial constructs of the author's imagining, and it is they who emerge from the faults of his logic to poke holes, merely by _existing,_ in his argument.

If the author, who professes the possession of an open and free mind, can so willfully package all of theism in such an unflattering mold, what possible grounds does he have to reject the "bigoted," "prejudicial," and "intolerant" theists who transgress his belief in a like manner?

I will disclose that I am a Muslim myself; you readers can judge whether theism has blinkered my rationality.

Having said that, I am saddened by some of the other posts on here. Are no theists curious as to what caused a particular atheist to reject the notion of divinity? Are no atheists curious as to why or how theists can accept a premise they feel is absurd? *The death of curiosity is the death of reason.* One cannot merely inform himself, nor can he sample only those ideas which are in concordance with his own; the perspective of those foreign to him is required in the formulation of any objective frame.

Still, threads like this are the reason I frequent this wonderful place

----------


## jon_perez

> I don't hate "atheists," but I do hate "atheism." In my opinion, it is the most irrational, dangerous, diabolical, contradictory, and foolish theories that mankind has ever formulated as a philosophy and view of the world. Therefore, I, as a Christian theist, will continue to seek its destruction until it is eradicated from the world as a system of thought and lifestyle.


You have just categorically stated that you will not tolerate the fact that other people can hold different view from you.  Like I said, "Islamic Jihadism" by another name.




> In passing, I would say that "atheists" hate theists more than theists hate them because "atheists" love sin and hate God, by nature. One can only think of the Christian hate speeches of Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris, as international spokesman of "atheism." If you want to witness hatred and aggression as you've never seen in a human being, just read any of their works or listen to their speeches. It will definitely send chills up your spine and make your blood boil. It's just too bad these guys will have to face an angry and righteous God on Judgment Day to give an account of their perpetual hate, aggression, and ridicule towards God's people (unless they turn from their wicked ways and believe in the truth of God's revelation).


Personally, I believe it was well overdue that Jesus Freaks and the like got spanked for their annoying, irresponsible behaviour.  

Like begets like.  So when you choose a handle like "Theocrat" and imply that religion somehow has forceful authority over individual freedom and choices (completely contradictory to the notion of a 'republic'), don't be complaining when you get an earful in return.

----------


## WilliamC

> Having said that, I am saddened by some of the other posts on here. Are no theists curious as to what caused a particular atheist to reject the notion of divinity? Are no atheists curious as to why or how theists can accept a premise they feel is absurd? *The death of curiosity is the death of reason.* One cannot merely inform himself, nor can he sample only those ideas which are in concordance with his own; the perspective of those foreign to him is required in the formulation of any objective frame.
> 
> Still, threads like this are the reason I frequent this wonderful place


My understanding of religion and acceptance of religious beliefs is that it requires faith, and specifically faith in the unknowable or that which cannot be demonstrated by reason.

Alas one of my great failings is that I have little if any of that sort of faith, and I rely perhaps too much upon my reason to guide me through life.

It is obvious that most of humanity does not share my almost complete lack of faith and reliance upon reason, perhaps that is why I don't relate to them as well in my personal life as I might like.

----------


## jon_perez

> It is obvious that most of humanity does not share my almost complete lack of faith and reliance upon reason, perhaps that is why I don't relate to them as well in my personal life as I might like.


I wouldn't be too quick to come to that depressing conclusion.  

Thanks to the Internet, more and more people are realizing that they are not alone in their doubts and skepticism about religious dogma.  Look at how many young people were empowered and emboldened to rebel against oppressive, irrational beliefs via blasphemychallenge.com.  There are more of us out there than you might think. 

It takes a braver soul to let go of the comfort blanket of a fantasy deity and yet still maintain a belief in the inherent goodness of most of humanity.  The cowardly path is actually to cling to and resign difficult moral decisions to an unaccountable, arbitrary, (and illusory, I might add) authority figure _whose dictates are essentially pulled out of a hat_.  Discarding such a comfort blanket will ultimately make us stronger and more moral beings because our desire to improve and do good is not based on fear of punishment but rather on more enlightened principles.  

I believe if you look back in history, you will be shocked (or maybe we shouldn't be) at the number of bloodthirsty, corrupt and evil personalities who would essentially confess to "believing in God".  Belief in "God" has very little to do with whether a person is moral or not, apparently.

----------


## Mini-Me

> This thread is fascinating, as is the article Kade posted. The article itself was a bit sensational, to be honest. It was designed to appeal to atheists, likely written by an atheist. There is nothing wrong with that, but it could hardly be taken as exhaustive or objective. Again, as it is an opinion piece, there is nothing inherently wrong with that.
> 
> However, I take some exception to the notion that
> 
> 
> 
> I would reason that in "an intellectually free America," atheists and theists could live side by side, sharing, tolerating, and even intermixing their ideas. The implied premise that intellectual freedom requires atheism is rather tired, I think. I also find the notion that said premise was articulated by the founders rather far-fetched. *Indeed, I believe the founders to be a shining example of rational theism.* Acting upon humanist and core Abrahamic principles, the founders crafted possibly one of the finest of all human documents. Would that the author would recognize this.
> 
> I was amused at how many negatives the author managed to tack onto the final sentence. "_...last bigoted prejudicial stronghold of intolerance._" My, what a mouthful. *The last sentences of an article are of disproportional import.* They are the last words digested before the reader can reflect on the full writing, and, unconsciously or not, often comprise a restatement of the paper's core thesis. I find the argument - his thesis - that bare theism promotes bigoted, prejudicial intolerance rather...one-dimensional. 
> ...


This is completely off topic, but I've read many of your posts, and...well, your words tend to have a very reasoned calming effect, I think.
Are you as eloquent in real life as you are in print?  If so, I think you'd do quite well running for public office.

----------


## wv@SC

THIS THREAD IS DOTHING VIRTUALLY NOTHING PRODUCTIVE!
I definitely have a side in this argument, but we are not accomplishing anything through a discussion of it.
Calling a MODERATOR TO END THIS FRUITLESS THREAD!

----------


## HazardPerry

> THIS THREAD IS DOTHING VIRTUALLY NOTHING PRODUCTIVE!
> I definitely have a side in this argument, but we are not accomplishing anything through a discussion of it.
> Calling a MODERATOR TO END THIS FRUITLESS THREAD!




I'm shakin' it boss, I'm shakin' it!

----------


## JenaS62

> I don't hate "atheists," but I do hate "atheism." In my opinion, it is the most irrational, dangerous, diabolical, contradictory, and foolish theories that mankind has ever formulated as a philosophy and view of the world. Therefore, I, as a Christian theist, will continue to seek its destruction until it is eradicated from the world as a system of thought and lifestyle.
> 
> In passing, I would say that "atheists" hate theists more than theists hate them because "atheists" love sin and hate God, by nature. One can only think of the Christian hate speeches of Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris, as international spokesman of "atheism." If you want to witness hatred and aggression as you've never seen in a human being, just read any of their works or listen to their speeches. It will definitely send chills up your spine and make your blood boil. It's just too bad these guys will have to face an angry and righteous God on Judgment Day to give an account of their perpetual hate, aggression, and ridicule towards God's people (unless they turn from their wicked ways and believe in the truth of God's revelation).
> 
> Anyway, for me, "atheists" aren't the problem because they are made in the image and likeness of their Creator, though they daily refuse to acknowledge Him as such. It's "atheism" that's the problem, and as I've said before, I will work diligently to bring its demise to the human race as long as the living God blesses me with breath in my body and His Spirit in my soul. Having said that, I try hard to love "atheists" as my neighbors on God's earth, though I fail to do that at times, I admit.
> 
> So much for "atheists" trying to attain peace in the world. As long as theists exist, you will never have peace because your "atheism" will be a threat to us. Oh, what will you do?




Wow.  I was just quietly viewing this thread until I got to this post.  Please tell us how atheist or atheism is a threat to you?  Have atheist infiltrated your brain to remove any beliefs in a god? Have atheist burned down your churches or banned your bibles?  I am agnostic - which means I do not believe that you can prove to me that god exists.  I do not feel the presence of a god.   I do not see any good works of a god. Based on the human condition, I am even less apt to believe.  And now you say that we atheists/agnostics will never have peace because we are a threat to you?  Maybe you're the problem.   As John Lennon wrote in the song "Imagine"  Imagine there's no religion.  Without religion, most wars on earth would cease.  People could actually love each other instead of arguing over whose god is better.  Religion kills.  End of story.

----------


## JenaS62

> Just a couple hundred years ago, atheists were shunned, banished, imprisoned, and executed for "heresy" by Christians and other religions.  I suppose it still goes on today in some parts of the world. Is there one instance in history where a group of atheists got together to destroy the religious?  No? Not yet? Well, keep doing the stupid $#@! you do that endangers all of us, and that could change.  You want Armageddon?  I want to stop you from wanting Armageddon, because a self-fulfilling prophecy is just that...fulfilled by men, not gods.
> 
> To me, irrational thinkers are a threat, especially when they hold positions of power.  How much of this goofy war has to do with Bush's strange obsession with his re-born faith, and Israel's insistance that "god gave them" some land? In fact, this ain't nothing but a religious war...we've spent way more than what it is worth just for the resources. The Iraqi parlament wear mostly suits and ties now.  Did we tell them to dress like us or else? The Jews and Christians are out to destroy the Muslims, plain and simple...if we had atheist leaders, this would not be happening.   
> 
> The religious, who run everything, have every office in the land, and whose organizations get tax-free status, claim "persecution" whenever they are criticised.  It's called being a "sociopath"...nothing is out of the question or unforgivable so long as they get what they want...so really, it's not too far out of line for someone to hate them.  As for hating "god", that would be like hating the Tooth Fairy.
> 
> Wake up.  The world is in pain.  You are not helping, preacher.




Bravo!!

----------


## A rope leash

I'll take a bow, Jena...but these anti-religious diatribes of mine don't make me feel especially good. In all the times I've attempted to talk sense to the faithful, I have never changed a single mind.  The religious only see rational logic as a "challenge to their faith".  It's genetic.  They're practically robotic. 

While I often accuse our leaders of bending to the will of their prospective religions, I also suspect that they have no real attachment to their so-called "beliefs".  If they did, they wouldn't be killing so many innocents in the name of "justice".  

No, I suspect the fact is that they most likely really don't give a $#@! for their religions and they don't take them seriously.  They are only counting on the fervently stupid to do so, and for the sheep to follow.

Pope to starving masses: "Go forth and multiply..."

----------


## HazardPerry

> No, I suspect the fact is that they most likely really don't give a $#@! for their religions and they don't take them seriously.  They are only counting on the fervently stupid to do so, and for the sheep to follow.


Interesting that on one hand, in an earlier post, you would assert that we are engaged in a war between religions, and on the other, you claim that our leaders have no real attachment to their so-called "beliefs," indeed do not take them seriously at all. Which is it? I do not for a moment believe that the conflicts we have embarked upon in the last few years have any religious grounds; you say yourself that




> They are only counting on the fervently stupid to do so, and for the sheep to follow.


Now, aside from the implication that to take religion seriously makes one fervently stupid, this sentiment I can agree with; any person who believes we are actively engaged in a clash of religion is saddled with a misguided perspective. I find it far more likely that we are primarily waging a war for natural resources and global hegemony. The collectivist demonization of Islam or "The West" (depending on which side of the conflict you find yourself on) is merely a tool to rally public opinion  and facilitate operations.

Now this...




> I'll take a bow, Jena...but these anti-religious diatribes of mine don't make me feel especially good. In all the times I've attempted to talk sense to the faithful, I have never changed a single mind.  The religious only see rational logic as a "challenge to their faith".  It's genetic.  They're practically robotic.


...is more difficult to swallow. If these diatribes don't make _you_ feel especially good, how can you expect to "talk sense to the faithful." You say that "The religious" (what delightful conglomeration) only see rational logic as a challenge to their faith. Perhaps if you did not structure your "rational logic" in the form of "anti-religious diatribe?"

When you assert that (if I may re-structure your phrasing a bit) it is genetic for the religious to see rational logic as a challenge to their faith, I must pause a moment. Where does genetics enter this equation? If people were genetically anchored to their belief system, why, there would be no such thing as apostasy, nor would any converts exist. Perhaps the gene is recessive?  Is this "rational logic?"

The framing of your phrases belies your preconceptions. "The religious" must have sense talked into them. They will stubbornly reject any rational logic, are even hostile towards it. They are practically robots, blind and uncomprehending.

The intoxicating illusion of uniquely privileged perspective, it seems, is not confined merely to the fervently religious.

----------


## A rope leash

Hey, I don't know if our leaders REALLY take to heart their religions.  It seems they would be more likely to turn the other cheek if they did...and I don't know if these wars are in fact secretly and officially centered on religion, but the rhetoric certainly makes them seem like they are.  This rhetoric is aimed at the masses who actually believe their religions are factual...this gives a boost to whatever the motives for war our leaders hold.  I don't know where you live, but I know some of the "Christian soldiers" where I live were quite vocal about their desire to get over there and "kill some ragheads".  The real goal of the war may be resources, but religion gives the popular "permission" for the war. 

Once again, I ask:  Why aren't these "peace-loving" congregations out in the streets DEMANDING an end to these wars? I'm sorry, but all I'm hearing from these folks is how these are the "end times" and how we must accept and fulfill "god's will".  I guess I'll make them a deal...once we have the nuclear exchange some are praying for as "Armageddon", and Jesus comes back, I'll give the religious their due...IF...they will give up on religion when Jesus does not return, and we're all struggling just to breathe. 

The ability to believe impossible things has been tenatively "proven" to be genetic.  Google "the god gene".  This gene was isolated some years back.  Maybe some would call it bad science, but it works in the same way a dog has particular traits. After generations of being brainwashed by religious leaders, some folks are just naturally susceptable to falling for baloney, like some dogs just know how to fetch.  Add to this an environment of indoctrination and mal-education, plus the inability of most humans to understand how their own minds can fool them, and I think we can understand how the faithful can be so cock-sure about "god".  I call this "fervently stupid", knowing fully that some very smart and well-educated people think "god" is real.  Perhaps I should say they are "wilfully stupid", but that probably applies more to the sheep than to the wolves that lead them.  

No, my inclination to challenge the faithful does not make me feel good.  They do need to be challenged, but it's like taking candy from a baby. One can say it is done for their own good, but you still took candy from a baby. Destroying conceptions of "god" by using reason and logic is tremendously easy, but it is painful to see the faithful wresting with what they know to be real against what they have been told to "beLIEve", and horrible to see them fall back on "scripture" and traditional platitudes to back up their empty arguments. An argument not based on reason cannot be fought with reason, so trying to explain the impossibility of "god" to a believer becomes an act of errant pissing. 

It's the 21st century.  No one believes Zeus is or was real, but there was a time when many people took it on faith that the "gods" existed. There's no outward, hard, empirical evidence that any "god' is real, but here in the space-age we still have to deal with those who claim that what is in their hearts and brains exists also outside of those domains. Here in the space-age, these types seem to be the only ones that can get elected. Atheists are still among the most hated people on the planet, but we are almost entirely powerless politically, and the vast majority of awful $#@! that has come down on the human race cannot be traced to them. Why are we hated? Simply because the truth hurts, and no one wants to be stupid or look stupid, so as long as we are outnumbered by the gullible, those that lead the gullible will paint atheists as contemptable and "evil". This makes those leaders look "good", and increases the "faithfulness" of their followers. 

Hey, it's a lonely life being an atheist.  I sometimes wish I could believe bull$#@!, but I cannot, and I never have. Didn't go for Santa Claus, either.  I just don't take anything on "faith". That's a loser, if you ask me. But, no one of any importance is asking me, so what's the difference? The difference is a future of science and logic applied to mankind's problems, against a future of nuclear war and fizzled fantasies of mankind's "salvation". In the end, I cannot deny that a mass extermination of human beings would be benefical for the planet, but if it happens, it won't be any god that pushed the button, will it? I'm sorry, but it frightens me that the same folks that are in possession of the codes are the some of the same that profess to believe that these are the "end of days".

Thank you for reading carefully and pointing out the obvious spins in my postings. I hope this post clarifies my points and satifies your inquiries.     

The Pope recently said that the church was correct in demonizing Galileo. This is progress? Do you know any religious people that accept the denial of god's existence? Do you know any religious people who will stand and say that god is only a "maybe"?  I don't...not Christians, anyway. Perhaps it is not a "must" that they should be challenged, but they have had pretty much a free ride for an awful long time...and as for "priviledged perspectives", well, there's nothing more priviledged than not having to pay taxes, is there? 

Can we agree that, at the very least, churches should pay taxes?

----------


## A rope leash

One of the arguments I often present to believers in my efforts to dissuade them from their faith is the issue of religious plurality, inconsistency, and personalization. 

The mere fact that there is more than one religion, and indeed, more than one presentation of "god", tends to denigrate the validity of all religions.  Every major religion can be broken down into sects which disagree on this or that issue within the religion. These sects are all absolutely certain that their particular set of tenets and beliefs are the correct ones, and that other beliefs are incorrect or misguided. These sects of "peace-loving peoples" often come to blows over their differences, as we've seen in Ireland and Iraq. 

But, this segementation of the religious market, which is so well displayed by the differing brands of churches in the average town, also boils down to the individual. How often I have heard a religious believer say "well, I don't believe in that particular passage or tradition"?  On the personal level, people take from their religions what they are comfortable with, and reject what they are not comfortable with.  This is the same as saying "part of my religion is bull$#@!". Well, how can they be sure the stink doesn't come from the core of it? The person that says "I don't go to church, but I believe in god", has rejected organized religion in favor of a self-made religion. If religion and "god" allows all this, then there cannot be a solid basis of fact for believing any of it. "Faith" has little to do with facts, and everything to do with going along to get along.

"Honey, I'm hungry for Episcopalian.  Can we have Episcopalian?"

"We had Episcopalian last week.  I want Pentecostal!" 

As I understand it, Obama used to be a Muslim. How can he flop to another religion and truly "believe in it", when he used to truly "believe" in another religion? The answer is simple...being a Muslim does not get a person elected in the USA.  I'd have to question his sincerity on any other subject, knowing this. Bush used to be a drunkard, now he's "reborn".  Nobody knows for sure what anyone actually believes, so belief itself becomes suspect to the rational thinker. While it's okay to speculate, why does anyone have to "believe" anything? Why can't we stick to repeatedly provable facts, and be happy with that, knowing that we cannot know that which we do not have sufficient and conclusive evidence to prove?

For the religious who find comfort in their beliefs, it should not be difficult to also understand that there is comfort in facts.  Facts.  We know what they are, we can test them, they are definitely actual. To say that we believe something to be a fact is just a belief.  Without evidence, why should anyone proclaim it to be "truth"?  

http//:www.ffrf.org

----------


## sophocles07

> Can you boast as many Atheists killed for their belief?


It is a strange custom that because someone dies for a phantom he is suddenly a hero.  





> I don't hate "atheists," but I do hate "atheism." In my opinion, it is the most irrational, dangerous, diabolical, contradictory, and foolish theories that mankind has ever formulated as a philosophy and view of the world. Therefore, I, as a Christian theist, will continue to seek its destruction until it is eradicated from the world as a system of thought and lifestyle.


Is it also irrational to say you don’t believe a purple elephant rules the universe?  

You are ridiculous.




> In passing, I would say that "atheists" hate theists more than theists hate them because "atheists" love sin and hate God, by nature. One can only think of the Christian hate speeches of Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris, as international spokesman of "atheism." If you want to witness hatred and aggression as you've never seen in a human being, just read any of their works or listen to their speeches. It will definitely send chills up your spine and make your blood boil. It's just too bad these guys will have to face an angry and righteous God on Judgment Day to give an account of their perpetual hate, aggression, and ridicule towards God's people (unless they turn from their wicked ways and believe in the truth of God's revelation).
> 
> Anyway, for me, "atheists" aren't the problem because they are made in the image and likeness of their Creator, though they daily refuse to acknowledge Him as such. It's "atheism" that's the problem, and as I've said before, I will work diligently to bring its demise to the human race as long as the living God blesses me with breath in my body and His Spirit in my soul. Having said that, I try hard to love "atheists" as my neighbors on God's earth, though I fail to do that at times, I admit.
> 
> So much for "atheists" trying to attain peace in the world. As long as theists exist, you will never have peace because your "atheism" will be a threat to us. Oh, what will you do?


Alright, I started to go through this bit by bit, then realized it was pointless and that you are a complete idiot, so I will just leave it at that.




> Whether you believe it or not, WilliamC, there is a war going on for men's minds, and it's spiritual in nature.


Who told you this?




> It's a war of ideas, and I believe it's more important than any of the current wars going on around the world today. That is where I choose to fight against all those who seek to dishonor God and His Son Jesus Christ by rejecting His authority and ignoring His revelation in nature and in His word (the Bible). I don't need to use bullets or swords to fight and win this war because my weapons are not carnal in nature (2 Corinthians 10:4).


Christians don’t have ideas, they have faith.  Unless, like Aquinas, they combine Greek philosophy with Christianity; then they have ideas.  But that’s not really Christianity. 





> The only way peace will be restored to these united States (and really, the whole world) is through the power, wisdom, judgment, and love of the Lord Jesus Christ Who has all authority bestowed upon Him (Matthew 28:18). He is the Prince of peace, and one day the government will rest upon His shoulder (Isaiah 9:6, 7). Heaven is His throne, and the Earth is His footstool (Acts 7:49). As soon as we all come to terms with that truth, the better our world will be, guaranteed.


GOD you suck.





> If it seems that I'm not peaceful or loving, forgive my flesh because my spirit earnestly desires those things for all of God's creation. It's just frustrating to me how some people continue to downplay God's dominion and existence while trying at the same time to attain those things which only come from His hand, such as peace, prosperity, and freedom from tyranny.


You are aware that “peace, prosperity, and freedom from tyranny” HAVE EXISTED APART FROM THE CHRISTIAN WORLD IN MANY PLACES—RIGHT?  




> So, once again, WilliamC, I do not wish to destroy your life, but I have a major problem with your worldview because it is an affront to my God. Therefore, I will continue to battle "atheism," agnosticism, humanism, or any other belief system which willfully and ignorantly dismisses the sovereign God of the universe (revealed in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments) as the central point of all knowledge, wisdom, understanding, and truth. I guess you could call it a "holy war," but not all wars are bad.


This reads like a fundamentalist text with Christian inserts:

“So, once again, WilliamC, I do not wish to destroy your life, but I have a major problem with your worldview because it is an affront to my God.  Therefore, I will continue to battle “atheism,” agnosticism, humanism, or any other belief system which willfully and ignorantly dismisses the sovereign God of the universe (revealed in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, AND the Qu’ran) as the central point of all knowledge, wisdom, understanding, and truth.  I guess you could call it a “holy war,” but not all wars are bad.”

ONE INSERT, and you’re a Muslim fundamentalist.  




> I was explaining the intent of my first post on this thread to you. I find it interesting, WilliamC, that you constantly talk about problems with "collectivism," yet your adherence to "individualism" is itself the product of a collectivist mindset because you wish all people would acknowledge the individuality or individual rights of each other together. It seems to me you've overlooked your own collectivism.


$#@!, “Theocrat,” you got him.

Idiot.




> I've never advocated that in any of my posts. I try to deal with arguments based on absolute and objective truth, but it seems to me that you don't believe in that sort of truth. I don't have to push my beliefs on anyone, but I do believe that people are wrong when they don't accept absolute truth, which comes from God, not me.


Proves my above point: you don’t have ideas, you have a text written centuries ago which you quote.

That’s not an idea.

And it is not “truth” by any stretch.




> I don't know how many times I have to reiterate to you, WilliamC, that I do not wish to destroy you as a person. You keep wanting to state that, but it's simply not true, so please refrain from making that an issue. It's your ideas that I have a problem with, and they have no connection to me on what happens to your physical life.


Yes, you don’t want to “destroy” him, you just want to waive some sort of smug brimstone about what “may” happen after he dies.




> Jesus Christ was more than just a "great philosopher." As He's declared Himself in His own word, Jesus was God (Hebrews 7:3; John 1:1-3; John 8:56-58; Colossians 1:17; et. al.). At this point, you are simply wrong to suggest Jesus was just a philosopher.


If Jesus was God, God’s “philosophy” is fairly scanty, no?  It appears 1,000 times before Jesus’ little cross-dance.




> Muslims are fatally wrong about their conceptions of God because they reject God's true revelation in His holy Scriptures. Therefore, Islam is just superstition.


You are aware they take the Old and New Testaments to be revelations, right?

If Islam is superstition, you are invalidating your own religion at the same time.

You are also aware that Christians in the Middle East call their God “ALLAH” too, right?

----------


## HazardPerry

*A rope leash,* to clarify, what I meant by privileged perspective is the assured belief in one's individual opinion, to the exclusion of all others.

And yes, I see no reason why Churches and other religious institutions do not have to pay taxes.

It just seems to me that you are utilizing sweeping generalizations to bolster your arguments. Is it so hard to speak in terms of the individual, recognizing a spectrum of belief and practice?

You paint a picture of reasoned minds battling against the suicidal, empty minds of religion; it is very simple to fashion these sorts of collectives, but as a tool for logical reasoning they have immense shortcomings. I see you speaking of being rational, and yet I do not see you behaving in that manner. All Christians do not pray for nuclear holocaust, that is absurdity. Perhaps the Christians you have come in contact with are very vocal in their support of war and would like nothing better than to wage a moral crusade, both domestic _and_ foreign. But mustn't it be recognized that they may not be particularly representative of the full body of practice?

I do not follow your argument that religion is the blame for the world's calamities. Even if 100% of violent acts throughout history were perpetrated by those who claimed a religious affiliation, the fact would remain that it is the _individual_ who commits the act, not the religion. Being an atheist does not elevate you above cruelty and violence. 

If one becomes an atheist in an environment in which such ideas are rare, or frowned upon, it _does_ reflect a strong will (to stand apart from the majority and follow one's beliefs), an open and inquiring mind (to acknowledge alternative ideas and then seek them out), and, often, a quick wit (to defend against attack). These qualities may deter one from ignoble acts, however they do not make for an inherently peaceful and loving person. That must remain the prerogative of the individual.

Likewise, while religion is often held to teach morality and good character, it is often apparent that those who profess adherence do not exactly embody that charter. Again, it is the will of the individual and his environment which shapes these decisions.

Let us steer away from counting bodies, shall we? I do not need to be read a laundry list of those atrocities committed in the name of religion, nor do you need to be recited a tally of genocides perpetrated by arguably atheist and at the very least secular leaders and the states thereof. To me, and hopefully to you, they are all engaging in heinous wrongdoing.

A pissing match is precisely what typically goes on when a vocal atheist comes across a vocal theist, and what a sad thing that is. When I see it occur, all I can think of is how convinced each is of their correctness, how each feels mandated to sway the other. The atheist sees the theist as a backwards philistine blind to the ultimate truth, and the theist sees the atheist as a doomed heathen blind to the ultimate truth. Each will become more firmly entrenched in their beliefs, more assured of their argument, more deeply convinced of the laughable nature of the other's "belief."

What typically precipitates this behavior, and what it seems to me you have experienced on multiple occasions, is the maddening activism. It is unfortunate, and I side with you on this issue. I do not enjoy having literature thrust into my hands, nor do I particularly enjoy listening to a born again nut-case with a bullhorn and placards thunder about how my community is rapidly descending into the hellfire of homosexual butt-lust while I am trying to eat my lunch. I just wish that more people would hold individuals accountable for their actions instead of insisting that they are beholden to a collective belief which guides their mind at all times.

I accept _the denial_ of God's existence. _I_ do not deny it, but I accept _your_ denial. I see nothing wrong with it, and why should I? You are as entitled to your belief as I am to mine. I am not as versed in Christianity as you may be, however I think that many Christians feel it is their duty to "save the souls" of as many people as possible. Many feel affronted or even endangered at the thought of atheism. I do not understand this, and it is something I have only recently come to realize, in small part even because of this thread. This attitude is frowned upon in my religion, at least my experience and teaching of it, so I dislike it as a matter of doctrine equally as much as you do.

----------


## nobody's_hero

Man, this is an angry thread. 

People should be free to believe whatever they want. Believe or not believe what you want, and I'll believe or not believe what I want. In the end, I can only account for my actions. That's borrowed from existentialism.

----------


## Mach

One of the best questions to ask is.......... if you believe in God............ why do you go to the Doctors office and Hospital (Science), why don't you just pray and wait, if God wants you to be healed then he will do it, if not then you won't be healed and that, of course, is Gods wish..... and it's for the good, so, if you die, that would be Gods decision......... no?

 Like the Video says... when someone gets a disease and it disappears, people call it a Miracle....... why don't Miracles ever happen to/for Amputees? I never once in my life heard of someone growing something back....... is God prejudice?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDHJ4ztnldQ

----------


## HazardPerry

> One of the best questions to ask is.......... if you believe in God............ why do you go to the Doctors office and Hospital (Science), why don't you just pray and wait, if God wants you to be healed then he will do it, if not then you won't be healed and that, of course, is Gods wish..... and it's for the good, so, if you die, that would be Gods decision......... no?
> 
>  Like the Video says... when someone gets a disease and it disappears, people call it a Miracle....... why don't Miracles ever happen to/for Amputees? I never once in my life heard of someone growing something back....... is God prejudice?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDHJ4ztnldQ


I can't speak for all religions, but in mine, science and faith are not mutually exclusive ?

----------


## Mach

How does your Religion coincide with science?

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

nt

----------


## JenaS62

> It is a strange custom that because someone dies for a phantom he is suddenly a hero.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it also irrational to say you dont believe a purple elephant rules the universe?  
> 
> You are ridiculous.
> 
> ...




Theocrat and his ilk are exactly the reason I stopped believing in a god at age 10.  And you are correct in that he does sound exactly like a Muslim extremist.  Kill the infidels or MAKE them believe in something that there is no proof of or presence of.

----------


## JenaS62

One of my favorite quotes

"Religion has convinced people that there’s an invisible man…living in the sky, who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn’t want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer and burn and scream until the end of time.

...But he loves you... He loves you and he needs money. "

----------


## HazardPerry

> How does your Religion coincide with science?


*Here* is an interesting lecture given by Seyyid Nasr at MIT. It is a bit long, and hardly exhaustive, but worth the read nonetheless. It highlights the healthy debate and much meaningful discussion that has been undertaken in the last few decades as Islamic scholars struggle to again find their voice in the world. I myself am an astronomer eying a Ph.D. (_astrophysics yeeeaaahhh!!_) and have studied extensively the Islamic tradition of science. There is a well-known hadith which says:




> "He who pursues the road of knowledge Allah will direct to the road of Paradise... The brightness of a learned man compared to that of a mere worshiper is like that of a the full moon compared to all the stars.... Obtain knowledge; its possessor can distinguish right from wrong; it shows the way to Heaven; it befriends us in the desert and in solitude, and when we are friendless; it is our guide to happiness; it gives us strength in misery; it is an ornament to friends, protection against enemies.... The scholar's ink is holier than the martyr's blood.... Seeking knowledge is required of every Muslim....


I keep this Hadith on my person, I find it's glowing sentiment quite powerful. Historically, in the societies of my religion (perhaps during better, more stable, more _wealthy_ times, when such things could be pursued more readily), science and religion have each fed knowledge of the other. Not always in direct concordance, but never rejected out of hand as a result. Always there was debate, reflection, commentary, acceptance. This is the beating heart of Islam; a scholastic tradition very much rooted in questioning and eternal seeking. It is sad indeed to see some parts of the community sliding into "fundamentalism," a land of absolute surety where argument is frowned upon, even punishable, and man falsely believes he has grasped the absolute truth of God's message. Folly...

----------


## Mach

People get very emotional over this stuff....... that emotion... feeling, over-rides logic.... be careful. 

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."
-- Susan B. Anthony 1896 


Hateful Atheist?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdVucvo-kDU


Atheist Delusion 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkhQLt1vbWU

Overview
http://www.youtube.com/user/GIIVideo

Dawkins101

Part 1
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...DELUSION&hl=en

Part 2
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...OF+FAITH&hl=en


I read about an Eskimo hunter who asked the local missionary priest, If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell? No, said the priest, not if you did not know. Then why, asked the Eskimo earnestly, did you tell me?
- Annie Dillard

----------


## Mach

HazardPerry, I read over the Lecture by Seyyid Hossein Nasr, am I understanding this correctly? He's saying... ok, follow science along, but, get some "feeling" from "religion"....  kind of half and half... that science can only supply so much?

I have to say, I do have spirit, I do look up to a "Superior" with feeling...... Nature,  the Universe, I am very thankful, people say...... "nothing is perfect"..... I say...... "Mother Nature"....... it (Nature) is not prejudice in any way shape and/or form, people die equally under Nature, someone name one way that Nature is not perfect.

Here is a video..... do you agree with some of his views?.......... 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyboXCIVJY0

-

I don't hate anyone for believing in any Religion, unless, they start shoving it in my face and that doesn't include discussion, I enjoy debating with people, I don't think that everyone has to see things my way or it will end the world, oh, wait a second.................... c'mon'....... lol....

----------


## youngbuck

I'm a Christian and I haven't the slightest hatred for Atheists.

----------


## Defining Obscene

I hate everyone equally, because no one will ever admit they're wrong

----------


## HazardPerry

> HazardPerry, I read over the Lecture by Seyyid Hossein Nasr, am I understanding this correctly? He's saying... ok, follow science along, but, get some "feeling" from "religion"....  kind of half and half... that science can only supply so much?
> 
> Here is a video..... do you agree with some of his views?.......... 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyboXCIVJY0


On the Nasr - in a way. I enjoy the lecture because it highlights the interesting fabric of various opinion within the doctrine. I just sort of wanted to provide an example of active discussion and desire, even _need_ for science and religion to co-exist. In my studies I have found that historically Islam embraces science more than the other monotheistic religions, and I have always believed that the two can interact freely.

On the video, it was an _interesting_ talk. The beginning part concerning the covering of women haha, could be it's own topic. The part I feel you wanted me to watch though, concerning an imaginary conversation (conversion?) with/of an athiest I was quite uncomfortable with. Firstly, I dislike the idea that one is to be going around looking to convert atheists, but I have said that in this thread before. Secondly, I dislike captive dialogues like the one he held. If he is conjuring the "athiest" and his "responses," then of course he will get to prove his point. Finally, I feel the way he went (if the situation _must_ occur) about it is entirely wrong. There is a cottage industry of erstwhile scholars who nit-pick the Qur'an seeking out semantics like the ones he quoted, to hold up as "proof." I have come across most of the things he said before, and more often than not (having a grasp of Classical Arabic) they are being judiciously translated, to say the least.

These sort of Qur'anic parlor tricks are commonly distributed in pamphlets and literature I suppose seeking to "shock and awe" non-Muslims. I have never once seen it do that, and my first reaction to it (as a Muslim) was to crack open my Qur'an and start translating for myself. Most of it is wishful thinking. I generally believe that one must be "shown" or "discover" their own path, unless they are particularly impressionable, and as he mentioned, echoing my sentiments earlier in this thread, most atheists are not in the possession of impressionable minds in the first place. Further, what enlightenment can the impressionable obtain from doctrine they blindly follow?

Anyway, *here* is an interesting video from a teacher I _do_ rather admire, on a similar topic.

----------


## the Winner is (R0N P@uL)

> What is the point of this thread, other than to divide, stir up emotions and rile up animosity?


this thread is not doing that, we have done it to ourselves

God help us all

and yes there is a God and he loves all of you

that is, as long as you believe

----------


## the Winner is (R0N P@uL)

> I'm a Christian and I haven't the slightest hatred for Atheists.


In the "The Good Book" it says either you have God in your heart or you are damned for eternity

.......not much room for Atheists in Heaven

(but who am I to judge, it's all there in black, white, and red)

----------


## JenaS62

> In the "The Good Book" it says either you have God in your heart or you are damned for eternity
> 
> .......not much room for Atheists in Heaven



But there is room for murderers, child molestors, etc....all they have to do is proclaim their love of God/Jesus and they get a free pass.  Not really the types I'd chose to hang out with.

----------


## A rope leash

"Perhaps the Christians you have come in contact with are very vocal in their support of war and would like nothing better than to wage a moral crusade, both domestic and foreign. But mustn't it be recognized that they may not be particularly representative of the full body of practice?"

Yes, as I have said religion is segmented and personalized. Of course you don't believe what other Chrisitians believe...that would be insane. 

Of course, I'm not especially rational, myself...that's true.  I take my mind for a ride on certain subjects and just let it spill onto the page. I didn't become an atheist after not thinking about it.

As I understand it, Christians in my neck of the woods are bible literalists who have plenty of tracts to hand out and a scripture quote for every instance of their lives. But why, Haz? It's because here is where they where born into their religions. If they'd been born in India, they might have never heard of Jesus, who holds "son of god" status over here. Almost all Chrisitians share that point of faith, but they all disagree on the details of everything else. They have picked and chosen among the tidbits of their religious doctrines and seperated themselves from other Jesus believers along the lines of those differences. If that is allowed, ...(and the Pope says it isn't)... then religion becomes suspect because two truths cannot tolerate one another's existence.  

Two men say they're Jesus.  One of them must be wrong.  (Dire Straits)

I get this "I'm not that kind of Christian" talk all the time. But, it was only a matter of time before "that kind of Christian" made its way into the White House. Hmmm, seven years later we're corn-holing two predominantly Muslim states relentlessly, under the guise of justice for an attack we might have turned the other cheek on. It can't be proven that these guys (our leaders) are sincere in their beliefs, but if they are, there is plenty to be found in their religions to strengthen and justify their goals...and in the case of Christianity, there's even a provision for forgivness and AFTER DEATH reward. I apologize to dissenting Christians, but shouldn't they be as alarmed as I am that "this kind of Christian" is at the helm, fingering the unholy mechanisms of nuclear destruction? They're right there, ready to fulfill prophecy, and cement their destinies. That makes me quite nervous, actually. Where is preacher to lead us in protest?

Someone a couple of pages back said this was an angry thread. I have to disagree. For the subject matter, this thread is pretty civil.  Sure, it's kind of mean, but that 's part of the fun.  It hasn't disentigrated into childish bickering just yet. As for those that wonder why this thread should exist here...exactly how many sub-forums does this site have, anyway, and why can't Ron Paul supporters have a small discussion regarding religion versus atheism? I fully admit to being a "fight-starting troll", because there's nothing I like more than a debate. I don't care much for crude pissing matches, though, even if it seems that I am asking for it. Posts like HazardPerry #70 prove that contoversial subjects can be discussed in a relatively peaceful manner. One thing about this forum...it has convinced me that Ron Paul supporters are "everybody".



_...alone with your tweezers, and your handkerchief
you murder time and truth, love, laughter, and belief
but don't try to touch my heart, it's darker than you think
and don't try to read my mind, because it's full of disappearing ink..._ - Elvis Costello  _All the Rage_


rope rope the misanthrope

----------


## beachmaster

> I hate everyone equally, because no one will ever admit they're wrong


You haven't met me yet.  I used to be a born again Christian.  All my life up til about 5 years ago.  Was a preacher even.  Studied the hell out of that bible, and believed so much that I preached in the park to passersby that unless they repented they'd be going to hell.  Later I fell in with a messianic type group that kept the 7th day sabbath.  I taught that Moses killed a man on orders from God because the man picked up some sticks on the Sabbath.

All of that changed about 5 years ago... the story of my transformation from believer to agnostic is a lengthy one and I'll not repeat it here, but suffice to say that my belief in the god I once believed in (or gods... father, son, ghost... depending on your theology, there's one god, three in one, one in three, or something in between) is now as strong as my belief in Santa Claus.

And even now, I'm still agnostic on all points.  I could be a brain in a vat and not know it.  

Now how many people do you know who will admit to not knowing jack $#@!?

(I think I met Jack once a long time ago, but I never really got to know him.)

Now then... if only everyone could only just admit "I THINK such and such" or "I BELIEVE such and such".  Works for both theists and atheists.

I THINK there is (is not) a god.

I BELIEVE there is (is not) a god.

or I AM NOT SURE there is a god, what it's name is, what it does for a living, etc.

If we could all just agree to this, maybe we could all get along.



I THINK, THEREFORE I AM.  _NOW, WHAT THE HELL AM I?_

----------


## WilliamC

> In the "The Good Book" it says either you have God in your heart or you are damned for eternity
> 
> .......not much room for Atheists in Heaven
> 
> (but who am I to judge, it's all there in black, white, and red)


It's a good thing I'm not immortal then, otherwise I'd have something to worry about. 

The only thing in my heart is blood.

----------


## beachmaster

> and yes there is a God and he loves all of you
> 
> that is, as long as you believe


Really?  Prove it.

If you can't, then will you just admit that this is merely your belief, and not a proven fact?

It's not hard to do friend.

----------


## beachmaster

> It's a good thing I'm not immortal then, otherwise I'd have something to worry about. 
> 
> The only thing in my heart is blood.


WilliamC, I've read a lot of your posts on this thread and agree with everything, except your implied insistence that you know for a fact that you are not immortal.  I might agree with you if you could prove your lack of immortality. 

Or would you just admit that you are not sure if your consciousness transcends the death of the body?

All I know for sure is that "I am".  In one sense, that makes me God.  

I don't know if I will live after the death of my body.  I suppose I'll know one day.  How can you know either way until your body dies?  Isn't that when you'll really know?  (of course if you don't transcend, you won't even know it then, for there will be no more "you"... how ironic!)

Just seeking clarification to satisfy my curiousity.

I also seek to learn why theists absolutely know that they will inherit an afterlife... how do you know for sure?  How can you prove it?

----------


## WilliamC

> WilliamC, I've read a lot of your posts on this thread and agree with everything, except your implied insistence that you know for a fact that you are not immortal.  I might agree with you if you could prove your lack of immortality. 
> 
> Or would you just admit that you are not sure if your consciousness doesn't transcend the death of the body?
> 
> All I know for sure is that "I am".  In one sense, that makes me God.  
> 
> I don't know if I will live after the death of my body.  I suppose I'll know one day.  How can you know either way until your body dies?  Isn't that when you'll really know?  (of course if you don't transcend, you won't even know it then... how ironic!)
> 
> Just seeking clarification to satisfy my curiousity.
> ...


Well I can't say I have proof because I haven't yet died. 

I just happen to think I am not immortal just like I think that the Sun will rise tomorrow.

I can't prove that either, all I can do is wait for it to happen.

Maybe I'm wrong and there is a supernatural component to me that lives after my brain shuts down.

And maybe a rogue black hole will collide with the sun today and cause it to go nova.

All I know is that, in my experience, nothing has come close to convincing me I have an immortal soul. 

Without that belief religion is sort of a moot point for me.

----------


## beachmaster

> Well I can't say I have proof because I haven't yet died. 
> 
> I just happen to think I am not immortal just like I think that the Sun will rise tomorrow.
> 
> I can't prove that either, all I can do is wait for it to happen.
> 
> Maybe I'm wrong and there is a supernatural component to me that lives after my brain shuts down.
> 
> And maybe a rogue black hole will collide with the sun today and cause it to go nova.
> ...


I hear ya, believe me.  Me on the other hand... I've had out of the body experiences, which really still proves nothing.  But they are anecdotal evidence (not proof) that there is another "me" that is not of a physical nature.  Lucid dreams are another of these pieces of the anecdotal puzzle.

And yet still I just don't know, even with this evidence.  I don't try to convince myself one way or the other.  I believe in the possibility of this, that, or the other, but don't believe anything absolutely, except one thing... I AM.  I can't even be sure of what I am.  It appears that I'm a human being living on a planet called earth.  But if there is anything to The Simulation Argument (and I believe in the possibilities of it), then truly I just can't know for sure.





> I can't prove that either, all I can do is wait for it to happen.
> 
> Maybe I'm wrong and there is a supernatural component to me that lives after my brain shuts down.


That's what I was hoping to see from you.  I just wish everyone could admit that they could be wrong, that they can't prove their beliefs.  Then we could all start working together and forge ahead toward peaceful living.

Thanks for your candor.

----------


## WilliamC

> I hear ya, believe me.  Me on the other hand... I've had out of the body experiences, which really still proves nothing.  But they are anecdotal evidence (not proof) that there is another "me" that is not of a physical nature.  Lucid dreams are another of these pieces of the anecdotal puzzle.
> 
> And yet still I just don't know, even with this evidence.  I don't try to convince myself one way or the other.  I believe in the possibility of this, that, or the other, but don't believe anything absolutely, except one thing... I AM.  I can't even be sure of what I am.  It appears that I'm a human being living on a planet called earth.  But if there is anything to The Simulation Argument (and I believe in the possibilities of it), then truly I just can't know for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I was hoping to see from you.  I just wish everyone could admit that they could be wrong, that they can't prove their beliefs.  Then we could all start working together and forge ahead toward peaceful living.
> 
> Thanks for your candor.


Anytime.

I have become increasingly skeptical of everything as I get older, including myself.

I'm a scientist by training, but a long time ago I figured out that to be successful in science you essentially have to become a professional beggar and write grants all the time. For some strange reason I don't think that the taxpayers should be supporting most scientific research anymore.

Lately I've become increasing dissatisfied with science and working in a lab, it's boring. I'm trying to take more math classes with the goal of being able to teach math at the post-high school level. I've never been very good at math but I've always wanted to learn more of it. I've really got to stop wasting my time with this politics stuff and do more studying

----------


## maeqFREEDOMfree

> Quite frankly, I think the animosity on both sides is ridiculous...far too many people on both sides are arrogant and utterly overconfident that they "know the real truth" to the exclusion of everyone else, and then they proceed to publicly exalt themselves and belittle others for their beliefs.


+1

----------


## beachmaster

> Anytime.
> 
> I have become increasingly skeptical of everything as I get older, including myself.
> 
> I'm a scientist by training, but a long time ago I figured out that to be successful in science you essentially have to become a professional beggar and write grants all the time. For some strange reason I don't think that the taxpayers should be supporting most scientific research anymore.
> 
> Lately I've become increasing dissatisfied with science and working in a lab, it's boring. I'm trying to take more math classes with the goal of being able to teach math at the post-high school level. I've never been very good at math but I've always wanted to learn more of it. I've really got to stop wasting my time with this politics stuff and do more studying


As you are a scientist, I'd be interested in your take on the Simulation Argument.  There's some computational math involved in it! And it's the ultimate in skepticism of everything!

----------


## WilliamC

> As you are a scientist, I'd be interested in your take on the Simulation Argument.  There's some computational math involved in it! And it's the ultimate in skepticism of everything!


http://www.simulation-argument.com/

ABSTRACT. This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a posthuman stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed.

On the surface it sounds like a non-testable hypothesis to me.

No, I think that the simplest explanation is that this is all objectively real, and that we are but a brief flicker of awareness in the grand scheme of things, both as individuals and as a species.

Now if we can hold it all together long enough to start expanding into the solar system and establish self-sufficient colonies on other planets and moons then I'll be a tad bit more optimistic about our long term survival.

A tad bit.

----------


## beachmaster

> http://www.simulation-argument.com/
> 
> No, I think that the simplest explanation is that this is all objectively real, and that we are but a brief flicker of awareness in the grand scheme of things, both as individuals and as a species.
> 
> Now if we can hold it all together long enough to start expanding into the solar system and establish self-sufficient colonies on other planets and moons then I'll be a tad bit more optimistic about our long term survival.
> 
> A tad bit.


I lean heavily to this being the real reality.   Occam's Razor and all.  But then again, just what does that mean exactly.  What is reality?  Is what you see as "blue" the same color that I see as "blue"?  What if what you call blue is what I call red?  So what is real?  Math probably is indeed the closest thing to true objectivity.  

Which brings me full cycle into wondering perhaps maybe the Simulation Argument could be real, since it would be a master computer doing gazillions of computations (math).

If this world is "real", I don't see us surviving long enough to make such a computer, just based on what I perceive as human nature.  But that's not to say that some other civilization didn't make it to the high tech state required to build such a computer, and just decided to simulate beings that we call humans.

I can go for Occam's Razor overall, just to make my life simpler.  But that still doesn't make it so.  I still really truly don't know the answer 100 percent for sure.  And I'm reasonably sure nobody else does either.  

Which leads me to conclude that it's possible none of "you" are real.  Maybe I really am God.  I was alone in the void, and very lonely.  I decided to concoct an amazing dreamworld, and invented all of "you" out there, and the world, birds, air, stars, beer, sex, war, suffering, etc., so as to shake off my extreme boredom.  And to make it real, I hypnotized myself so that I would not know I had done this... I would "live" out a life as a mere mortal man without knowing what my true nature was... until I awake.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure now that I'm really God.  That's got to be it!

Now bow before me!

----------


## WilliamC

And here I thought I read too much SciFi as a kid

----------


## beachmaster

> And here I thought I read too much SciFi as a kid


What?  You are doubting my words... the word of God?  

How dare ye?

----------


## Macon, GA

From where did life originate?  Don't give me the Evolution THEORY, as I don't buy it.

Evolution is totally contradictory to biogenesis.  I also don't buy the "aliens seeding the earth" theory.  (Sorry shape shifters.)  If that were the case, then the aliens would have had to originate somewhere.  It doesn't solve the question of where life originated.

----------


## WilliamC

> What?  You are doubting my words... the word of God?  
> 
> How dare ye?


Smite me if thou darest oh deity of doubtfulness!

----------


## beachmaster

> Smite me if thou darest oh deity of doubtfulness!


Nah, I shall bless thee for thou doubtfulness.  It is my doctrine after all.  Be well and prosper my son.

----------


## beachmaster

> From where did life originate?  Don't give me the Evolution THEORY, as I don't buy it.
> 
> Evolution is totally contradictory to biogenesis.  I also don't buy the "aliens seeding the earth" theory.  (Sorry shape shifters.)  If that were the case, then the aliens would have had to originate somewhere.  It doesn't solve the question of where life originated.


Perhaps you know something we don't?

Do you know where life originated?  Assuming you believe in God, and also assuming you believe God is alive... where did life originate (including God's life)?

I'm dying to know!

----------


## Macon, GA

I was just curious as to how one explains the existence of life while denying a Creator.

----------


## beachmaster

> I was just curious as to how one explains the existence of life while denying a Creator.


I'm curious about that too. I have no explanation.  

I'm curious as to how you would explain the existence of a "Creator".  Where did it originate?

Just curious.  So far nobody I've asked knows.

----------


## hillbilly

> Don't sweat it Kade.
> You guys will be able to openly persecute, rat out and maybe even kill some of us evil and insane Christians soon enough.
> The stage is set and the script is already Pre-written for you.
> Christians will be the new delicacy on the menu soon, so grab a knife and a fork and dig in!
> Hurray for you!! No more God to stand in your way!!
> Or will their be??? 
> lols at you I reckon for you will finally have the master you've always served so unknowingly soon enough.
> I wish you luck, You're gonna need it.





*applauds wildly!*

----------


## hillbilly

> I'm curious about that too. I have no explanation.  
> 
> I'm curious as to how you would explain the existence of a "Creator".  Where did it originate?
> 
> Just curious.  So far nobody I've asked knows.


If you cannot see it in the wondrous world around us, then you're quite simply blind to it.  If you wanted to see His glory, then it would be another matter entirely.


Quoting Ma kangaroo in Dr. Seuss' Horton Hears a Who-- "If you can't see it, smell it, or touch it, it doesn't exist!"   

And of course everyone knows how wrong she was.

----------


## WilliamC

> If you cannot see it in the wondrous world around us, then you're quite simply blind to it.  If you wanted to see His glory, then it would be another matter entirely.
> 
> 
> Quoting Ma kangaroo in Dr. Seuss' Horton Hears a Who-- "If you can't see it, smell it, or touch it, it doesn't exist!"   
> 
> And of course everyone knows how wrong she was.


Well if I remember correctly Horton _could_ hear the Who's....

----------


## hillbilly

> Well if I remember correctly Horton _could_ hear the Who's....


No doubt.  And there are those of us who hear God in the gentle breeze....and that's generally when an epiphany happens.

----------


## WilliamC

> No doubt.  And there are those of us who hear God in the gentle breeze....and that's generally when an epiphany happens.


I'll just have to keep listening I guess.

The only epiphanies I've had have convinced me of the opposite.

----------


## beachmaster

> No doubt.  And there are those of us who hear God in the gentle breeze....and that's generally when an epiphany happens.


The question was about the origin of life, not whether God exists.  

Do you know the origin of life (and this would include the life of God, assuming God is alive)?  Or would you admit as I do that you simply do not know?

----------


## beachmaster

> If you wanted to see His glory, then it would be another matter entirely.


How do you know God is a "he"?  Does God have a penis?  What would he do with it?  Ever ponder questions like this before?

----------


## hillbilly

> The question was about the origin of life, not whether God exists.  
> 
> Do you know the origin of life (and this would include the life of God, assuming God is alive)?  Or would you admit as I do that you simply do not know?


And if I had a clue, who here would honestly take me seriously?

God simply is.  We humans make everything too dang complicated.



And WilliamC--everything I've heard/read/watched (from the zeitgeist to the history channel to the Koran and the Torah to the insanely long discussions with scholarly die hard ET'rs....everything has convinced me that God & His Son are indeed real.  That my faith is real.

What works for one does not necessarily work for another.  Each has our own path.  

Ok.  I think Ive contributed enough here for today.  Back to my shell.

----------


## hillbilly

> How do you know God is a "he"?  Does God have a penis?  What would he do with it?  Ever ponder questions like this before?


WAY TO GO!

Nice to see your real character come shining through.

----------


## Macon, GA

For me, life presupposes a Creator.  Chaos and random chance never give rise to order.  

God is eternal, and has no beginning or end, thus making Him God.  I am curious as to how an atheist explains life and its origin without God in the equation.  How does an atheist explain logic, or morals?  In a world with no absolutes, is there any truth?  Could we recognize it?

----------


## beachmaster

> And if I had a clue, who here would honestly take me seriously?
> 
> God simply is.  We humans make everything too dang complicated.


Ok, so what's wrong with saying "Life simply is".  If God is alive, and "he" simply is, then your answer to the question of where life originated is, "Life simply is".

I can accept that kind of simplicity.  It's the same answer I came up with a few years ago.  Whatever is, simply is.  The whole Universe (or Multiverse even).  It just is.  Anything else is as you say, just too dang complicated!

And so we should all be able to get along, based on that simple notion, no?





> What works for one does not necessarily work for another.  Each has our own path.


I can agree with that too.  I just wish more could.... Live and let live!

----------


## beachmaster

> WAY TO GO!
> 
> Nice to see your real character come shining through.


What real character would that be?  The inquisitive character??

----------


## beachmaster

> For me, life presupposes a Creator.  Chaos and random chance never give rise to order.


Yes, for you.  And there's nothing wrong with that.  For me it is something else.  Chaos does give rise to order, and vice versa.  Check out Chaos Theory sometime.




> God is eternal, and has no beginning or end, thus making Him God.


Do you have any proof, or is this just your belief?




> I am curious as to how an atheist explains life and its origin without God in the equation.  How does an atheist explain logic, or morals?  In a world with no absolutes, is there any truth?  Could we recognize it?


Well I can't speak for "strong atheists" who declare "there is no god".  I can only speak for myself, an avowed agnostic.  I have already stated that I cannot explain anything.  I'm one of the few people on earth who have the balls to admit that.  Is there any truth?  I don't know.  Are there absolutes?  I don't know.  How can I explain logic or morals?  Those two things seem to be from the mind of men.  But again, I don't know.

You on the other hand, seem to know.  Do you have some proof of where life originates?  Do you have proof of the eternalness of God?  Or is it just something you believe strongly?  Be honest now.

----------


## hillbilly

> What real character would that be?  The inquisitive character??



The character that serves to un-unite supporters for the cause.  Smart ass comments like your only serve to stir crap--- they certainly don't help serve to unite.

The character that would seem to enjoy the effort of attempting to offend peeps.


But the un-unite part is the main character aspect I was referring to.

Does nothing to help Ron Paul.   And neither does this thread.  

Goodnight.

----------


## A rope leash

Yes, life is a mind-boggling perception to be experiencing. 

The elements of the earth came together, and physics combined with some chemistry and maybe some plain old good luck and electricty conjured up primitive life in a primoridial swamp somewhere east of St. Louis.  As the the laws of nature worked their chaos, life became more and more complex, culminating after millions of years in the current planet infestation known as "mankind".

This seems a bit hard to swallow, I can understand. But, it is far easier to swallow this than the idea that a fanastically advanced entity capable of creating and controlling universes somehow came into being and evolved to the point where it decided to create human beings and take a special interest in them.

Simple things come first, then complex things.  Life is absolutley a fabulous and beautiful display for a planet to hold, we should always promote it, but not because we think some god made it for us, but because it may well be the absolute only speck of it in the entirety of matter within the observable universe. 

Of course, it's easy to look around and say, "this looks created".  This is the nature of chaos...a tree appears to be quite random in design up close, but from afar trees have signature shapes. There's plenty of cause to elevate and adore life, but we shouldn't forget that beneathe the beauty of nature lies a fairly ugly system of survival. Mankind flourished because his brain evolved to the point where the common man doesn't even need most of it, and along with this the configuration of his body has proved to be quite useful and adaptable. 

It would be nice if human beings had a "reason" for being.  I suppose there could be higher life forms, but I've never seen one. The "reasons for living" some religions come up with too often include some obscure role in the plan of some invisible, game-playing controller-god. That's not freedom. Chaos is freedom. 

The probable reality is that we are the result of natural chaos on a uniquely placed planet, and as such we are undoubtedly the most advanced form of life for many light years in every direction.  

We should act like it.

----------


## Wendi

I don't hate atheists.  I wonder why so many of the more vocal ones I've either known, or seen on the internet, seem to hate christians.  I think perhaps it is largely a case of a few bad apples spoiling the bunch on both sides, but we're both too blinded by our own prejudice to see that.

----------


## beachmaster

> The character that serves to un-unite supporters for the cause.  Smart ass comments like your only serve to stir crap--- they certainly don't help serve to unite.
> 
> The character that would seem to enjoy the effort of attempting to offend peeps.
> 
> 
> But the un-unite part is the main character aspect I was referring to.
> 
> Does nothing to help Ron Paul.   And neither does this thread.  
> 
> Goodnight.


I'm sorry to see your hatefulness come out like that, especially being a fellow Ron Paul supporter.  I can't find anything in my posts that would "un-unite" us.  In fact, I think I've made a damn good case for being united.  I've suggested that we each all admit that we don't have rock solid proof of a God, where or how life began, etc., and that we just admit that since we do not know for sure (with solid proof) that we each say that we merely believe the way we do and in making such admission, we can all get along.  I see that won't do for you though.  That's a shame. 

If you got offended because I asked you an honest question about the gender of your god, please understand that I didn't mean to offend, merely to provoke thought.  Forgive me if I did offend.

May you (and all of us) be blessed in (y)our struggle for freedom.  And in that, I certainly hope you join me in defending the right to believe or disbelieve as our consciences dictate, so long as we harm no other.

----------


## beachmaster

> I don't hate atheists.  I wonder why so many of the more vocal ones I've either known, or seen on the internet, seem to hate christians.  I think perhaps it is largely a case of a few bad apples spoiling the bunch on both sides, but we're both too blinded by our own prejudice to see that.


Well I'm only atheist regarding the gods that have been described to me through scriptures, holy texts, religions, etc., but I'm agnostic as to whether or not there is a supreme entity, cosmic consciousness, intelligent Universe, or what not.  

My wife is still a Christian.  I don't hate her.  And I don't hate you, nor the other guy who seems peeved at me.  

I truly want you to be free to worship as you please, so long as it harm no other.

Peace

----------


## hillbilly

> I'm sorry to see your hatefulness come out like that, especially being a fellow Ron Paul supporter.  I can't find anything in my posts that would "un-unite" us.  In fact, I think I've made a damn good case for being united.  I've suggested that we each all admit that we don't have rock solid proof of a God, where or how life began, etc., and that we just admit that since we do not know for sure (with solid proof) that we each say that we merely believe the way we do and in making such admission, we can all get along.  I see that won't do for you though.  That's a shame. 
> 
> If you got offended because I asked you an honest question about the gender of your god, please understand that I didn't mean to offend, merely to provoke thought.  Forgive me if I did offend.
> 
> May you (and all of us) be blessed in (y)our struggle for freedom.  And in that, I certainly hope you join me in defending the right to believe or disbelieve as our consciences dictate, so long as we harm no other.



I was not offended.  

It takes a lot more than tasteless & crude sarcastic questioning to do that, my skin is thicker than that.   Because, however you meant it, that's how it came off.

Where is the hatred?  I see no hatred in my posts.  Simple plain facts the way I see them are what I posted.  

You go your path & I go mine & it's all good.....I even said that before your snarky remark about God's possible penis.  I called you out on being sarcastic, tasteless, crude....oh & add infantile to that too--you can call it thought provoking if you wish, because that does serve your purpose, I suppose.... AND because I also called you out as being one of those who would rather un-unite people for Ron Paul, you see my remarks as hateful?  Thin skin, beach.  Yes.  I said it.  Un-unite.  Every one of these pro-Christian or anti-theist threads on this forum does exactly that.   

Let me share with you some wise words from Carl Sagan:
"Another writer again agreed with all my generalities, but said that as an inveterate skeptic I have closed my mind to the truth. Most notably I have ignored the evidence for an Earth that is six thousand years old. Well, I haven't ignored it; I considered the purported evidence and *then* rejected it. There is a difference, and this is a difference, we might say, between prejudice and postjudice. Prejudice is making a judgment before you have looked at the facts. Postjudice is making a judgment afterwards. Prejudice is terrible, in the sense that you commit injustices and you make serious mistakes. Postjudice is not terrible. You can't be perfect of course; you may make mistakes also. But it is permissible to make a judgment after you have examined the evidence. In some circles it is even encouraged."
-- Carl Sagan, "The Burden of Skepticism" 
^^^I sincerely try to live this^^^

No.  I certainly don't know it all.  I never claimed to.  I don't think anyone here ever really claimed to.  If they did, your post might be better directed towards that them.


I've been a member here for a while & personally got disgusted with the generally snarky nature of this particular forum.  I have been coming back on & off for a bit, hanging out in the NC section......but thank you so much for reminding me why I left.  Generally I'm one of the most chipper & genuinely happy people I know (and this can be confirmed through a few real-life agnostic, atheist, and Christian friends I have that are members here but don't visit the forum anymore either).  It's immature self serving responses like you have shared with me that bring this entire place down & make it an unpleasant forum.

I came here for stimulating discussion and was terribly disappointed.  Next thing, I'll be judged as being intolerant & judgmental as well as hateful.  

So long as it's postjudice, not prejudice, I'm ok with it.  I know who I am & it's none of those things.

----------


## Tanner

> For me, life presupposes a Creator.  Chaos and random chance never give rise to order.  
> 
> God is eternal, and has no beginning or end, thus making Him God.  I am curious as to how an atheist explains life and its origin without God in the equation.  How does an atheist explain logic, or morals?  In a world with no absolutes, is there any truth?  Could we recognize it?


Whether a person is atheist, theist, polytheist, etc., there are absolute truths in the world. These truths are where morals are derived from. If one chooses to excel beyond these truths, whether it becomes inspired through religion, spirituality, sheer happiness, perception or any other means is entirely subjective. If done through volition and does not harm another, then the believer perhaps will gain and thus become more happy. But to emphasize, these alternate "morals" are purely subjective, which does not make them intrinsically right or wrong as long as not enforced upon any other.

The absolute reality that brought most of us to this movement is simple and unequivocally true; regardless if one believes that there exists an afterlife, no one can argue that _life on earth_ is infinite and/or unprecious. Each existence is an end in itself and must be respected, therefore the only immoral acts that can be committed by a group or individual are those that threaten or lessen life. These subsist of violence, the threat of violence, fraud or any derivatives therein whether direct or indirect. _If_ life was infinite, morals would not be necessary; murder, theft, or other torts would be mostly inconsequential and punishment would not be necessary since time-value of an individual would not matter, not would any capital punishment apply. Any injustice could be attained at the brutish whim of the persecutor without real recourse. 

This is the moral code, the only true empirical standard that can determine absolute right and wrong. Any additional "ethics" must be prescribed by an ulterior source, which should be administered freely, and therein lies the beauty of true liberty and the continuation of it. The proper role of the government, which should be determined a "protectorate," should be to correct injustices. When one has been wronged through violence, fraud, etc. it should be corrected as best possible by the Protectorate as the individual or group of individuals have proven that they cannot exist by the moral code, and thence should be punished or ostracized by the rule of law. The punishment can be determined by severity, precedent, the elected voice of a republic, a democratic process, or whatever combination is declared and can be changed by the creators, who instantiated it through volition, if deemed unfit. 

The reasons why I wrote this may be obvious to most that read it; no matter where we come from, who or what we believe in, we have convened here for many reasons but almost universally for one purpose: the goals of liberty, life and the pursuit of happiness. Let us disagree, as I have found that usually observing and understanding another's views, just or unjust, informed or uninformed, strengthen my own logic and reason, as it must do for most of us, whether the result is immediate or it encourages a deeper, longer desire for objective truth. Also, the open communication, as opposed to closed hostility, usually leads to respect _in the long term perspective_. My goal is to attempt to unify a set of basic moralities we can all completely agree on; the other subjective moralities are entirely our own to interpret, enjoy, disapprove, share through volition, etc. These truths are what collectives of all types are against, regardless of what they express on the surface. Whether one believes we are bestowed life from a Creator, chaos, evolution, a combination of these or any other source, we must each understand that _we are each alive_ and must continue to inspire others through peaceful  means and demonstrations that true liberty is the only path to peace and prosperity.

*When the word "group" was used in this article, it is meant to describe a volitional organization, such as a business entity, spiritual organization, etc.

----------


## beachmaster

> I was not offended.


Ok.  It just seemed like it when you started with the name calling (the smart ass remark).  I took it wrong I guess.




> It takes a lot more than tasteless & crude sarcastic questioning to do that, my skin is thicker than that.   Because, however you meant it, that's how it came off.


I certainly can see how it could come off that way.  I could have asked, "what makes God a male... does he have a beard", but that's not how we determine gender.  The quickest and simplest way we determine gender is whether a person has a penis or vagina.  If God doesn't have either, then God is sexless, and I would suggest that the paternal designation of Father (which again implies sex, for the male fathers a child through sexual reproduction) is in error.  Christians, including myself when I was one, get very offended by the Wiccans or others who claim there is a Goddess.  I frankly would like to know why.  If there is a God, I think it's ridiculous to suggest that it is a male or female.  Thus, my comment.  This conversation really shouldn't have come this far in a Ron Paul forum.  Again, the overiding point I'm trying to make is that neither you nor I know for sure.  I've admitted over and over that I don't know, and I'm simply illustrating that you don't either.  The inability of Christians to answer the question about the gender of their god illuminates this premise, and if someone suggests that God is a male, or is a father, then the next and obvious question is "how so".




> Where is the hatred?  I see no hatred in my posts.  Simple plain facts the way I see them are what I posted.


Again, I obviously misconstrued your "smart ass" remark.  I'm now sure that it was used with loving intent.




> You go your path & I go mine & it's all good.....I even said that before your snarky remark about God's possible penis.  I called you out on being sarcastic, tasteless, crude....oh & add infantile to that too--you can call it thought provoking if you wish, because that does serve your purpose, I suppose.... AND because I also called you out as being one of those who would rather un-unite people for Ron Paul, you see my remarks as hateful?  Thin skin, beach.


Well $#@!.  I thought I was wrong, but maybe I wasn't.  Now you seem upset again, and a little hateful.  Snarky?  Thin skin? Sarcastic? Tasteless?  Crude?  Infantile?  Ok, if you think so.  I respectfully disagree.  You still haven't answered the question about what it is that makes your god a male, or a father.  Maybe you can answer that question and leave sexual organs out of it, but you need to find another way to define a father and a male, or a person who is referred to as a "he".  




> Yes.  I said it.  Un-unite.  Every one of these pro-Christian or anti-theist threads on this forum does exactly that.


If people wouldn't get so damned uptight conversing with people of differing religious beliefs, there would be unity and not "un-unity".  I could care less what you believe.  But when you start making statements of fact about your beliefs and imply that myself or others who don't share your faith are somehow bad people, I am justified in asking you to prove it or change your position.

The bible says the just shall live by faith.  If that's so, then there is no need to make statements of fact as though you have proof.  Once you admit that you operate on faith, and I admit the same for myself (or admit lack of faith as the case may be), then we can have some common ground in supporting Dr. Ron Paul, who by the way would no doubt want a government that allows me to be free to not have faith.

Hey I'm the guy who used to shout at people in the park that they were going to hell if they didn't repent and accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour.  I admit that was a bad thing for me to do, and I deeply regret that I ever said those kinds of horrible things to my fellow man.  So I'm speaking from a position of authority on this topic.  I want unity, not hatred, between people of different belief systems.  At the same time, I really enjoy discussing faith issues in lively thought provoking debate.  If the penis remark doesn't provoke thought about what it is that makes God a "he", then I damn sure don't know what else will. 




> Let me share with you some wise words from Carl Sagan:
> "Another writer again agreed with all my generalities, but said that as an inveterate skeptic I have closed my mind to the truth. Most notably I have ignored the evidence for an Earth that is six thousand years old. Well, I haven't ignored it; I considered the purported evidence and *then* rejected it. There is a difference, and this is a difference, we might say, between prejudice and postjudice. Prejudice is making a judgment before you have looked at the facts. Postjudice is making a judgment afterwards. Prejudice is terrible, in the sense that you commit injustices and you make serious mistakes. Postjudice is not terrible. You can't be perfect of course; you may make mistakes also. But it is permissible to make a judgment after you have examined the evidence. In some circles it is even encouraged."
> -- Carl Sagan, "The Burden of Skepticism" 
> ^^^I sincerely try to live this^^^


I do too.  It is why I came to be such an agnostic after a lifetime of being a christian.  I examined a lot of things to come to my current state of belief/disbelief.





> No.  I certainly don't know it all.  I never claimed to.  I don't think anyone here ever really claimed to.  If they did, your post might be better directed towards that them.


See, that wasn't hard at all.  We have this in common, that we do not know it all.  But some previous statements seemed to imply that you did know it all about God, which god is the real god, etc.  You have faith, I grant you that.  You just don't have proof.  And neither do I.





> I've been a member here for a while & personally got disgusted with the generally snarky nature of this particular forum.  I have been coming back on & off for a bit, hanging out in the NC section......but thank you so much for reminding me why I left.


Well you are very welcome.  I sense a little sarcasm in your tone.  I'm probably off base again however, so I'll just leave it at "you're welcome".





> Generally I'm one of the most chipper & genuinely happy people I know (and this can be confirmed through a few real-life agnostic, atheist, and Christian friends I have that are members here but don't visit the forum anymore either).  It's immature self serving responses like you have shared with me that bring this entire place down & make it an unpleasant forum.


Again, I'm sure I'm wrong, but it seems to me that terms like "immature" and "self serving" aren't really meant in the spirit of love.  They seem a little south of that.  But hey, that's just me. 




> I came here for stimulating discussion and was terribly disappointed.  Next thing, I'll be judged as being intolerant & judgmental as well as hateful.  
> 
> So long as it's postjudice, not prejudice, I'm ok with it.  I know who I am & it's none of those things.


Ok, so we'll just end this on a happy note then!  We'll agree to disagree on matters of faith, and agree to live and let live.  Deal?

----------


## Macon, GA

Evolutionists, have you ever considered the following?  It seems to me that it takes just as much, or more faith to believe in Evolution than Creation.  

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

2. Where did matter come from?

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?

7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

13. When, where, why, and how did 
a. Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?) 
b. Single-celled animals evolve? 
c. Fish change to amphibians? 
d. Amphibians change to reptiles? 
e. Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) 
f. How did the intermediate forms live?

14. When, where, why, how, and from what did: 
a. Whales evolve? 
b. Sea horses evolve? 
c. Bats evolve? 
d. Eyes evolve?
e. Ears evolve?
f.  Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)? 
a. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)? 
b. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? 
c. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs? 
d. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts? 
e. The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose? 
f. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants? 
g. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones? 
h. The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system? 
i. The immune system or the need for it?

16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?

17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?

18. When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

19. How did photosynthesis evolve?

20. How did thought evolve?

21. How did flowering plants evolve, and from what?

22. What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?

23. What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?

24. Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?

25. What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen gas becoming human?

26. Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?

----------


## A rope leash

"Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?"

That is the only question worth asking.  It is something we cannot know. If we place a god into the question as a way of answering it, we then must explain how the god came into existence. To say that a god made everything means a god existed, which is a very complex thing. The god had to come from somewhere, right?

It has been said that the entire universe might have began with a single atom of hyrdogen.  But, again, where did the hydrogen come from?  This is beyond our abiity to understand since we do not have the information required to deduce such conclusions. However, if we say that a god placed the atom into the nothingness of space, we are saying that something existed before the hydrogen, so it didn't come from nothing. Some will say that god existed outside the universe and always has existed, but this is just as impossible as something coming from nothing. Everything has an origin. Not all origins are possible to determine.

This is how religion got it's start.  People have honest questions about the mysteries of the universe. Religion assumes to answer these questions, many times with some convenient all-powerful being.  10% please. What a scam.

It is incorrect to say nothing organized ever came out of chaos.  Everything came out of chaos. Chaos isn't as unruly and bad-mannered as one might think, because chaos is still contained within the boundaries of natural law.  How did living things learn to reproduce? That's a silly question...they just did what comes natural. Did god give Adam and Eve a book on the subject? Did he demonstrate for them with Mrs. God? We'll never know, I guess, but lucky they figured it out, huh?

Now, some scientists are saying that dust in empty space tends to form a double helix...why is it so necessary for people to have a god to do this when it seems to be just the natural progression of material within the universe? No one knows for sure how it started or where it came from, but if you are going to have a god do it for you, you will have to explain the origin of that god, won't you?

----------


## Ginobili

Well, as a Agnostic leaning very far towards atheist, I have to say, Christian persecution DOES exsist, because I have no doubt that the persecuters I know TRULEY believe it is God's will, and truly pray for forgivness of everything, which covers ignorance sins, which means *POOF* no more evil, lets go burn some atheists and then just pray it all away! WOO HOO!... they seriously think they are doing nothing evil by treating some one diffrent then you like they are a pile of ****, all because they are told by their religious masters that its ok...

----------


## Macon, GA

Can you provide an example where order comes from chaos?  

Also, the fact that God is eternal and  has no beginning or end, makes Him God.  Now can I absolutely wrap my finite mind around that?  No.

----------


## beachmaster

> Well, as a Agnostic leaning very far towards atheist, I have to say, Christian persecution DOES exsist, because I have no doubt that the persecuters I know TRULEY believe it is God's will, and truly pray for forgivness of everything, which covers ignorance sins, which means *POOF* no more evil, lets go burn some atheists and then just pray it all away! WOO HOO!... they seriously think they are doing nothing evil by treating some one diffrent then you like they are a pile of ****, all because they are told by their religious masters that its ok...


I too have experienced the hatred.  It was very evident when I announced to the congregation I belonged to that I no longer believed.  I was a "lay preacher" in that group and gave mini-sermons every other week.  I had participated in and even organized some of the feast activities.  I was sort of a low level leader.  When I went to my final sabbath meeting and told them about my in depth studies and my conclusions, some of them (not all) stared holes through me.  A couple of them instantly stopped talking to me.  To them (the mean ones) I became persona non-grata.  I became as dead.  I'll never forget the experience.  These people were my friends, then suddenly they made me their enemy.

On the other hand, some of them, including the leader of our pack, remained friendly and invited me to come to some events, begged me to reconsider, told me they still loved me and said they expected me to eventually be resurrected back to them.  One of our teachings was that almost everyone would eventfully be found in the kingdom in some manner or another (not everyone believed this).

Funny thing... they still use the website and the graphics I designed:  http://congregationyhwhpc.com/ which I did back about five years ago.

Some will look at this group and say "they're not christian".  Maybe not... but we followed the Old and New Testaments.  Prior to me getting in that group, I attended mainstream christian churches (interdenominational, Church of God, Assembly of God, Disciples of Christ, and others).  When I went over to the messianic group, a lot of christians told me I was in a cult or was a heretic, etc.  Now I'm a simple apostate, and that's ok with me I guess.  I've gotten quite used to it by now.

I have lots of christian friends now, many in the local Ron Paul meetup and they understand and know where I am at spiritually speaking.  The Ron Paul people by far are the most tolerant, at least locally.  Not so much in these forums though.  It helps when you can talk to people face to face instead of online.  As I mentioned above, my wife is still christian and we get along just fine.

----------


## beachmaster

> Can you provide an example where order comes from chaos?




Here's a brief summary of Chaos Theory:

http://www.imho.com/grae/chaos/




> What exactly is chaos? The name "chaos theory" comes from the fact that *the systems that the theory describes are apparently disordered, but chaos theory is really about finding the underlying order in apparently random data.*





> Lorenz started to look for a simpler system that had sensitive dependence on initial conditions. His first discovery had twelve equations, and he wanted a much more simple version that still had this attribute. He took the equations for convection, and stripped them down, making them unrealistically simple. The system no longer had anything to do with convection, but it did have sensitive dependence on its initial conditions, and there were only three equations this time. Later, it was discovered that his equations precisely described a water wheel.
> 
>     At the top, water drips steadily into containers hanging on the wheel's rim. Each container drips steadily from a small hole. If the stream of water is slow, the top containers never fill fast enough to overcome friction, but if the stream is faster, the weight starts to turn the wheel. The rotation might become continuous. Or if the stream is so fast that the heavy containers swing all the way around the bottom and up the other side, the wheel might then slow, stop, and reverse its rotation, turning first one way and then the other. (James Gleick, Chaos - Making a New Science, pg. 29) 
> 
> [Figure 2] The equations for this system also seemed to give rise to *entirely random behavior*. However, when he graphed it, a surprising thing happened. The output always stayed on a curve, a double spiral. There were only two kinds of order previously known: a steady state, in which the variables never change, and periodic behavior, in which the system goes into a loop, repeating itself indefinitely. *Lorenz's equations were definitely ordered* - they always followed a spiral. They never settled down to a single point, but since they never repeated the same thing, they weren't periodic either. He called the image he got when he graphed the equations the Lorenz attractor. (See figure 2)


There's a lot more to it of course.  That site gives the basics however, and once you grasp it, you see that the random Universe is ordered.  Weird, yet apparently true.




> Also, the fact that God is eternal and  has no beginning or end, makes Him God.  Now can I absolutely wrap my finite mind around that?  No.


Neither can most people.  It's the same as if you say the Universe is eternal, has no beginning nor end.  It is hard to grasp.  If some thing or someone invented the Universe, then you could do an infinite regression of that idea and say someone or some thing invented that inventor, and so on back to infinity past.   It's difficult if not entirely impossible to grasp infinity.  But Chaos Theory demonstrates a form of infinity.




> One mathematician, Helge von Koch, captured this idea in a mathematical construction called the Koch curve. To create a Koch curve, imagine an equilateral triangle. To the middle third of each side, add another equilateral triangle. [Figure 4] Keep on adding new triangles to the middle part of each side, and the result is a Koch curve. (See figure 4) A magnification of the Koch curve looks exactly the same as the original. It is another self-similar figure.
> 
> The Koch curve brings up an interesting paradox. Each time new triangles are added to the figure, the length of the line gets longer. However, the inner area of the Koch curve remains less than the area of a circle drawn around the original triangle. Essentially, *it is a line of infinite length* surrounding a finite area. 
> 
> http://www.imho.com/grae/chaos/

----------


## Macon, GA

Beachmaster,

I have been a Christian for almost 20 years.  Some of the meanest people that I have ever met were professing "Christians," although upon reflection I am not so sure that they were true Christians.  I will leave that judgment up to God, as He sees into the hearts of all men.

I am sure that there are just as many mean and angry atheists out there too.  I just don't have an occasion to bump in to them very often.  We probably don't run in the same circles, so to speak.

I have learned that I can find something to like in just about every kind of person that I meet.  I enjoy dialoguing with most as long as it doesn't become cruel and belittling.  

I am married to a Presbyterian pastor, and we have had all kinds of different people come and go at our church.  All have been welcomed in to my home, as would you and your wife were you ever to visit.

----------


## A rope leash

Thank you, beachmaster for your informative post. 

Can we discuss the possiblities of dark matter in the universe, our limitations in observing it, and the implications of sub-atomic particals winking into existence during a collision of atoms?

----------


## Macon, GA

You said this:

"There's a lot more to it of course. That site gives the basics however, and once you grasp it, you see that the random Universe is ordered. Weird, yet apparently true."
(Sorry, I have never tried to figure out how to do the blue quote thing.)

Doesn't an "ordered" random universe disprove the Chaos Theory?????  What looks like choas is actually ordered...

----------


## Laughingcow

> Is there one instance in history where a group of atheists got together to destroy the religious?  No? Not yet?


Actully, the communists do.

----------


## Macon, GA

Touche, Laughing Cow

Yes!  In Communism, God is replaced by the State.

----------


## Laughingcow

As a Christian, I have had friends from just about every walk of life. Gay, athiest, agnostic, bhuddist, indian spiritualist, muslim, many different races, and I have found for the most part that we could all have wonderful conversation and debate about our individual beliefs without going to war with each other. Some people act their faiths out to an extreme (vicious assaults on others) and some just believe to an extreme (expessing belief through benign acts and respectful debate). The ones who make the most ground are the latter, it is never good to use coercion by force to make another believe what you do, however if you don't expess what you believe to others, do you really believe in anything? A book by Dr. D. James Kennedy called "Why I Believe..." has helped solidify my thinking.

----------


## jmdrake

> great article.
> 
> i am very sick of being treated like a plague-infested rat by theists, religious FREAKING FREEDOM. if i don't want do believe your crap, i am no less American then you you SCUM!!


Please read this:

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=916

Then come back and tell the rest of us "theists" if you think Ron Paul is scum.  This has got be be one of the dumbest threads ever.

Regards,

John M. Drake

----------


## Kade

> Please read this:
> 
> http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=916
> 
> Then come back and tell the rest of us "theists" if you think Ron Paul is scum.  This has got be be one of the dumbest threads ever.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> John M. Drake


Except that people like you continue to treat Atheists like $#@!... I don't see the stupidity you talk about... unless you are referring to the posts by Theocrat.

It amazes me how offended people get when it is themselves who are questioned for intolerance.

----------


## beachmaster

> Beachmaster,
> 
> I have been a Christian for almost 20 years.  Some of the meanest people that I have ever met were professing "Christians," although upon reflection I am not so sure that they were true Christians.  I will leave that judgment up to God, as He sees into the hearts of all men.
> 
> I am sure that there are just as many mean and angry atheists out there too.  I just don't have an occasion to bump in to them very often.  We probably don't run in the same circles, so to speak.
> 
> I have learned that I can find something to like in just about every kind of person that I meet.  I enjoy dialoguing with most as long as it doesn't become cruel and belittling.  
> 
> I am married to a Presbyterian pastor, and we have had all kinds of different people come and go at our church.  All have been welcomed in to my home, as would you and your wife were you ever to visit.


I truly appreciate the invite.  I get invited to church fairly regularly, especially during holiday season.  Last time I went was with my wife to a local Baptist church for a Christmas program.  This was in 2006.  I was uncomfortable and bored to be totally honest.  One of my friends is a realtor and a Presbyterian pastor.  We met when my wife used to attend his church.  I've attended many of their dinners and get togethers and I know all of the members.  It's a small group.  We always got along well.  Sometimes a few of us, me the pastor and another guy who happens to be on the militant side, would engage in some light debate.  Nobody got hurt!

A previous church that my wife and I attended (non-denominational) dissed the both of us (I was still a christian) when they didn't like the fact that we were going to get married without a marriage license.  I tried to explain to them that marriage was of God... render to Caesar that which is Caesar's, and to God that which is God's.  They didn't like me taking the scriptures so literally.  After we got married (we had a baptist preacher friend of mine who doesn't believe in mixing church and state, doesn't have the 501c3 IRS designation, etc. do our ceremony), they sorta treated us like we were living in sin, lol.  

So I've experienced the good, the bad, and the ugly.  People are people, whether religious or not.  I've also known good, bad, and ugly people of no faith, or other faiths.  

It's people (like in Soylent Green, lol)

----------


## Laughingcow

> Please read this:
> 
> http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=916
> 
> Then come back and tell the rest of us "theists" if you think Ron Paul is scum.  This has got be be one of the dumbest threads ever.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> John M. Drake


Wow, nice!!!

----------


## Laughingcow

> I truly appreciate the invite.  I get invited to church fairly regularly, especially during holiday season.  Last time I went was with my wife to a local Baptist church for a Christmas program.  This was in 2006.  I was uncomfortable and bored to be totally honest.  One of my friends is a realtor and a Presbyterian pastor.  We met when my wife used to attend his church.  I've attended many of their dinners and get togethers and I know all of the members.  It's a small group.  We always got along well.  Sometimes a few of us, me the pastor and another guy who happens to be on the militant side, would engage in some light debate.  Nobody got hurt!
> 
> A previous church that my wife and I attended (non-denominational) dissed the both of us (I was still a christian) when they didn't like the fact that we were going to get married without a marriage license.  I tried to explain to them that marriage was of God... render to Caesar that which is Caesar's, and to God that which is God's.  They didn't like me taking the scriptures so literally.  After we got married (we had a baptist preacher friend of mine who doesn't believe in mixing church and state, doesn't have the 501c3 IRS designation, etc. do our ceremony), they sorta treated us like we were living in sin, lol.  
> 
> So I've experienced the good, the bad, and the ugly.  People are people, whether religious or not.  I've also known good, bad, and ugly people of no faith, or other faiths.  
> 
> It's people (like in Soylent Green, lol)


He will never let you go, He loves you to much. I understand the hurt you feel, my faith has been challenged by the church numerous times. Forgive and be forgiven, Brother. The angels will rejoice when you rejoin the fold. GBU

----------


## beachmaster

> You said this:
> 
> "There's a lot more to it of course. That site gives the basics however, and once you grasp it, you see that the random Universe is ordered. Weird, yet apparently true."
> (Sorry, I have never tried to figure out how to do the blue quote thing.)
> 
> Doesn't an "ordered" random universe disprove the Chaos Theory?????  What looks like choas is actually ordered...


Basically it seems to boil down to "out of chaos comes order, and out of order comes chaos". They seem to be two sides to the same coin.

Also, it seems related to David Bohm's "Holographic Universe" idea where there are two aspects of reality, implicate and explicate.  It makes for interesting reading.

----------


## beachmaster

> He will never let you go, He loves you to much. I understand the hurt you feel, my faith has been challenged by the church numerous times. Forgive and be forgiven, Brother. The angels will rejoice when you rejoin the fold. GBU


My point was that people hurt people all the time.  Religion isn't the only reason why some people hurt others.  Everyone has been hurt by someone at sometime.  I don't blame religion, I blame human nature. I'm not mad at christians because they are christian, and I would hope that christians aren't mad at me because I'm apostate. But reality is, some hate me.  And some atheists, agnostics, apostates, etc., hate theists.  It's just human nature.

----------


## Kade

> My point was that people hurt people all the time.  Religion isn't the only reason why some people hurt others.  Everyone has been hurt by someone at sometime.  I don't blame religion, I blame human nature. I'm not mad at christians because they are christian, and I would hope that christians aren't mad at me because I'm apostate. But reality is, some hate me.  And some atheists, agnostics, apostates, etc., hate theists.  It's just human nature.


I don't really hate theists. I just want a fair place to raise my kids, and I don't want my money going to promote things I strongly disagree with philosophically...

----------


## jmdrake

> Except that people like you continue to treat Atheists like $#@!... I don't see the stupidity you talk about... unless you are referring to the posts by Theocrat.
> 
> It amazes me how offended people get when it is themselves who are questioned for intolerance.


Really?  I've created atheists like "$#@!"?  How exactly?  By calling a thread stupid?  I'm sure any halfway intelligent atheist would call a thread like this on a forum supporting a "theist" stupid too.  I would think that any halfway intelligent atheist would call your blanket painting of ALL "theists" as "hating atheists" as patently stupid.  If you wanted to single out "theocrats" (theists who want a religious form of government) that would have been one thing.  But you attacked everyone that believes in God.  Whether you realize that or not you indirectly attacked Ron Paul in your own thread.  So either you're a plant working for another campaign (my guess Huckabee) or you're just totally ignorant.  I care not which.

Regards,

John M. Drake

----------


## Laughingcow

> My point was that people hurt people all the time.  Religion isn't the only reason why some people hurt others.  Everyone has been hurt by someone at sometime.  I don't blame religion, I blame human nature. I'm not mad at christians because they are christian, and I would hope that christians aren't mad at me because I'm apostate. But reality is, some hate me.  And some atheists, agnostics, apostates, etc., hate theists.  It's just human nature.


Thank you for not taking offense at what I said, it was spoken in love. Your right, humans are dealing with a fallen nature. If it helps, there is at least one Christian here who doesn't hate you, no matter what you believe.

----------


## Kade

> Really?  I've created atheists like "$#@!"?  How exactly?  By calling a thread stupid?  I'm sure any halfway intelligent atheist would call a thread like this on a forum supporting a "theist" stupid too.  I would think that any halfway intelligent atheist would call your blanket painting of ALL "theists" as "hating atheists" as patently stupid.  If you wanted to single out "theocrats" (theists who want a religious form of government) that would have been one thing.  But you attacked everyone that believes in God.  Whether you realize that or not you indirectly attacked Ron Paul in your own thread.  So either you're a plant working for another campaign (my guess Huckabee) or you're just totally ignorant.  I care not which.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> John M. Drake


Regards indeed. It was a link to an article actually, not a blanket statement. Plant for Huckabee? I thought you were alot smarter than that John... you and I were debating in the start of this forum before Huckabee ever showed his face at a caucus... Seriously though, I would like to hear one good argument on why an atheist should ever support someone like Huckabee...

I'm a libertarian democrat... and I'm leaning Obama now because I feel Ron Paul is not going to win, and I don't want Hillary or McCain... savvy?

----------


## beachmaster

> Thank you for not taking offense at what I said, it was spoken in love. Your right, humans are dealing with a fallen nature. If it helps, there is at least one Christian here who doesn't hate you, no matter what you believe.


Thank you.  That's the way it should be.  We are one species.  United we'll stand. Divided we'll fall.  It don't get no simpler than that!

----------


## Kade

> Thank you.  That's the way it should be.  We are one species.  United we'll stand. Divided we'll fall.  It don't get no simpler than that!


I can live with that.

----------


## beachmaster

> I can live with that.


So to any naysayers, this thread actually has done some good.  

Out of chaos came order!

----------


## Laughingcow

> I can live with that.


Ditto

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't really hate theists. I just want a fair place to raise my kids, and I don't want my money going to promote things I strongly disagree with philosophically...


S-U-R-E you don't.    You already have a fair place to raise your kids.  As for not having money going to promote things you strongly disagree with, why is that fair for you but not fair for "theists"?  After all theist tax dollars pay the salaries of teachers who openly denigrate religion in the classroom.  No I'm not just talking about evolution.  I'm also talking about teachers who get up and say "There is no God" to their students.  A Christian teacher that said "God loves you" would be in danger of being fired.  Why is one ok and the other is not?

The article you linked to criticized Americans for saying they wouldn't vote for an atheist for president.  Well there have been MANY threads on this forum by atheists criticizing Ron Paul's fitness to be president because he didn't fully endorse evolution.  Even for Ron Paul to have a question about that isn't good enough for some people.  (I wonder why they hang around?)  The same article criticized "theists" for not wanting their children to marry atheists.  Well would you REALLY want your child to marry a theist?  Wouldn't you be afraid that your grandchildren would be taught to believe "fairy tales and superstition"?

Your article does grudgingly admit that atheists like Stalin and Pol Pot have done their share of damage to the world, but that only makes the attacks on "theists" all the more laughable.  Preferring a Christian for president is equivalent to murdering millions of innocent people?  Anyway, if you'd like an atheist libertarian for president feel free to go here.

http://phillies2008.org/

Regards,

John M. Drake

----------


## jmdrake

> Regards indeed. It was a link to an article actually, not a blanket statement. Plant for Huckabee? I thought you were alot smarter than that John... you and I were debating in the start of this forum before Huckabee ever showed his face at a caucus... Seriously though, I would like to hear one good argument on why an atheist should ever support someone like Huckabee...
> 
> I'm a libertarian democrat... and I'm leaning Obama now because I feel Ron Paul is not going to win, and I don't want Hillary or McCain... savvy?


The Huckabee jab was a joke.  (He's clearly a theocrat.)  As for the "link to an article" defense, how would you feel if I linked to an article and started a thread with the title "Evil atheists are out to destroy America"?  In that case you could justifiably say I was treating atheists like "sh*t".  As it stands that's how I see you treating theists.  Maybe that's not your intent.  But that's how it comes across.

Regards,

John M. Drake

----------


## beachmaster

Then chaos entered back in after all was calm!  lol

----------


## Kade

> The Huckabee jab was a joke.  (He's clearly a theocrat.)  As for the "link to an article" defense, how would you feel if I linked to an article and started a thread with the title "Evil atheists are out to destroy America"?  In that case you could justifiably say I was treating atheists like "sh*t".  As it stands that's how I see you treating theists.  Maybe that's not your intent.  But that's how it comes across.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> John M. Drake


Yes, there is some residual distaste over Theocrat... it wasn't meant towards you. I have no problem with most of what teachers say... honestly... I like the public education system, and I like diversity. As long as there remains a certain criteria in science and math. I would welcome with an open heart, creationism in American Mythology 101 or something of that nature. When I mention tax money, I am mostly referring to the Unconstitutional promotion of protestantism through Faith-based Initiatives, making jail-programs and bible programs, and giving churches money to do this... unacceptable.

----------


## sophocles07

> I'm also talking about teachers who get up and say "There is no God" to their students. A Christian teacher that said "God loves you" would be in danger of being fired. Why is one ok and the other is not?


Are we talking about public universities?  I have extreme doubts that a teacher would get up, in any other situation, and say “There is no God”.  For one, they wouldn’t present it that simply. But they should be allowed to use whatever method of teaching they like to get across what they’re teaching and, to some extent and unavoidably, their own views on what they’re teaching.

I’ve heard teachers say things like that (“God loves you”) all my life (I live in NC, and used to live in SC), and nothing ever happens.  Nor should it.  But to O’Reilly yourself into some sort of secular conspiracy is ridiculous.




> Well would you REALLY want your child to marry a theist?


I’m Agnostic/lean Atheist, but I DONT GIVE A $#@! who my child marries, in terms of “what they believe”—as opposed to how he is as a person.




> Wouldn't you be afraid that your grandchildren would be taught to believe "fairy tales and superstition"?


These hypothetical grandchildren will be sent some Nietzsche early on (13-14 yrs).  Anyway, they should be able to stand as individuals at some point, decide for themselves.

----------


## beachmaster

> These hypothetical grandchildren will be sent some Nietzsche early on (13-14 yrs).  Anyway, they should be able to stand as individuals at some point, decide for themselves.


I'm all for teaching children how to think critically for themselves, and not believe anything just because some authority figure tells them "this is as it is".   

That's one of the reasons our nation is so screwed up.  First the little kiddies are taught about Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, then later it's Allah, Jehovah, Holy Ghost, Joseph Smith, Jesus, Krishna, or Hashem.  At some point, it's Big Brother, George Washington and his Cherry Tree (but no mention of the Constitution), Abraham Lincoln and what a demi-god he was, how the we are to obey the authorities as Romans 13 tells us, and to always trust your doctor and don't ask him what that stuff is he's about to inject into you.  

It's not just schools, preachers, and parents... it's the whole "dumbing down" system that has brought us to where we are.  If I ever were to have kids (it's a little late for me now), the first thing I would teach them is TRUST NOBODY!  Don't believe them.  Don't believe TV.  Research everything yourself, apply logic and common sense, make up your own mind and live the best life you can, and always strive to educate YOURSELF!  Keep asking "why?"

And yes, that would apply to me as well.  Don't trust me.  I'd be the first to tell the kid that I am not sure about God, afterlife, etc.  I would teach them how to learn stuff on their own, experiment with thought/reality exercises (no, not drugs) and use their own brain to determine what is true and what is right.

As to morals, I would teach the premise of compassion.  But I would show them the benefits of being compassionate and not threaten them with hellfire if they are bad.  

If I were to ever catch a teacher or some other "authority figure" adult teaching my kid "there is no God" or "there is a God", or "you'll burn in hell if you don't believe right", or "you are going to be worm food when you die" as though any of these propositions were fact, and do so to the point that the kid starts to lose his sense of reasoning for himself, well that "teacher" would sure catch hell from me.

----------


## A rope leash

"Actully, the communists do."

Thanks for pointing this out again, Laughingcow. Check out my response to it back on page four or 5ive. Maybe I should have said "Western history..."!

Yes, the commies are ruthless bastards that hate god and religion.  It has nothing to do with the scam nature of many religions, people like the red Chinese are just evil. (sarcasm detectors on, please) Never mind that they've been in the civilization business for about ten times as long as we have. As far as I know, there aren't any piled up Christian bodies...as I've asked before, is there any evidence you can link me to that validates the claim that communists kill Christians on a regular basis simply for being Christian?  Did the Soviets do this? I am aware of churches being outlawed and shut down, but not of any holocaust of god-believers.

But, yeah ya got me and ya got me good.  Now, these evil atheist countries have supressed god and stifled his representatives. What has god done to smite them?  Give them our jobs?   

I'm not much for ruthless dictatorships, but if all men are equal, then so are all cultures.  The Russians and the Chinese have been around and will stay around, apparently without the "necessity" of religion. You can say that communism supressed religion, but there wasn't any bloody war over it.  Anyone can have a "relationship with god", it doesn't take a church, so any true believer would have went silent under the oppression, yet would have kept his heart aware. 

Communism is not really a form of government so much as it is an economic system, one that tends to leave a lot of power in a very few hands. What should be said is that after they were put in power by popular revolutions, atheist communist dictators shut down religion in places like Russia and China, and no one complained much. I'm sure there are stories of priests and monks tortured to death by evil communists (please link me) but I don't think we are speaking of anything approaching the sort of wholesale genocide found in such western historical  bygones as The Crusades, Manifest Destiny, or the Nazi exterminations.

Our current cultural excursions by force are tainted with the bitterness of Jews and Christians occupying and fighting Muslims. By some estimates, our sanctions and wars against Iraq have killed more than a million Iraqis.  That's a million Muslims who died because of the militaristic meddlings of a "Christian nation".  Compare this to communist suppression of religion, and a little Tibetian knock-down doesn't seem so awful.   

Okay, don't get me wrong, I'm not apolgozing for despots. Freedom means y'all can believe whatever you wish.  It does not, however, mean you should be allowed to proceed with a scam...and that, as I understand it, is part of the reasoning behind the shutdown of religion in communist countries. I don't think communists are inherently evil, and I don't think they are worried much about religion usurping their power, and I pretty much know they are not actively engaged in any war with the religious. They just want a peaceful culture, like anyone else. As atheists, they see that religion can lead to stupid $#@! like suicide bombs and abortion clinic shoot 'em ups. Yep, they probably go a bit overboard sometimes in denouncing it, but there aren't exactly hoardes of believers out there protesting about it, either. I imagine it's a bit like the drug war over here...it doesn't really stop anyone from doing what they really want to do if they really want to do it. 

But, yeah, I misspoke. If it's a choice between the stake or the rack, I'll take the rack...

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes, there is some residual distaste over Theocrat... it wasn't meant towards you. I have no problem with most of what teachers say... honestly... I like the public education system, and I like diversity. As long as there remains a certain criteria in science and math. I would welcome with an open heart, creationism in American Mythology 101 or something of that nature. When I mention tax money, I am mostly referring to the Unconstitutional promotion of protestantism through Faith-based Initiatives, making jail-programs and bible programs, and giving churches money to do this... unacceptable.


Ah.  Well I'm totally against the whole "faith based initiatives" thing too, though possibly for different reasons.  I believe when churches take money from the government they become beholden to the government.  I do think that independent churches do have a very positive effect when they get involved in such things.  I've seen hardened criminals soften after receiving Bible studies.  But churches should be willing to do that for free.  You know, the whole "great is thy reward in heaven" thing.  If people want to donate their own money to the cause great.  Another reason why we should be allowed to keep more of our own money.

Regards,

John M. Drake

----------


## sophocles07

> That's one of the reasons our nation is so screwed up. First the little kiddies are taught about Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, then later it's Allah, Jehovah, Holy Ghost, Joseph Smith, Jesus, Krishna, or Hashem. At some point, it's Big Brother, George Washington and his Cherry Tree (but no mention of the Constitution), Abraham Lincoln and what a demi-god he was, how the we are to obey the authorities as Romans 13 tells us, and to always trust your doctor and don't ask him what that stuff is he's about to inject into you.


Don’t forget Johnny Appleseed.

Yeah, they are provided, almost without exception, with _empty gods_.  It’s $#@!ing astounding to what extent this is true in a society where information is everywhere.




> It's not just schools, preachers, and parents... it's the whole "dumbing down" system that has brought us to where we are. If I ever were to have kids (it's a little late for me now), the first thing I would teach them is TRUST NOBODY! Don't believe them. Don't believe TV. Research everything yourself, apply logic and common sense, make up your own mind and live the best life you can, and always strive to educate YOURSELF! Keep asking "why?"


If schools could provide something similar to a classical education—which produces the best kind of minds, those critical and zealous in desire to learn and know things (see Jefferson’s model for Virginia University curriculum)—and on a very wide basis so that it would be widespread, instead of this make-shift, half-assed education we today slosh into kids’ heads, a lot of this “dumbing down” could be wiped out or at least combated.  But—“alas!”—it seems too far gone to re-institute properly.




> (no, not drugs)


Oh, you gotta include drugs.




> If I were to ever catch a teacher or some other "authority figure" adult teaching my kid "there is no God" or "there is a God", or "you'll burn in hell if you don't believe right", or "you are going to be worm food when you die" as though any of these propositions were fact, and do so to the point that the kid starts to lose his sense of reasoning for himself, well that "teacher" would sure catch hell from me.


I recall a teacher decorating her room with American-flag posters which contained assorted Biblical quotations during my time in high school (about 6-10 yrs ago).  I felt entirely out of place.  The problem is, the overall attitude of idiocy in the context resulted in no one even being aware—because they were all, presumably, Christians—of the problems inherent in such a display (and I include in this problem the issue of the outright tackiness and McDonald’s-Protestant fossilized aesthetic of the posters themselves).

----------


## A rope leash

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rt_china.htm

This link talks about China's "war on religion".  What a bunch of $#@!s! They do see it as a "war on drugs"!

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rt_russi0.htm

Russia is still quite "religious", despite Stalin.  

http://www.marxist.com/religion-sovi...on170406-6.htm




I learned a lot, thanks!

----------


## Theocrat

> Except that people like you continue to treat Atheists like $#@!... I don't see the stupidity you talk about... unless you are referring to the posts by Theocrat.
> 
> It amazes me how offended people get when it is themselves who are questioned for intolerance.


I find it very hilarious and hypocritical how "atheists" protest so *dogmatically* and *religiously* against the ideas and philosophies of a theistic worldview when they claim they don't believe in a God in the first place.

For instance, I absolutely do not believe in fairies, but I don't label myself an "afairian" or something like that. Why? Because it doesn't matter to me whether fairies exist or not. Their existence or lack thereof is not contingent upon my being nor the way I reason and emote. Yet, I find that so many "atheists" spend so much time trying to debunk theism, in general, and even more, Christianity, in particular when it would just be silly in the first place to do so if God doesn't exist. If God doesn't exist, then why argue and debate against His existence to begin with? Yet, I find "atheists" continue to battle theists over the existence of God, using logic, appealing to science, and indicting theists by arbitrary standards of morality.

This, to me, bewrays the "atheist" that in their heart of hearts, they really do believe in God because their materialistic worldview cannot *account for* in any objective way universal, invariant, abstract entities such as laws of logic, standards of morality, and the use of induction to make scientific judgments. In other words, "atheists" have to steal these *immaterial, metaphysical* entities from a theistic worldview in order to use them against the theists to make a case for "atheism."

A renown theologian and philosopher back in the 20th Century once stated that "atheist" claims and arguments against God are similar to an "atheist" sitting in the lap of God in order to slap Him in the face, and I think that's a pretty accurate picture of what an "atheist" does each time he speaks against the God Who created him. You see, the "atheistic" worldview must assume God's existence in order to try to disprove His existence, in the end. In short, "atheism" presupposes theism.

----------


## sophocles07

> For instance, I absolutely do not believe in fairies, but I don't label myself an "afairian" or something like that. Why? Because it doesn't matter to me whether fairies exist or not. Their existence or lack thereof is not contingent upon my being nor the way I reason and emote.


This is not a proper analogy.

Atheism is the rejection of a god or gods.  This is a major metaphysical issue.  Whether fairies exist or not is a matter of whether certain material phenomenon manifest themselves in the world.  It would merely be another species of some sort. 

Unless we’re talking about some god-like or demi-god like fairies; in that case atheism would cover disbelief in fairies.

Either way, the analogy is ridiculous.




> Yet, I find that so many "atheists" spend so much time trying to debunk theism, in general, and even more, Christianity, in particular when it would just be silly in the first place to do so if God doesn't exist. If God doesn't exist, then why argue and debate against His existence to begin with?


Um...because religious fanatics would thereby be dying for fantasies, influencing major world political, social, psychological, etc etc situations based on fantases/illusions. 

If we could establish that God does not exist, we could get down to some actual human interaction; undogmatic, rational interaction.

It’s like if malaria was ravishing two thirds of the populace and a relatively small group tried to point it out to them for their own good, and the general good.  Would it be useless to reveal a _fact_ of the situation which could alleviate suffering and promote the well-being of the community?

I would hope you’d say no.




> Yet, I find "atheists" continue to battle theists over the existence of God, using logic, appealing to science, and indicting theists by arbitrary standards of morality.


You have above (apparently) done away with:

1.	Logic.  (You are aware the syntax of the Bible operates in a logical way, correct?  Even this fact should bloom out into some sort of justified rational world-view.)
2.	Science (i.e., observation of actual phenomenon and their development, and logical deduction based therein).
3.	“Arbitrary standards of morality”. I don’t know what this means, and that’s probably because it doesn’t make any sense.  (see Old Testament for actual arbitrary morality.)




> This, to me, bewrays the "atheist" that in their heart of hearts, they really do believe in God because their materialistic worldview cannot account for in any objective way universal, invariant, abstract entities such as laws of logic, standards of morality, and the use of induction to make scientific judgments. In other words, "atheists" have to steal these immaterial, metaphysical entities from a theistic worldview in order to use them against the theists to make a case for "atheism."


I’ve responded to this at length in the thread you created on questions for Agnostics/Atheists.  You have not responded except to say (quite illogically) “Can chemicals reason and emote in and of themselves in your naturalistic/materialistic worldview, sophocles?”

Here was my original reply to your “queries” on “abstract entities”:




> Many believe moral and ethical systems exist innately in man much like the ability to communicate through language is innate. That is, the concepts are not, or should not be, abstracted from their literal manifestations in human action. Meaning: the reaction to something, such as murder or what have you (not homosexuality or something really only based in prejudice or dogma), will produce itself in an individual as saying “this is wrong.” This feeling can be suppressed in favor of other pleasures—much of the time, as Nietzsche says somewhere, the conscience is suppressed by memory in order to attain a pleasure that is got by immoral ways (not unlike the current folk in the Bush administration, you could say). But the fact that it is suppressed is not an argument against the initial, ethical response “being there.” 
> 
> So “notions of rights, justice, liberty, etc.” are not “nonphysical entities,” just the same as 2+2=4 is not: You can of course “think” of this equation; but it has no meaning (or use) outside of its application and material existence.
> 
> And whether or not these moral and ethical abilities exist innately in humans is really not the argument; the fact is that, like the mathematical—and really any thought—is “immaterial” or “nonphysical” according to your definition, it is of no meaning and no use apart from its physical manifestations. So even if man self-created human rights, the concepts are still only abstractions insofar as they have been “taken out” (abstracted) from physical conditions.


(Mathematics itself refutes your idea that without a god no abstract entities or ideals can exist; but above is a longer string of possibilities.)






> A renown theologian and philosopher back in the 20th Century once stated that "atheist" claims and arguments against God are similar to an "atheist" sitting in the lap of God in order to slap Him in the face, and I think that's a pretty accurate picture of what an "atheist" does each time he speaks against the God Who created him. You see, the "atheistic" worldview must assume God's existence in order to try to disprove His existence, in the end. In short, "atheism" presupposes theism.


In short, your face probably (if physical characteristics in any way mirror the mind) resembles a very hairy, slightly turdy $#@!.

----------


## Macon, GA

A rope leash,

Check this out:  http://chinaaid.org/2008/02/18/21-ma...the-same-time/

Also, I would not exactly call the good old USA a Christian nation any longer.  Most professing "Christians" are little more than that.  Bush is a prime example.  We are not in the Iraq War killing people because we are a "Christian" nation and they are Muslims.  We are killing them for their oil.  The strongest is winner and takes all  (Evolution perhaps????).

We think a barrel of oil is more important than an Iraqi life.  This ought to tell you that our nation is in fact not Christian.  The fact that we allow millions of babies to be murdered legally, and doctors are paid for doing it, should point to the fact that we are not a "Christian" nation.

I am not sure that God is rewarding the communistic Chinese with our jobs.  Perhaps He is pouring out His judgment on our nation, who claims to be Christian, but is most definitely not.  

And how about evolutionists?  Hitler was one.  The logical result of that theory is survival of the fittest....  I see the effects of this across America.  If we are little more than animals, evolved from monkeys, why not behave like animals?  There can most definitely not be any moral standards, as relativism rules the day.  Every man and woman become their own gods and do what they deem to be moral in their own eyes....so who are we to condemn Hitler, or Dahmer, or Manson?  After all, they were just surviving....   Isn't that what animals do?

----------


## A rope leash

The USA may not be a "Chrisitan nation", although a lot of Christians where I live like to call it that...but it is ruled by people who almost to a one are calling themselves Christians. I've never understood why more Chrisitians aren't socialists...that's the real "love your brother" system.

Why don't we all just go back to being animals? Well, supposedly we evolved above that, but we are still animals for the most part.  Religion isn't keeping people from doing wrong or immoral things, as far as I can tell. Life still boils down to the survival of the fittest, or in the case of modern civilization, survival of the well-connected.  I don't think we can say that Hitler or Dahmer were just trying to survive. We can say that they put some pretty immoral practices into play for their own jollies, and when men of good character were confronted with it, they did the right thing. They would have done this in the absence of religion, as well, if only for their own safety.

Every living creature has a will to live. This is vital to the survival of the species. Getting along and letting others get along insures survival much more than killing one another does, so most of mankind works naturally torward a peaceful existence. However, religion is often used as a cloak as well as an excuse for bad behavior.  In all of the discussion here, much of what has been said has applied to the actions of men, not gods. Some men may require a phantom god to keep them morally in lline, but by and large, it isn't working.

Did you know that tornados are found primarily in the Bible Belt of the USA?  They are virtually unheard of elsewhere on the planet. Did a god do this, or is it just a quirk of chaos?

----------


## beachmaster

> Did you know that tornados are found primarily in the Bible Belt of the USA?  They are virtually unheard of elsewhere on the planet. Did a god do this, or is it just a quirk of chaos?


I used to wonder about that when I was a believer.  I also pondered later as an unbeliever, why all of those praying family members in West Virginia a couple of years ago who were meeting in church every night praying for the safe delivery of their kin who were trapped in that mine had all of their prayers unanswered and their hopes dashed when the dreadful news came out that they all died (except one I think)... and how many of them were able to continue justifying their faith.  Didn't Jesus say "ask any thing in my name and it will be done"?  I do recall reading later that several of those people did in fact lose their faith after that tragedy.

Those were die hard believers praying for their family.  Where was their god?  Why did Jesus' words about asking something in his name turn out to have no effect at all on the outcome?  I'd heard all of the answers to these types of questions before and they just don't satisfy.  Answers like "they didn't pray in faith", or "God did answer them, but the answer was NO!", and lots of other attempts to justify why God doesn't answer people's prayers in line with what the bible says.

That's not the sole reason I became an unbeliever, but it was one of the reasons.  There were dozens more reasons for me.  

I will say that ever since I became a non-believer, I continue to have that "still small voice", which now I attribute to my "higher self", rightfully or not.

----------


## sophocles07

> And how about evolutionists? Hitler was one. The logical result of that theory is survival of the fittest.... I see the effects of this across America.


I always find it ridiculous when anyone attempts to apply a theory of _species_ to inter-species relations. 

Is it in the interests of the human _species_ to tear each other apart attempting to “get rich” or whatever other little snide goal “social Darwinism” could come up with?  

It’s obvious to anyone who takes a look at this for a minute that cooperation among the population of the species insures, to the greatest extent that we can harness natural selection, that we stay put on earth.  REASON should be our greatest tool for not being wiped out; meaning: it is LOGICAL to cooperate.  




> If we are little more than animals, evolved from monkeys, why not behave like animals?


Why not “act” like a sperm cell or a fetus?  Because you’re not that anymore; you’re an adult.

We didn’t evolve from monkeys, that’s not the theory.




> There can most definitely not be any moral standards, as relativism rules the day. Every man and woman become their own gods and do what they deem to be moral in their own eyes....so who are we to condemn Hitler, or Dahmer, or Manson? After all, they were just surviving.... Isn't that what animals do?


If every man makes his own morals (which he doesn’t, but if he did) he has every right to condemn Hitler, etc.  As Nietzsche says it is the MAN OF POWER who enforces his vision on the world; that is, you have an obligation as a human being to define and judge, not only individual men, but reality itself.

But, I also think there is a lot for the argument that man has an innate ethical sense, as with language.  So let’s not get too far into “moral relativism.”

----------


## Kade

> A rope leash,
> 
> Check this out:  http://chinaaid.org/2008/02/18/21-ma...the-same-time/
> 
> Also, I would not exactly call the good old USA a Christian nation any longer.  Most professing "Christians" are little more than that.  Bush is a prime example.  We are not in the Iraq War killing people because we are a "Christian" nation and they are Muslims.  We are killing them for their oil.  The strongest is winner and takes all  (Evolution perhaps????).
> 
> We think a barrel of oil is more important than an Iraqi life.  This ought to tell you that our nation is in fact not Christian.  The fact that we allow millions of babies to be murdered legally, and doctors are paid for doing it, should point to the fact that we are not a "Christian" nation.
> 
> I am not sure that God is rewarding the communistic Chinese with our jobs.  Perhaps He is pouring out His judgment on our nation, who claims to be Christian, but is most definitely not.  
> ...


I'm trying to understand this... really I am... this little section is so wrought with absurdly false claims that I don't know where to begin... I use to live in Georgia, and I don't recall anyone this manifestly ignorant...no offense...

Evolutionists is a derogatory word, simply because people understand the evolutionary model of origins, doesn't mean they deserve to be called whatever Evolutionists means...

and Hitler? Did you go there? Hitler was a Christian until he died... the logical result of evolution is not "survival of the fittest", your education has failed you. 

Rampant Free Market is dangerous for this very reason, and Christian ideology has memetically become stable against certain ideas... in a sense, Christianity has evolved past "good works" into a heaven/hell reward/punishment ideology whose adherents willfully block any attempt to subvert potentially unstable and dangerous ideas... The modern understanding of "fittest" has nothing to do with what you think it does... nor does someone who believe in natural selection actually going to resort to such a thing... 

We condemn the evil people in our society because they do us harm, because they hurt others, and the upset the balance and pursuit of free and peace loving peoples... this is simply common and natural law... I could go into this more deeply, but again I have that sinking feeling, that I am dealing with someone incapable of compromise or comprehension.

----------


## A rope leash

http://chinaaid.org/2008/02/18/21-ma...the-same-time/

These house churches were decribed as "evil cults" by the Chinese authorities. I really have no way of knowing that they really weren't evil cults. It sounds almost like the way Americans treat a crack house. Are there still opium dens in China?

So, what's the crime with an evil cult? Well, you get a group of fools to think impossible things are true, and then you tell them that the safety of their souls depends on their adherence to the "truth" of the matter. You then lead them and their children through a life of ritual and submission, and education in the matters of impossible things. If your lucky, you can rake them for more than ten percent of their incomes. It makes a real nice house to praise god in...god the impossible. I guess it's not hard to see why the commies would see it as a crime. They're real prick hard-asses, though...they definitely need to lighten up.

But, religion as it is practiced here in the capitalist USA is just another accepted scam, like gasoline and taxes. Marx said that religion was the opiate of the people. Perhaps in an atheist-capitalist society we would have open-market religion, and an opium den or two...taxed heavily, of course. 

Enough about men! Let's talk about what god does!

----------


## Dr.3D

I don't see anybody posting a thread titled *The Atheists Hatred of Theists*.
This is probably because it would be a true statement.
Theists..... well at least Christians, don't hate!
Anybody who says they do does not know much about Christians.
Anybody who says they are a Christian and hates is not really a Christian.

Seems to me this thread was posted by an Atheist who hates 'Theists' and thus wanted to see how many replies this silly thread would get.

----------


## Kade

> I don't see anybody posting a thread titled *The Atheists Hatred of Theists*.
> This is probably because it would be a true statement.
> Theists..... well at least Christians, don't hate!
> Anybody who says they do does not know much about Christians.
> Anybody who says they are a Christian and hates is not really a Christian.
> 
> Seems to me this thread was posted by an Atheist who hates 'Theists' and thus wanted to see how many replies this silly thread would get.


They do hate... just read the thread. 

Are you really that blind? This country DESPISES atheists.. 

http://www.asanet.org/cs/root/topnav...are_distrusted

In every poll ever given on the subject, it was the atheists who were most tolerant of other religions and ways of life... by that standard, atheists never say that Christians shouldn't exist... but Christians LOVE to tell us that we shouldn't exist... nor should even be considered citizens of this country... 

As a former Christian myself, I know this to be true... 

Consider your own bible perhaps, and it's occasional bit of wisdom:

Matthew 7:3-5

3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

----------


## Macon, GA

Come on.... Hitler was NOT a Christian:

• Darwin's idea that evolution means "the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life" eventually led to Nazism and the Jewish holocaust- even though Darwin himself would have been appalled at the thought."

• In Mein Kampf (My Struggle), Hitler used the German word for evolution (Entwicklung) many times, citing "lower human types." He criticized the Jews for bringing "Negroes into the Rhineland" with the aim of "ruining the white race by the necessarily resulting bastardization." He spoke of "Monstrosities halfway between man and ape" and lamented the fact of Christians going to "Central Africa" to set up "Negro missions," resulting in the turning of "healthy . . . human beings into a rotten brood of bastards." In his chapter entitled "Nation and Race," he said, "The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable." A few pages later, he said, "Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live."

• When Hitler came to power in 1933, he installed a dictatorship with one agenda: enactment of his radical Nazi racial philosophy built on Darwinian evolution. He sought, in Darwin's terms, to preserve the "favored" race in the struggle for survival. Brute strength and intelligence would be the driving force of the Nazi plan.

• The first task was to eliminate the weak and those with impure blood that would corrupt the race. These included the disabled, ill, Jews, and Gypsies. Second, the Nazis sought to expand Germany's borders in order to achieve more living space, or "Lebensraum," to make room for the expansion of the "favoured" race. Third, the Nazis set about to eliminate communism because of its threat to the Aryan race and because, according to Hitler, communism was the work of Bolshevik Jews.

• The plan quickly unfolded. An order to sterilize some 400,000 Germans was issued within five months of Hitler's rise to power. The order, set to take effect on January 1, 1934, listed nine "categories of the unfit" to be sterilized: feebleminded, schizophrenia, manic depression, Huntington's chorea, epilepsy, hereditary body deformities, deafness, hereditary blindness, and alcoholism. The Nuremberg Laws were passed in 1935 to prohibit marriage between Jews and Germans and to strip Jews of their German citizenship.

• Instead of letting chance factors dominate reproduction decisions, Hitler proposed that the scientists use the power of the state to influence these decisions so that the gene pool would shift to what “informed conclusions” concluded was the desired direction. Consequently, Hitler encouraged those individuals that he perceived as having Aryan traits to mate, and discouraged “interbreeding,” supposing that this policy would gradually cause the Aryan race to evolve “upward”. He believed that the Nazi race programs would further evolution by intelligently deciding which traits were not beneficial, and preventing those with them from reproducing.

• The Nazis established eugenic courts to ensure that the eugenic laws were enforced. To identify the unfit, German eugenicists compared the individual health files of millions of Germans with medical records from hospitals and the National Health Service. The American firm, IBM, aided the effort by automating a national card file system that cross-indexed the defective.

• After Hitler invaded Poland in 1939, the Nazis became even more aggressive toward the weak. Approximately 100,000 Germans, labeled "useless eaters" by the Nazis, were killed. The victims were patients in nursing homes and medical facilities, as well as Jewish mentally disturbed and disabled. The Nazis ordered all of these exterminated. Ultimately, some 11 million people (and possibly more), six million from Jewish descent, were killed by the Nazi death machine.

• An important argument that Hitler used to support his programs of racial genocide of the Jews, Blacks and other groups was that they were genetically “inferior” and that their interbreeding with the superior Aryan race would adversely affect the latter's gene pool, polluting it, and lowering the overall quality of the "pure race."

• "Richard Weikart, author of From Darwin to Hitler, outlines in simplified fashion the route from Darwin to Hitler: First, Darwinism undermined traditional morality and the value of human life. Then, evolutionary progress became the new moral imperative. This aided the advance of eugenics, which was overtly founded on Darwinian principles. Some eugenicists began advocating euthanasia and infanticide for the disabled. On a parallel track, some prominent Darwinists argued that human racial competition and war are part of the Darwinian struggle for existence. Hitler imbibed these social Darwinist ideas, blended in virulent anti-Semitism, and-there you have it: Holocaust."

----------


## Macon, GA

Kade,

I am a Christian and have NEVER thought the things that you stated in your above post.  

I don't buy "natural law."  Animals aren't monogamous and they have been known to eat their young.  Without God, and without "natural law,"  what is left?

----------


## Dr.3D

> They do hate... just read the thread. 
> 
> Are you really that blind? This country DESPISES atheists..


I'll pray for you brother!

I love you and I'm a Christian.

----------


## Macon, GA

Here are some Hitler quotes for you:  

The book Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler's real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, _Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944, which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.

All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:

National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)
10th October, 1941, midday:

Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)
14th October, 1941, midday:

The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)
19th October, 1941, night:

The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.
21st October, 1941, midday:

Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, ******s? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)
13th December, 1941, midnight:

Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)
14th December, 1941, midday:

Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)
9th April, 1942, dinner:

There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)
27th February, 1942, midday:

It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)

----------


## Macon, GA

Strangely enough, some of Hitler's quotes sound like some of the things that I have been reading in this thread.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Kade,
>  Animals aren't monogamous and they have been known to eat their young.


Actually, ducks are animals and they mate for life.   Or at least till somebody kills one of them and then they look for another mate.

----------


## Macon, GA

My intent was to prove that one can't use "Natural Law" to explain how we as humans developed our moral and ethical systems.  

If I were in nature, observing lions, and basing what I saw on nature, I might conclude that it is o.k. for males to mate with as many females as possible.  Also, if a male needs one of his females to come in to heat, he can just kill all her offspring.

Natural Law doesn't cut it.

----------


## Kade

> My intent was to prove that one can't use "Natural Law" to explain how we as humans developed our moral and ethical systems.  
> 
> If I were in nature, observing lions, and basing what I saw on nature, I might conclude that it is o.k. for males to mate with as many females as possible.  Also, if a male needs one of his females to come in to heat, he can just kill all her offspring.
> 
> Natural Law doesn't cut it.


It does cut it... I'm sorry. It is the only explanation for human nature. We are not always perfect, we are not always optimal in our behavior... using straw men to illustrate this proves nothing... it is to our survival benefit that we treat each other in a manner of cooperation more times than not... What aspect of this do you not understand?

If we were naturally dissenters 100% of the time, we would never have gotten to where we are... cooperation is a selective pressure.

----------


## Macon, GA

Now Kade, as evidenced in this thread Natural Law is NOT the only explanation for human behavior.

Christians have another explanation for human nature.

Is it wrong to murder?  If so, explain why using the Natural Law theory.

----------


## Kade

> Strangely enough, some of Hitler's quotes sound like some of the things that I have been reading in this thread.


HITLER: 

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.

-Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922

In the Bible we find the text, 'That which is neither hot nor cold will I spew out of my mouth.' This utterance of the great Nazarene has kept its profound validity until the present day.

-Adolf Hitler, speech in Munich, 10 April 1923

Just as the Jew could once incite the mob of Jerusalem against Christ, so today he must succeed in inciting folk who have been duped into madness to attack those who, God's truth! seek to deal with this people in utter honesty and sincerity.

-Adolf Hitler, in Munich, 28 July 1922

There are three words which many use without a thought which for us are no catch-phrases: Love, Faith, and Hope.... We are fanatical in our love for our people....

We have faith in the rights of our people, the rights which have existed time out of mind. We protest against the view that every other nation should have rights - and we have none. We must learn to make our own this blind faith in the rights of our people, in the necessity of devoting ourselves to the service of these rights; we must make our own the faith that gradually victory must be granted us if only we are fanatical enough. And from this love and from this faith there emerges for us the idea of hope. When others doubt and hesitate for the future of Germany - we have no doubts. We have both the hope and the faith that Germany will and must once more become great and mighty.

We have faith that one day Heaven will bring the Germans back into a Reich over which there shall be no Soviet star, no Jewish star of David, but above that Reich there shall be the symbol of German labor - the Swastika. And that will mean that the first of May has truly come.

-Adolf Hitler, speech in Munich, 01 May 1923

It will at any rate be my supreme task to see to it that in the newly awakened NSDAP, the adherents of both Confessions can live peacefully together side by side in order that they may take their stand in the common fight against the power which is the mortal foe of any true Christianity.

-Adolf Hitler, in an article headed "A New Beginning," 26 Feb. 1925 

We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls.... We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people.

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Passau, 27 October 1928, Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf,

e are determined, as leaders of the nation, to fulfill as a national government the task which has been given to us, swearing fidelity only to God, our conscience, and our Volk.... This the national government will regard its first and foremost duty to restore the unity of spirit and purpose of our Volk. It will preserve and defend the foundations upon which the power of our nation rests. It will take Christianity, as the basis of our collective morality, and the family as the nucleus of our Volk and state, under its firm protection....May God Almighty take our work into his grace, give true form to our will, bless our insight, and endow us with the trust of our Volk.

-Adolf Hitler, on 1 Feb. 1933



Plenty more where that came from... seriously... those previous quotes have nothing to do with comprehension of evolutionary theory... quit being a twisted idiot please.

----------


## Kade

> Now Kade, as evidenced in this thread Natural Law is NOT the only explanation for human behavior.
> 
> Christians have another explanation for human nature.
> 
> Is it wrong to murder?  If so, explain why using the Natural Law theory.


Murder deprives someone of their right to life. That right to life is self-evident, as it is a mutual desire of our species to promote life above all things. To this, it is against our desires, against our mutual understanding, and thus without proper justification. Murder is against that which we desire for ourselves as a continual presence through time.

----------


## Macon, GA

Looks like Hitler talked out of both sides of his mouth.  Which do we believe?  Because you said you were once a Christian, you are probably familiar with:

You will know them by their fruits.

Based on Hitler's fruits, I am afraid He was no Christian.  

How many people do you know today who say they are a Christian, but you sure couldn't tell it based on their lifestyle?   Churches are full of them.

----------


## Kade

> Looks like Hitler talked out of both sides of his mouth.  Which do we believe?  Because you said you were once a Christian, you are probably familiar with:
> 
> You will know them by their fruits.
> 
> Based on Hitler's fruits, I am afraid He was no Christian.  
> 
> How many people do you know today who say they are a Christian, but you sure couldn't tell it based on their lifestyle?   Churches are full of them.


My understanding now is that knowing them by their fruits, I know VERY few Christians who follow the word. 

In my opinion, if you take the bible literally, if you speak out against other people, if you witness, if you ignore good works, and if you worship the English version of the bible, you are FAR and AWAY from anything intended by the original Christians... 

Every Christian on these boards speaks out against myself... without delay, without qualification... just look at it.. 

I'm asking for tolerance, and an open mind. You are asking for me to obey your holy book. Big difference.

----------


## Macon, GA

Maybe I am simply too much of a "twisted idiot" to get it, but I fail to see how you used Natural Law to explain why murder is unacceptable.  Perhaps we have two different definitions of Natural Law.

I have to take my children to have their teeth cleaned....  so I must go for now.  I will check back in later.

On a side note, if you weren't so angry in your posts, and you ceased with the name calling, more people might be interested in conversing with you.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Every Christian on these boards speaks out against myself... without delay, without qualification... just look at it..


You mean, every professed Christian speaks out against you.  Those who call themselves Christian and hate are not truly Christians.

Again, I am a Christian and I love you.
I did not speak out against you.
I will pray for you to understand there are many who say they are Christian who are not.

----------


## Macon, GA

I know very few too, but I am blaming that on most modern churches.

For the record, I am in no way expecting you to follow the Bible.  As a non-Christian, it would be impossible for you to do so, as it was for me pre-conversion.

----------


## Kade

I believe there is a middle ground... perhaps read this article by a respected scientist and Christian, and consider what he has to say?

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008...to-b.html#more



Please?

----------


## Macon, GA

My children are scrubbing their teeth while awaiting the dreaded dental cleaning.  I will be out of touch for a while.

I will read the article when I get back home.

----------


## beachmaster

> I believe there is a middle ground... perhaps read this article by a respected scientist and Christian, and consider what he has to say?
> 
> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008...to-b.html#more
> 
> 
> 
> Please?


Here's something from that page that's telling:




> *Or Philip Father of ID Johnson who lamented*
> 
>     Philip Johnson Wrote:
> 
>     I also dont think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory thats comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that its doable, but thats for them to proveNo product is ready for competition in the educational world.


I'm neither a proponent of Darwinism nor Creationism/ID.  Both have their flaws, though Creationism/ID has far more in my opinion.  

Something I ran across a while back might be closer to where I fall in...

http://biocosm.org/

This premise states that the Universe itself is bio-friendly, and is evolving toward more and more life.   

There is an FAQ page about it here.

I haven't bought the book or anything, but just from what I've read on the site, it is probably closest to how I see it.  So Darwinists and Creationists alike can stone me now!  lol

----------


## Kade

> Here's something from that page that's telling:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm neither a proponent of Darwinism nor Creationism/ID.  Both have their flaws, though Creationism/ID has far more in my opinion.  
> 
> Something I ran across a while back might be closer to where I fall in...
> 
> http://biocosm.org/
> ...


I prefer you not call me a Darwinist.

I believe as per the University of California Berkeley explanation:




> The definition
> Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.
> 
> The explanation
> Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.
> 
> The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.
> 
> Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.

----------


## beachmaster

> I prefer you not call me a Darwinist.
> 
> I believe as per the University of California Berkeley explanation:


Ok I'll call you a University of California Berkeley explanationist!  You can join with the Darwinists and Creationist/ID people in stoning me, the Simulated Biocosmist.

----------


## Kade

> Ok I'll call you a University of California Berkeley explanationist!  You can join with the Darwinists and Creationist/ID people in stoning me, the Simulated Biocosmist.


You don't care how offensive you are do you?

----------


## beachmaster

> You don't care how offensive you are do you?


I care, Jesus!  I thought you would see humor in my statement, not get offended.  I was so $#@!ing wrong though.  So many on this thread are so goddamned easily offended.  $#@!in bunch of babies.  I'll not offend you anymore from henceforth... zippin it.

Sorry!



I try to mend, everyone wants to rend.  I give up.

----------


## sophocles07

> My intent was to prove that one can't use "Natural Law" to explain how we as humans developed our moral and ethical systems. 
> 
> If I were in nature, observing lions, and basing what I saw on nature, I might conclude that it is o.k. for males to mate with as many females as possible. Also, if a male needs one of his females to come in to heat, he can just kill all her offspring.


This isn’t an innately ethical situation.  Mating with many partners is not a moral situation until it enters the realm of population problems, etc, not being able to feed offspring.

So this really doesn’t apply.

Also, I don’t understand how you think “observing lions” “in nature” has anything to do with the morality of humans.  What are you talking about?  You could observe the “behavior” habits of bacteria but it wouldn’t give you any information about morality—as animals which do not think (reason, have abstract thoughts) have no “morality” in the way we mean it.  It is instinct.  But even excluding this factor, I fail to see how observation of random phenomenon lends any direction or information about “the way in which a human should act.”




> Now Kade, as evidenced in this thread Natural Law is NOT the only explanation for human behavior.
> 
> Christians have another explanation for human nature.


Yeah, it’s simply providing a mathematical unknown (X)—what God really is in Christian theology—in place of what we learn gradually through observation, experiment, i.e. science.  You can presently see the backpeddling of the Catholic church (as it has been doing for a while now as things develop) as science provides obvious, rational explanations for things that the Church once categorized under “God did that.”





> Is it wrong to murder? If so, explain why using the Natural Law theory.


Here you go:

-As a species, we want to survive, to continue living.
-Evolution provided us with innate abilities such as language, reason, etc.  (arms and legs are another more blatant feature of bipedal animals which allow for survival), our organs, etc etc.  These are tools we have been equipped with to meet the first goal of survive.  We have EVOLVED these characteristics as we, _the strong_, have pushed through and continued living (and one could, and it has been done obviously, trace this back through our evolutionary ancestors).
-Our evolution resulted, also, in our being given another innate quality.  This quality can be viewed in two ways: (1) we were given an innate moral sense, just as we have an innate ability for abstract thought, and an innate system of organs; (2) we were given rational, abstract thought (and the psychological conditions which give rise to this) which allows us to CREATE (Nietzsche’s view) moral systems.  
-With either of these two systems, it is clear that we developed complex ethical systems as a means toward cooperation, etc etc.  They caused to set up law, civic order, philosophy, etc.  They are means to survival. 

Religion CAN provide moral codes which allow for survival.  The problem is that the dogma usually necessary for religion produces squabbling, killing, hypocrisy, nitpicking sects, etc.  These all tend toward extinction.  I think we could easily prove that the psychological condition of most of those infected with these sentiments are extremely abnormal, if not psychotic, retardations of the human neurological system, without even going into the complex system of social problems which lend a hand to this neurosis.

So that’s how morality fits into natural law.




> Maybe I am simply too much of a "twisted idiot" to get it, but I fail to see how you used Natural Law to explain why murder is unacceptable. Perhaps we have two different definitions of Natural Law.


Natural law does not “explain why murder is unacceptable”; it explains the process by which morality evolves in animals.




> You don't care how offensive you are do you?


Were you really offended by that?  Toughen up, cowboy.

----------


## Macon, GA

Beachmaster....don't leave.

Kade,

I just returned home and have perused the article, but not read it word for word.  I am in the process of making dinner.  I can't blend Evolution and Christianity.  They simply won't mix.  

Has it ever struck you as strange that not one transitional fossil has ever been found?  If this process was going on for millions and millions of years, why can't we find one?

Do you see any species today that are in a transitional phase?  

Also, what about the first law of thermodynamics?  The whole entropy thing?

Just some random thoughts.   Got to run.

----------


## UKObserver

I frankly can't be bothered to read every post, so I'll just give me own thoughts.

I think it's a shame that when people can't disagree that they resort to attacks and insults. There is a saying of Imam Ali: "He who isn't your brother in religion is your brother in humanity."

As a Muslim I view everyone as the creation of God, so why would I not show them respect? Previously as an atheist, I saw everyone as equal on the basis that we all need to get on, so why be rude to people? It gets us nowhere.

----------


## Macon, GA

One more thing, 

Has abiogenesis ever been proven?  Is it testable?  

By the way........  GO RON PAUL!

----------


## beachmaster

> I think it's a shame that when people can't disagree that they resort to attacks and insults.


Yes a shame.  Also a shame is when people are so used to being attacked or insulted, they automatically assume everyone is out to get them, so they resort to being overly defensive, which stirs the pot even more, and the cycle of resentment and anger just intensifies.  Eventually leading to war in the most extreme cases.




> There is a saying of Imam Ali: "He who isn't your brother in religion is your brother in humanity."


I don't know who he is, but I'll buy that.  Nobody is my brother in religion since I have no religion, but everyone is my brother in humanity (humans only that is.... HEY, THAT WAS JUST A JOKE!).





> As a Muslim I view everyone as the creation of God, so why would I not show them respect? Previously as an atheist, I saw everyone as equal on the basis that we all need to get on, so why be rude to people? It gets us nowhere.


Human nature sucks, what can I say?

----------


## MalcolmGandi

Everyone needs to go to redicecreations.com and listen to the most recent interview.  For real though.

----------


## UKObserver

> Yes a shame.  Also a shame is when people are so used to being attacked or insulted, they automatically assume everyone is out to get them, so they resort to being overly defensive, which stirs the pot even more, and the cycle of resentment and anger just intensifies.  Eventually leading to war in the most extreme cases.


Very true, indeed.

[QUOTE=beachmaster;1289891]I don't know who he is, but I'll buy that.  Nobody is my brother in religion since I have no religion, but everyone is my brother in humanity (humans only that is.... HEY, THAT WAS JUST A JOKE!).

He was the successor to the Prophet. I think we should all try and remember we're all humans and try to maintain our own, and others, human dignity.




> Human nature sucks, what can I say?


I don't agree, to be honest. I think that people in general are just too lazy to use the good that they've been gifted with. I think most people are generally good, but they're easily brought down to a lower level.

----------


## Cinnaboo

> Has it ever struck you as strange that not one transitional fossil has ever been found?  If this process was going on for millions and millions of years, why can't we find one?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/****_habilis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/****_erectus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/****_antecessor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/****_heidelbergensis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-magnon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

Progressively advanced primates, our supposed ancestors. Fossils of each species were found. This is a factual, corroborated example of our transition from a long-limbed toolmaker to an upright, comparatively hairless, abstract thinking species.

Your skepticism about current, observable transition is a little silly considering the unintelligible amounts of time we're dealing with. Anatomically modern humans appear in the fossil record in Africa about 130,000 years ago. But humans only started documenting history at 3200 BC. We're a speck on the timeline of our own species, which doesn't leave us much of a vantage point for observing evolution. Then consider how long we've known enough about the theory of evolution to even recognize an example, less than a century.

The most convincing living evidence is probably atavisms. Sometimes a species will have a remnant of its ancestry in its DNA. It could be from what that species once was, or drunken breeding with a transitional creature who took a different evolutionary route.



Fortunately, this dolphin was captured and studied, unable to spread its ungodly ambitions. Harboring, feeding, or protecting a land-dolphin is punishable under international law. Report them immediately.





> Has abiogenesis ever been proven? Is it testable?


Yes and yes and no and yes.

Scientists have created cells (as in something with a cell wall) from inorganic elements in experimental conditions designed to simulate the conditions of possible genesis locations, such as very hot crevices in the ocean floor.

We have never created a self-replicating cell from inorganic matter.

----------


## Macon, GA

**** habilis:

There is a growing consensus among most palaeoanthropologists that this is a "junk" category.  It actually includes bits and pieces of various other types----  such as Australopithecus and **** erectus.  It therefore becomes an invalid taxon.  Such a creature never existed.. No clear link here.

**** erectus.  Both morphology and associated archaeological/cultural findings suggest that **** erectus was fully human.  Even some evolutionists are agreeing that erectus is fully human and should be included in the **** sapiens.

Neandertals:

They are saying now their stooped position was due to disease and that Neandertals were fully human.

I will have to check in to the others.  

If the evolutionary story about living things were true then one could expect to find millions of fossils showing the transitions from one kind of organism to another.  After all, according to the evolutionist there has been hundreds of millions of years of mutations and natural selection, and the rock layers recorded this "natural history" as fossils.  Yet there are precious few, and even evolutionists cannot agree on their significance.  

As a side, mutations usually involve a LOSS of genetic information, or at best horizontal changes where information is not loss or gained.  

I would posit that until we are able to "create a self replicating cell from inorganic material," then we continue to view evolution as what it is, a theory, not provable science.

----------


## beachmaster

> I think most people are generally good, but they're easily brought down to a lower level.


That's what sucks about it.  The masses who would be generally good, are manipulated by the very few who are evil.  The evil set up all kinds of traps for mankind, such as bad economies, false flag attacks, mind/psychological warfare, divisions of people by race and religion and more, all which work to keep us from joining together to defeat the evil bastards.  The masses are sheep.  Easily steered into doing in their own brother.  And that's why human nature sucks so bad.  There are other reasons in my book, but the sheep factor is one of the biggest.  I want to love humanity, but every time I try, I see things that make me totally ashamed of the species. 

I had really hoped the Ron Paul Revolution would have been a catalyst for change.  So far I am pretty disappointed. *sigh*

----------


## UKObserver

> That's what sucks about it.  The masses who would be generally good, are manipulated by the very few who are evil.  The evil set up all kinds of traps for mankind, such as bad economies, false flag attacks, mind/psychological warfare, divisions of people by race and religion and more, all which work to keep us from joining together to defeat the evil bastards.  The masses are sheep.  Easily steered into doing in their own brother.  And that's why human nature sucks so bad.  There are other reasons in my book, but the sheep factor is one of the biggest.  I want to love humanity, but every time I try, I see things that make me totally ashamed of the species. 
> 
> I had really hoped the Ron Paul Revolution would have been a catalyst for change.  So far I am pretty disappointed. *sigh*


I think people find it easier to think "I'm only one person, I can't change anything" than "I'm only one person, but that's all I have to offer and so it's all I should give because all change starts with one person." Apathy is easier than action.

----------


## sophocles07

> Has it ever struck you as strange that not one transitional fossil has ever been found? If this process was going on for millions and millions of years, why can't we find one?


This is a false argument used by creationists.  It has been constructed to attack evolutionary theory by complete idiots who have no idea what they’re talking about.

I recall my biology professor talking about this several years ago.  Here is a link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tional_fossils

That should cover it (I just did a google search for “transitional fossil” and it came up with that, I’m not digging around for any other articles).

I find it strange, though, even discounting your above misconception, that you are so ready to accept Christianity entirely without proof, merely on the basis of a book scribbled down two thousand plus years ago by primitive man that says “this is true”; but that you construct straw men to argue against theories with an enormous amount of indisputable evidence.




> Do you see any species today that are in a transitional phase?


As you typed out that sentence, as I type out this one, we are in a ‘transitional phase.’




> Also, what about the first law of thermodynamics? The whole entropy thing?


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

That also from a first page google search.

You may want to try reading up on this stuff before you attempt to argue from the position.




> I frankly can't be bothered to read every post, so I'll just give me own thoughts.
> 
> I think it's a shame that when people can't disagree that they resort to attacks and insults. There is a saying of Imam Ali: "He who isn't your brother in religion is your brother in humanity."
> 
> As a Muslim I view everyone as the creation of God, so why would I not show them respect? Previously as an atheist, I saw everyone as equal on the basis that we all need to get on, so why be rude to people? It gets us nowhere.


I think this would probably be entirely possible if people like “THEOCRAT” were non-existent (not calling for any violent action there, boys).

----------


## beachmaster

> I think people find it easier to think "I'm only one person, I can't change anything" than "I'm only one person, but that's all I have to offer and so it's all I should give because all change starts with one person." Apathy is easier than action.


Yeah maybe.  But it's damned disheartening when you go out and campaign in your community, throw media events, walk doors passing out literature, sign wave, spend money advertising, talk to many people one on one, as many of us have done, and then see election results as we had in Florida for Ron Paul at just a hair over 3 percent.  

I'm only one person, true.  I am allied with just 3% of the primary voting republicans in my state in the cause of freedom.  Pretty sad.

----------


## UKObserver

> I think this would probably be entirely possible if people like THEOCRAT were non-existent (not calling for any violent action there, boys).


It's people on both sides of the argument who can fuel the flames, though.

----------


## Theocrat

> This is not a proper analogy.
> 
> Atheism is the rejection of a god or gods.  This is a major metaphysical issue.  Whether fairies exist or not is a matter of whether certain material phenomenon manifest themselves in the world.  It would merely be another species of some sort. 
> 
> Unless were talking about some god-like or demi-god like fairies; in that case atheism would cover disbelief in fairies.
> 
> Either way, the analogy is ridiculous.


The existence of fairies *is* a metaphysical issue, sophocles07, for it deals with the reality of fairies in nature and by human experience. Existence is not only based upon material phenomenon, but it can also describe *immaterial* realities, like love, truth, and justice. So, I don't think my analogy was ridiculous, as you've claimed.




> Um...because religious fanatics would thereby be dying for fantasies, influencing major world political, social, psychological, etc etc situations based on fantases/illusions.
> 
> If we could establish that God does not exist, we could get down to some actual human interaction; undogmatic, rational interaction.
> 
> Its like if malaria was ravishing two thirds of the populace and a relatively small group tried to point it out to them for their own good, and the general good. Would it be useless to reveal a fact of the situation which could alleviate suffering and promote the well-being of the community?
> 
> I would hope youd say no.


I resent your implication that belief in the existence of God is similar to an outbreak of malaria upon a population. The fact is the existence of God and a disease like malaria are *two different things*.

You've postulated that "if we could establish that God does not exist..." but you're missing the point. You would have to have *absolute knowledge* of the entire universe *first* before you could truthfully and finally prove that God does not exist, but since you don't have absolute knowledge, you can *never* prove the nonexistence of God. Logically speaking, it's impossible to prove a universal negative when you lack absolute knowledge, sophocles07.

No, it wouldn't be useless to share information which could alleviate suffering and promote the well-being of the community, but what I want to know is in an "atheist" universe, *why* should we even consider these things, especially when we're nothing more than just bags of blood and tissue, subject to the laws of chemistry and physics, conglomerated by random chance. When you appeal to such things as "alleviating suffering" and "promoting the well-being of the community," you are, as Carl Sagan once said, "adding *nurture* to *nature*."




> Ive responded to this at length in the thread you created on questions for Agnostics/Atheists. You have not responded except to say (quite illogically) Can chemicals reason and emote in and of themselves in your naturalistic/materialistic worldview, sophocles?
> 
> Here was my original reply to your queries on abstract entities:
> 
> Quote:
> Many believe moral and ethical systems exist innately in man much like the ability to communicate through language is innate. That is, the concepts are not, or should not be, abstracted from their literal manifestations in human action. Meaning: the reaction to something, such as murder or what have you (not homosexuality or something really only based in prejudice or dogma), will produce itself in an individual as saying this is wrong. This feeling can be suppressed in favor of other pleasuresmuch of the time, as Nietzsche says somewhere, the conscience is suppressed by memory in order to attain a pleasure that is got by immoral ways (not unlike the current folk in the Bush administration, you could say). But the fact that it is suppressed is not an argument against the initial, ethical response being there.
> 
> So notions of rights, justice, liberty, etc. are not nonphysical entities, just the same as 2+2=4 is not: You can of course think of this equation; but it has no meaning (or use) outside of its application and material existence.
> 
> ...


You still haven't answered my question of whether chemicals can reason and emote in and of themselves, sophocles07. You've said,

_The reaction to something, such as murder or what have you (not homosexuality or something really only based in prejudice or dogma), will produce itself in an individual as saying this is wrong. This feeling can be suppressed in favor of other pleasuresmuch of the time, as Nietzsche says somewhere, the conscience is suppressed by memory in order to attain a pleasure that is got by immoral ways._

All I want to know is whether the *chemicals* in your body cause these reactions to our environment, give us the moral ability to say something is right or wrong, and generate memories.

If rights, liberty, and justice are *not* nonphysical entities (as you've stated), then how do you *tangibly* obtain them in nature and by human experience? In other words, can you reach in your cabinet and take out rights? Can you look under a bed and grab liberty as you would your shoes? If you were to write the equation "2+2=4" on a chalkboard and then erase it, would the equation itself cease to exist just because you've erased it from the board? That's what I mean by these concepts being "nonphysical entities," sophocles07.

I'm very interested in knowing how mathematics, which deals with *quantitative* analysis and data, "refutes" the transcendental nature of God (without Him, abstract ideals and realities could not exist), which is *qualitative* in nature. What *mathematical formula* did you use to come up with that idea?




> In short, your face probably (if physical characteristics in any way mirror the mind) resembles a very hairy, slightly turdy $#@!.


What does my face have to do with anything we've discussed in this thread? You've misread my words about God's face, and I was only speaking metaphorically, sophocles07. (Read what I said again.) I would appreciate it if you would keep your _ad hominem_ attacks to yourself, please.

----------


## Macon, GA

In order for one to say God does not exist, they would have to be God...omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient.  As finite humans we can not search every inch of the universe in order to prove whether or not God exists.  

Sophocles' presuppositions are totally different from yours.  This makes discussion of these issues interesting to say the least.

Just out of curiousity, Theocrat, have you ever  read any Bahnsen or Rushdoony?

----------


## Cinnaboo

> **** habilis:
> 
> There is a growing consensus among most palaeoanthropologists that this is a "junk" category.  It actually includes bits and pieces of various other types----  such as Australopithecus and **** erectus.  It therefore becomes an invalid taxon.  Such a creature never existed.. No clear link here.
> 
> **** erectus.  Both morphology and associated archaeological/cultural findings suggest that **** erectus was fully human.  Even some evolutionists are agreeing that erectus is fully human and should be included in the **** sapiens.
> 
> Neandertals:
> 
> They are saying now their stooped position was due to disease and that Neandertals were fully human.
> ...


Sources?





> I would posit that until we are able to "create a self replicating cell from inorganic material," then we continue to view evolution as what it is, a theory, not provable science.


The scientific community has a higher standard for the term theory than its common definition would suggest. Scientific tests of the quality of a theory include its conformity to known facts and its ability to generate hypotheses with outcomes that would predict further testable facts.

There are not truths that are superior to scientific theories. A scientific law attempts to describe an observation in nature while a scientific theory attempts to explain it. Due to relativity of all knowledge and the measured timidity of proper science, all scientific explanations are called theories out of sheer modesty -- no matter how long or successfully they endure.

Some theories may be more verifiable than others, but they are all 'proven', and they can *never* be promoted.


I don't want it to seem that I'm dodging your other statements, but that gross misunderstanding of science itself has killed my appetite.





> I would posit that until we are able to "create a self replicating cell from inorganic material," then we continue to view evolution as what it is, a theory, not provable science.


If only you were this skeptical about every idea you hold.

----------


## Macon, GA

Richard Leakey:
Of the several dozen specimens that have been said at one time or another to belong to this species [**** habilis], at least half probably don’t. But there is no consensus as to which 50 percent should be excluded. No one anthropologist’s 50 percent is quite the same as another’s.

Milford Wolpoff....

Lubenow, "Recovery of Neandertal mtDNA:  An Evaluation."

Surely, Cinaboo, you would agree with me when I say that Evolution is promoted as fact and not just theory.  Turn on Animal Planet or National Georgraphic and my point is proved.  Attend any biology lecture at most Universities.  Evolution has been accepted as fact without hard evidence.  Evolution can not be described as a Scientific law because it is unobservable and nobody was present when the first slime oozed out of a primordial sea, nor can it be replicated in the laboratory.  How then is it science?  This may be due to my "gross misunderstanding" of science, but I fail to see how evolution is "proven."

----------


## beachmaster

Is there a God? Or Gods (plural)?

Nobody knows for sure.  Even if someone thinks they have heard a voice of God(s), or have seen an angel of God(s), or took a trip into heaven, they still do not know if it was a hallucination, deliberate deception of a mind controller, or a dream.  Nobody has proof of a god.  Only faith.

And nobody has explored and gained knowledge of the the entire Universe (or Multiverse, whatever).  Thus nobody can claim as a fact that there are no gods.

Nobody can say for sure as factual, that there is a Collective Conscious, or Intelligent Universe. (I lean toward this, as a Pantheist, but I admit I really just don't know).

Nobody knows.  Period.

Now what can we humans do to gain our individual rights and freedoms back?  We can all start by working together, working to unify humanity.  We can work toward that, but frankly, this thread has made me lose a little hope of that ever happening.

Not that we shouldn't continue to try though.

----------


## Cinnaboo

> In order for one to say God does not exist, they would have to be God...omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient.  As finite humans we can not search every inch of the universe in order to prove whether or not God exists.


Pshaw! Atheists don't claim to know that there is no god, no matter how much they dislike religion. This -- back on topic -- is the key misunderstanding that leads to distrust of atheists and secularists.

If evidence of a higher power became known to an atheist, he would not stubbornly say "there is no God, so that must be fraudulent!" because he or she is in a state of spiritual neutrality and gratifying reacharounds. His perspective of the observable world defines his beliefs.

You, I dare say, are the one who claims to know not only that there is a God, but that you're familiar with his intentions for the human race -- and possibly even your own purpose in the greater scheme of the universe. And you will be rewarded in another life for your acceptance of this knowledge, as I will be punished for rejecting it. Maybe you'll incline your head so the sun glares off your halo into my heathen eyes, and I will twitch on the coals below. _Lo! A new torment._

You claim to know these things. I shrug. You claim that I can't possibly know morality, law, or how to gyrate my hips in the missionary position, yet I am adequate in all these aspects of human life.

It is not atheist policy to doubt, or care about, your anecdotal epiphanies, which you can attribute to whatever you wish. I don't desire the *SLIGHTEST BIT* of recognition or endorsement from any government organization. The only reason for atheists to mobilize is when someone else's religion affects them in some way. Sometimes the issue doesn't actually affect them, but they protest anyway, because it is pretty close to affecting them, and sometimes some atheists are greasy, argumentative bastards.

The basis of an atheist's belief that there is no god is firstly, lack of evidence, and secondly: the inconsistency of the concept of a god with his or her other ideas and experiences.





> Surely, Cinaboo, you would agree with me when I say that Evolution is promoted as fact and not just theory. Turn on Animal Planet or National Georgraphic and my point is proved. Attend any biology lecture at most Universities. Evolution has been accepted as fact without hard evidence. Evolution can not be described as a Scientific law because it is unobservable and nobody was present when the first slime oozed out of a primordial sea, nor can it be replicated in the laboratory. How then is it science? This may be due to my "gross misunderstanding" of science, but I fail to see how evolution is "proven."


My whole post, which I will now quote, was about your misunderstanding of the definition and criteria of a _scientific theory_.

Theories do *not* graduate to scientific law, *nor* are they the speculative starting block of half-baked ideas.

Simply stated, while a law notes *that* something happens, a theory explains *why* and *how* something happens.

It doesn't make evolution any more or less true. It just makes you more *wrong*.




> The scientific community has a higher standard for the term theory than its common definition would suggest. Scientific tests of the quality of a theory include its conformity to known facts and its ability to generate hypotheses with outcomes that would predict further testable facts.
> 
> There are not truths that are superior to scientific theories. A scientific law attempts to describe an observation in nature while a scientific theory attempts to explain it. Due to relativity of all knowledge and the measured timidity of proper science, all scientific explanations are called theories out of sheer modesty -- no matter how long or successfully they endure.
> 
> Some theories may be more verifiable than others, but they are all 'proven', and they can never be promoted.

----------


## Theocrat

> Nobody knows for sure.  Even if someone thinks they have heard a voice of God(s), or have seen an angel of God(s), or took a trip into heaven, they still do not know if it was a hallucination, deliberate deception of a mind controller, or a dream.  Nobody has proof of a god.  Only faith.
> 
> And nobody has explored and gained knowledge of the the entire Universe (or Multiverse, whatever).  Thus nobody can claim as a fact that there are no gods.
> 
> Nobody can say for sure as factual, that there is a Collective Conscious, or Intelligent Universe. (I lean toward this, as a Pantheist, but I admit I really just don't know).
> 
> Nobody knows.  Period.


How do you know that nobody knows, beachmaster?

----------


## sophocles07

> It's people on both sides of the argument who can fuel the flames, though.


On the agnostic/atheist side, though, do you not agree that their antipathy for religion/the religious is often caused—and I’m talking about the part of the agnostic/atheistic side that are aggressively anti-theism, i.e. Christopher Hutchins types—by religious fanaticism?  

That is, I think those like Christopher Hutchins, who make an active attack on religion, are not raving against the milder forms of religion (he’s not raising hell at Sufi Muslims as far as I know), but against the widespread harm it does society—anything from persecution, war, and torture to irrational voting (gay marriage, Ten Commandments Court house issues) which causes people like Huckabee to have backing, to whatever other mal-practice dogmatic thinking causes.  




> The existence of fairies is a metaphysical issue, sophocles07, for it deals with the reality of fairies in nature and by human experience. Existence is not only based upon material phenomenon, but it can also describe immaterial realities, like love, truth, and justice. So, I don't think my analogy was ridiculous, as you've claimed.


Look, you need to define what the hell a “fairy” even is, or what you mean by it, before you raise these issues.

A fairy could, as was imagined by many primitive folklores, be an actually material being, just as gnomes, pagan gods, etc were.

If we’re talking about fairies as demi-gods or supernatural phenomenon, this is a metaphysical question—which I addressed the possibility of it being in the same post of mine you have quoted—and agnosticism/atheism does cover that.  One doubts the existence—as we’ve never seen evidence—while the other claims to completely disbelieve in the possibility (which, in my view, is very probable, but...one cannot know for sure).




> I resent your implication that belief in the existence of God is similar to an outbreak of malaria upon a population. The fact is the existence of God and a disease like malaria are two different things.


Yes.  And malaria and AIDS are also *two different things*; malaria and the atom bomb are *two different things*;  all of these things, as does religious fanaticism, _have killed and continue to kill millions of people_.




> You've postulated that "if we could establish that God does not exist..." but you're missing the point. You would have to have absolute knowledge of the entire universe first before you could truthfully and finally prove that God does not exist, but since you don't have absolute knowledge, you can never prove the nonexistence of God. Logically speaking, it's impossible to prove a universal negative when you lack absolute knowledge, sophocles07.


Yes, this is obvious.

We can also never prove that an invisible pink elephant controls the entire universe; we all probably have a (correct, as with God) assumption that this is not the case.

My point was, quite obviously, that if we could stop attempting to impress *unknowable* things on civic institutions—and all that our scriptual jugglers have attached on top of the idea of a god (stone children if they rebel, kill “infidels,” oppress women, etc etc)—we could also possibly STOP KILLING ONE ANOTHER for at least 2/3 of the reasons we do so.  It would IMPROVE the world to end superstition.




> No, it wouldn't be useless to share information which could alleviate suffering and promote the well-being of the community, but what I want to know is in an "atheist" universe, why should we even consider these things, especially when we're nothing more than just bags of blood and tissue, subject to the laws of chemistry and physics, conglomerated by random chance. When you appeal to such things as "alleviating suffering" and "promoting the well-being of the community," you are, as Carl Sagan once said, "adding nurture to nature."


I don’t understand the question.

If you’re asking why be moral, I’ve posted about 10 times on this issue throughout this thread.




> You still haven't answered my question of whether chemicals can reason and emote in and of themselves, sophocles07. You've said,
> 
> The reaction to something, such as murder or what have you (not homosexuality or something really only based in prejudice or dogma), will produce itself in an individual as saying “this is wrong.” This feeling can be suppressed in favor of other pleasures—much of the time, as Nietzsche says somewhere, the conscience is suppressed by memory in order to attain a pleasure that is got by immoral ways.
> 
> All I want to know is whether the chemicals in your body cause these reactions to our environment, give us the moral ability to say something is right or wrong, and generate memories.


Yes, they cause these emotions (and memories which come from the emotions) similar to the way, but in a much different way, than the pain you feel when you stick your hand in a fire.  




> If rights, liberty, and justice are not nonphysical entities (as you've stated), then how do you tangibly obtain them in nature and by human experience?


I’ve stated that they are nonphysical entities only in the sense that they are meaningless (and impossible) if not rooted in material conditions.

Obviously, “thought” is not a “material” entity in the sense a chair is.  It is a evolutionary trait; abstract thought, reason.  This is a biological fact, just the same that language is one.




> In other words, can you reach in your cabinet and take out rights? Can you look under a bed and grab liberty as you would your shoes?


Understand: *I comprehend your argument*, it’s simply *wrong from the birth canal*.  

Rights, without material conditions, are empty.  It means absolutely nothing to say “killing that child was wrong” unless there was an actual situation at which, at any time, that occurred.  Meaning: a child does not have rights without the—and this should be quite obvious—existence of the child within a social/human context.  





> If you were to write the equation "2+2=4" on a chalkboard and then erase it, would the equation itself cease to exist just because you've erased it from the board? That's what I mean by these concepts being "nonphysical entities," sophocles07.


Yes, that’s abstract thought, THEOCRAT.  One can hold the FORM in the mind but he has no meaning unless you can say I want two bags of grain and two bags of potatoes for four dollars.  




> I'm very interested in knowing how mathematics, which deals with quantitative analysis and data, "refutes" the transcendental nature of God (without Him, abstract ideals and realities could not exist), which is qualitative in nature. What mathematical formula did you use to come up with that idea?


I didn’t say mathematics refutes god; I said it refutes the arguments of your “queries for agnostics/atheists”. 

Meaning: 2+2=4 is the abstract thought that equals 2 (of something) + 2 (of something) = 4 (of those two somethings combined).

It is meaningless unless we’re talking about something material.  Or at least talking about the IDEA of something material.  And you cannot avoid doing so.  




> What does my face have to do with anything we've discussed in this thread? You've misread my words about God's face, and I was only speaking metaphorically, sophocles07. (Read what I said again.) I would appreciate it if you would keep your ad hominem attacks to yourself, please.


Crude metaphor.

See Dante’s _ed elli avea del cul fatto trombetta_.

----------


## beachmaster

> How do you know that nobody knows, beachmaster?


Well I suppose that if someone was God, they MIGHT know it.  

But I'll rephrase it just for you.... anyone that truly KNOWS there is or is not a God, would not know for sure that they knew this, for there would always be the possibility of deception or hallucination.  The deceived do not know they are deceived.

Suppose you encountered a being that claimed to be God and had amazing powers.  How would you know that it's not just an advanced alien being masquerading as a God?

Nobody has been able to demonstrate or prove to everyone else that they know for sure there is or is not a God.

That better?

Now answer me this.... would you fight for my right to not believe in your God as much as I'd fight for your right to believe in it?

----------


## adara7537

Hey I have a question that maybe one of you religious people can help me with. 

Can anybody direct me to historical and/or archaeological proof of Jesus' existence *WHILE* he was alive. And do not give me scriptures, that doesn't count. I can't find any and I have been looking for a while.

----------


## sophocles07

> How do you know that nobody knows, beachmaster?


What are you asserting here?

That *you* know?

----------


## Macon, GA

adara....

Our entire calendar is based on Jesus.  B.C.  (Before Christ) and A.D.  (Anno Domini, In the Year of Our Lord).

Just my first random thought....

----------


## Macon, GA

Atheists are not neutral.  Neutrality is a myth.  Facts are inseparable from their interpretation and cannot stand alone.  When men or women reason about facts, they can only understand them in terms of a broad, unified whole or system.  Without this, facts are meaningless.  Men/Women cannot live, reason nor deal with truth apart from presuppositions.  With no presuppositions, attempts to reason would take place in a vacuum.  

Here is an evolutionist admitting such:

"Ruse, a professor of zoology and philosophy of science at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, was a key speaker at a seminar convened to debunk "The New Creationism." Ruse had specifically been asked to "refute Phillip Johnson's book, Darwin on Trial." (Intervarsity Press, 1991.) Instead, he shocked his colleagues by endorsing one of its key points: that Darwinian doctrines are ultimately based as much on "philosophical assumptions" as on scientific evidence.
Assuring his audience, 'I'm no less of an evolutionist now than I ever was,' Ruse nevertheless explained that he had given fresh consideration to Johnson's thesis that Ruse himself, as 'an evolutionist, is metaphysically based at some level just as much as . . . some creationist. . . . I must confess, in the ten years since I . . . appeared in the Creationism Trial in Arkansas . . . I've been coming to this kind of position myself.'"

Sophocles stated:
"The basis of an atheist's belief that there is no god is firstly, lack of evidence, and secondly: the inconsistency of the concept of a god with his or her other ideas and experiences."

What evidence would you accept as proof of God's existence?  Is there any?

The second reason you give really sums up your position.  You have exalted yourself into the position of a god.  You are your own ultimate authority.  Your ideas and your experiences shape reality for you.  You make your own rules and live by them.  Evolution fits into this scheme quite nicely, and therefore is championed by you.  I get it, because I used to believe that too.  Every man/woman does what is "right" in their own eyes.  Relativism reigns right along with her sisters humanism and pragmatism.  Postmodernism at its finest....

One more thing....  Christians are not known for "stoning children," "killing infidels," or "oppressing women."

No children were stoned.  Incorrigible youths, perhaps, but no children.  Which do you think would be greater, the number of deaths via stoning in the Old Testament, or the number of babies murdered by their mothers via abortion?  

 I am not sure what you were referencing when you stated "killing infidels."  I need some clarification.

Oppression of women.... nah, I am a woman and would say that Christianity has done more for women than any other religion.  History will corroborate this.  In most Pagan and Muslim nations, woman has been cruelly sunk below her proper level in social and domestic life.  Her birth has even been esteemed a calamity in some cultures, which has resulted in being placed in orphanages or killed.  In other religions, woman has been denied an education, married without consent, sold by parents, refused the confidence of her husband, and in many instances doomed to the funeral pyre upon his death.

Wherever Christianity is felt and realized, woman is free.  Christ during his sojourn on earth exalted the female sex to a consideration previously unknown.  He admitted them to His presence, conversed familiarly with them, accepted their tokens of gratitude, affection and devotedness.  He even manifested Himself as the risen Savior to a woman first.  

No oppression here.

----------


## UKObserver

> Oppression of women.... nah, I am a woman and would say that Christianity has done more for women than any other religion.  History will corroborate this.  In most Pagan and Muslim nations, woman has been cruelly sunk below her proper level in social and domestic life.  Her birth has even been esteemed a calamity in some cultures, which has resulted in being placed in orphanages or killed.


I would agree with you that in many Muslim countries women are not treated properly, but I think it important to make a distinction between what people practise and what their religion says. I don't judge Christianity based on Bush's foreign policy or Hinduism based on the number of abortions of female foetuses in India.

----------


## beachmaster

> What are you asserting here?
> 
> That *you* know?


If you'll read several of my previous posts, I have said over and over that I don't know anything absolutely (100%) except that I AM.  I operate on probabilities.  I am solid agnostic through and through.

I said:




> Nobody has been able to demonstrate or prove to everyone else that they know for sure there is or is not a God.


I'll stand by that.  If you have information to the contrary that is conclusive, I'll amend my statement.

----------


## Kade

> Beachmaster....don't leave.
> 
> Kade,
> 
> I just returned home and have perused the article, but not read it word for word.  I am in the process of making dinner.  I can't blend Evolution and Christianity.  They simply won't mix.  
> 
> Has it ever struck you as strange that not one transitional fossil has ever been found?  If this process was going on for millions and millions of years, why can't we find one?
> 
> Do you see any species today that are in a transitional phase?  
> ...


Thousands of "transitional" fossils have been found...

Consider that every time we find a link between two species, creationists resort to asking for TWO new links between them!

For instance... A -------------------------- E

Let's say we find C Species... it fits nicely in between A and E.

A-----------C----------E

Now, a creationist then asks for TWO missing links, between A and C, and C and E....

The problem is that fossils are extraordinarily rare as it is... the sheer fact that we have complete lineages of entire species, like the Horse, is amazing! There no way to expect that we will find a fossil of every single genetic change in transition to a new species... fossils are just too rare... but this is not the only bit of evidence... besides a plethora of dating techniques and near flawless predictions in what would be found... we also have mitochondrial DNA testing.

----------


## Kade

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/****_habilis
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/****_erectus
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/****_antecessor
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/****_heidelbergensis
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal
> ...


Great post. I tear up when I see that there are still thinking men and women in this country. =)

----------


## Kade

> adara....
> 
> Our entire calendar is based on Jesus.  B.C.  (Before Christ) and A.D.  (Anno Domini, In the Year of Our Lord).
> 
> Just my first random thought....


To be honest Macon, scientists use C.E. and B.C.E.

Common Era and Before Common Era.




> Richard Leakey:
> Of the several dozen specimens that have been said at one time or another to belong to this species [**** habilis], at least half probably dont. But there is no consensus as to which 50 percent should be excluded. No one anthropologists 50 percent is quite the same as anothers.
> 
> Milford Wolpoff....
> 
> Lubenow, "Recovery of Neandertal mtDNA:  An Evaluation."
> 
> Surely, Cinaboo, you would agree with me when I say that Evolution is promoted as fact and not just theory.  Turn on Animal Planet or National Georgraphic and my point is proved.  Attend any biology lecture at most Universities.  Evolution has been accepted as fact without hard evidence.  Evolution can not be described as a Scientific law because it is unobservable and nobody was present when the first slime oozed out of a primordial sea, nor can it be replicated in the laboratory.  How then is it science?  This may be due to my "gross misunderstanding" of science, but I fail to see how evolution is "proven."


The most basic aspects of evolution are fact...I can't imagine turning on National Geographic and seeing a lecture on how god created the cheetah's ability to run, stalk, and destroy life flawlessly for his own enjoyment... 

Announcer: "Observe the cheetah in its natural environment. Perfect crafter by a god's hand, his genetic makeup, less than perfect because of the rampant inbreeding... regardless, the sheer amount of obvious proof to the perfected creation of this magnificent killer is overwhelming. Observe the tools used, left by this god... dirt, wind, and a puddle of water... Magnificent."

----------


## beachmaster

> Originally Posted by sophocles07  View Post
> What are you asserting here?
> 
> That you know?


Sorry, I see that you had directed that to the prior poster.  

I honestly would LOVE to meet the person who can demonstrate beyond any shadow of a doubt that they know the truth about God, whether there is a God or Gods, if that God (assuming existence of which is true) is the one of the Bible, the Koran, some other holy scriptures, or is a god (or gods) not previously identified by humankind... what that god (or gods) wants from us if anything, and whether or not there is an afterlife, heaven, hell, nothingness, etc.

I really would like the answers to these questions.  I seriously doubt I'll get them any time soon.

Now then, what will we do to free ourselves from the tyranny of man?

----------


## Shellshock1918

> Great article.


Its not that I hate atheists, I just hate know-it-all atheists who think it is their duty to tell me what to believe.

----------


## Mach

Here are a couple of things, take them as you please, 


Pale Blue Dot
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M

Pale Dot II 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47EBLD-ISyc


Meaning of Life.........
http://users.aristotle.net/~diogenes/meaning1.htm

Here is one of my favorites from... "Meaning of Life."

- The World Doesn't Want to be Saved. -

The world is a teeming mishmash of cultures with a bewildering array of values and ideologies engaged in their own version of the good life. People are generally not interested in changing the metaphors through which they view the world, so real understanding between groups with conflicting viewpoints is not achievable in the short term. The good news is, that's OK, because the world isn't supposed to be saved on a global scale. It must be saved at the level of the individual. And despite the fact that the level of the individual appears to be statistically insignificant, it is in fact the most significant, because it is only at the level of the individual that a creative synthesis of conflicting metaphors can occur. Once a connection is made at the individual level, the process of spreading successful new metaphors throughout society is essential automatic if the society is ready for them. If the society is not ready, the new metaphors will not be accepted under any circumstances. So don't beat you head on a rock. Solve your own interpersonal communication problems. If the world is ready to benefit from your solutions, you will not be able to stop it from using them. 

.
.
.

----------


## Laughingcow

> "Actully, the communists do."
> 
> Thanks for pointing this out again, Laughingcow. Check out my response to it back on page four or 5ive. Maybe I should have said "Western history..."!
> 
> Yes, the commies are ruthless bastards that hate god and religion.  It has nothing to do with the scam nature of many religions, people like the red Chinese are just evil. (sarcasm detectors on, please) Never mind that they've been in the civilization business for about ten times as long as we have. As far as I know, there aren't any piled up Christian bodies...as I've asked before, is there any evidence you can link me to that validates the claim that communists kill Christians on a regular basis simply for being Christian?  Did the Soviets do this? I am aware of churches being outlawed and shut down, but not of any holocaust of god-believers.
> 
> But, yeah ya got me and ya got me good.  Now, these evil atheist countries have supressed god and stifled his representatives. What has god done to smite them?  Give them our jobs?   
> 
> I'm not much for ruthless dictatorships, but if all men are equal, then so are all cultures.  The Russians and the Chinese have been around and will stay around, apparently without the "necessity" of religion. You can say that communism supressed religion, but there wasn't any bloody war over it.  Anyone can have a "relationship with god", it doesn't take a church, so any true believer would have went silent under the oppression, yet would have kept his heart aware. 
> ...


From what I've read Hitler killed more Christians than Jews.
There is plenty of documented evidence that communist countries have persecuted and killed not only Christians, but other faiths as well. Christians in China died side by side with Muslims and Bhuddists. I don't need to give you any links, you need to go out and do your own research. What you said is ignorant and offensive. Ignorance is a choice, do something about it.

----------


## beachmaster

> From what I've read Hitler killed more Christians than Jews.
> There is plenty of documented evidence that communist countries have persecuted and killed not only Christians, but other faiths as well. Christians in China died side by side with Muslims and Bhuddists. I don't need to give you any links, you need to go out and do your own research. What you said is ignorant and offensive. Ignorance is a choice, do something about it.


True that Christians are not alone in being persecuted.  All religions at one time or another undergo severe persecution, maybe with the exception of Catholics (who did a lot of persecuting themselves in times past).  

Each religion that gets persecuted seems to think that the persecution validates their cause and justify their belief system.  I don't see it that way however.  It's unfortunate that they get persecuted, but it doesn't mean that each of their beliefs (which contradict one another) are true.

----------


## Laughingcow

> True that Christians are not alone in being persecuted.  All religions at one time or another undergo severe persecution, maybe with the exception of Catholics (who did a lot of persecuting themselves in times past).  
> 
> Each religion that gets persecuted seems to think that the persecution validates their cause and justify their belief system.  I don't see it that way however.  It's unfortunate that they get persecuted, but it doesn't mean that each of their beliefs (which contradict one another) are true.


You right. There are peacable ways to convey your beliefs. My cousin is over in China right now risking her life to do so. The true heros are the ones who prove their faith by putting their life on the line to share themselves with others. I hope one day God gives me that opportunity, though is scares me to no end. I need to finish learning Arabic so I can prove my faith. 

Fox's book of martyrs shows the persecution of Christians by the Catholic church, that was not an easy read.

----------


## HazardPerry

This thread is going places.

----------


## beachmaster

> Fox's book of martyrs shows the persecution of Christians by the Catholic church, that was not an easy read.


I read that a long time ago and yes, it's very disturbing what mankind can do to mankind in the name of religion (as well as other ideals or philosophies).  I'd like to be a part of a great awakening of humanity whereby we can all agree to disagree on our religious beliefs and philosophies and live in peace and harmony.  I have little hope in that ever happening based on the history I've studied however.  Still, it's a worthy dream.

----------


## beachmaster

> This thread is going places.


I'd like to think that the Ron Paul Revolution could be a conduit for peaceful coexistence.  This thread give some indications of whether or not that will happen.  I know that Ron Paul himself would be for peaceful coexistence among the different faiths and cultures of the world.  I just hope enough people can see that and act in accordance.

----------


## Laughingcow

> This thread is going places.


I have an english copy of the Koran, but I haven't read much of it yet. I do want learn standard Arabic so that I can read it in its original text. I have found that Muslims in the Middle East tend to respect people more that can read and understand the Koran in Arabic. I also have learned that most Muslims are ok with the new testament and hold Jesus in high regard. I have a lot of respect for Muslims and I want to share my faith with them and learn more about theirs.

----------


## Kade

> Its not that I hate atheists, I just hate know-it-all atheists who think it is their duty to tell me what to believe.


Kettle, black?

The whole point is that theists are using the government to promote their religion... using my tax money to promote religion is against my conscience... I don't care what you believe... but when you try to force laws based on your religion only, ie, homosexuality, stem cell, abortion... I've had enough.

----------


## Kade

> Here are a couple of things, take them as you please, 
> 
> 
> Pale Blue Dot
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M
> 
> Pale Dot II 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47EBLD-ISyc
> 
> ...


Good stuff.

----------


## Macon, GA

Kade,

Our tax money is used to promote humanism, which Christians oppose, through federally funded education.  Our tax money is used to fund murder via abortion.  Our tax money is given as welfare to many whose immoral lifestyles we find deplorable (laziness, sexual promiscuity, illegally entering the country, etc.).  Basically, the government steals my family's money and "redistributes the wealth" so to speak.  So it looks like we both have the same problem.  Where do you think the government uses your tax money to "promote religion (which I am assuming is a reference to Christianity)?

I am a home educator, and my taxes fund the public school down the street, yet I can receive no tax credit for my children's curriculum or educational endeavors.  There is a problem here.  You think the state wants to encourage individual thinkers?

All right, don't cuss me out or anything, but how does homosexuality square away with your ideas of Natural Law? Just curious.

----------


## beachmaster

Government funds both sides which causes further divisions.  Government needs to get the hell out of the way, in education as well as most other areas of society.  If government doesn't fund abortions or faith based initiatives, there will be less division amongst us.   But the government thrives on these divisions.  And liberty suffers.

----------


## Cinnaboo

> All right, don't cuss me out or anything, but how does homosexuality square away with your ideas of Natural Law? Just curious.


http://youtube.com/watch?v=7RlTAyNI8WE&feature=related

You're welcome.

----------


## Theocrat

> Well I suppose that if someone was God, they MIGHT know it.  
> 
> But I'll rephrase it just for you.... anyone that truly KNOWS there is or is not a God, would not know for sure that they knew this, for there would always be the possibility of deception or hallucination.  The deceived do not know they are deceived.
> 
> Suppose you encountered a being that claimed to be God and had amazing powers.  How would you know that it's not just an advanced alien being masquerading as a God?
> 
> Nobody has been able to demonstrate or prove to everyone else that they know for sure there is or is not a God.
> 
> That better?
> ...


Yes, I know *absolutely* that there *is* a God. He revealed Himself to mankind through the Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments.

Consider this, beachmaster. If someone was being deceived, how would that person know *for sure* that he or she was truly being deceived? You see, your skepticism is fundamentally flawed at the point where you refuse to be skeptical of your own skepticism.

No, I would not fight for your "right" to not believe in God because you have no right to disbelieve Him. Rights come from God, so how can He give anyone a right to deny His existence, especially when those rights are contingent upon our obedience to Him? God has made it clear in His word that all men should believe on Him by means of His gospel. Those who reject His generous offer of salvation will face an eternal penalty. It's just as simple as that, beachmaster.

----------


## BillyDkid

> Theists versus atheists, false dichotomy.
> 
> The real problem is collectivists versus individualists.
> 
> I'll take all the theists allies I can find just so long as they value individualism more than forcing me into their collective religion.
> 
> And from what I've seem there are more than a few atheists who are more than willing to use government to force their views on believers. 
> 
> Those kind of atheists are simply worshiping a different kind of supreme power as far as I am concerned, and I will work against them.
> ...


You are correct, but there is no denying that no group is more despised in this country than atheists.  You want to become an instant pariah - just proclaim yourself to be an atheist.  Like most libertarians my view is live and let live.  But you know as well as I do, no one who admits to being an atheist has a prayer, so to speak, to being elected to office in this country.  Folks don't care who you pray to, as long as you pray to somebody.

----------


## BillyDkid

> Yes, I know *absolutely* that there *is* a God. He revealed Himself to mankind through the Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments.
> 
> Consider this, beachmaster. If someone was being deceived, how would that person know *for sure* that he or she was truly being deceived? You see, your skepticism is fundamentally flawed at the point where you refuse to be skeptical of your own skepticism.
> 
> No, I would not fight for your "right" to not believe in God because you have no right to disbelieve Him. Rights come from God, so how can He give anyone a right to deny His existence, especially when those rights are contingent upon our obedience to Him? God has made it clear in His word that all men should believe on Him by means of His gospel. Those who reject His generous offer of salvation will face an eternal penalty. It's just as simple as that, beachmaster.


Great, that is just great.  You know, religious tolerance does mean tolerance only for what you believe.  You know these things because you read it in some book that someone told you was the word of God - and that somehow trumps my right to not believe what you believe.  I'm sorry, I can't accept that.

----------


## Cinnaboo

> Yes, I know *absolutely* that there *is* a God. He revealed Himself to mankind through the Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments.
> 
> Consider this, beachmaster. If someone was being deceived, how would that person know *for sure* that he or she was truly being deceived? You see, your skepticism is fundamentally flawed at the point where you refuse to be skeptical of your own skepticism.
> 
> No, I would not fight for your "right" to not believe in God because you have no right to disbelieve Him. Rights come from God, so how can He give anyone a right to deny His existence, especially when those rights are contingent upon our obedience to Him? God has made it clear in His word that all men should believe on Him by means of His gospel. Those who reject His generous offer of salvation will face an eternal penalty. It's just as simple as that, beachmaster.


I am so *$#@!ing* attracted to you.

----------


## Macon, GA

Billy D Kid,

The disdain I feel for false teachers who profess to be Christians far outweighs any disdain I may have for atheists.  I despise the Joel Osteens and the Rick Warrens of Christianity....  You can throw in the Benny Hinns and the John Hagees too.  People who have gotten rich off the ignorance of Christians make me sick.

----------


## sophocles07

> What evidence would you accept as proof of God's existence? Is there any?


Any empirical evidence would do.




> The second reason you give really sums up your position. You have exalted yourself into the position of a god. You are your own ultimate authority. Your ideas and your experiences shape reality for you. You make your own rules and live by them. Evolution fits into this scheme quite nicely, and therefore is championed by you. I get it, because I used to believe that too. Every man/woman does what is "right" in their own eyes. Relativism reigns right along with her sisters humanism and pragmatism. Postmodernism at its finest....


I’m not arguing for relativism.  




> Oppression of women.... nah, I am a woman and would say that Christianity has done more for women than any other religion. History will corroborate this. In most Pagan and Muslim nations, woman has been cruelly sunk below her proper level in social and domestic life. Her birth has even been esteemed a calamity in some cultures, which has resulted in being placed in orphanages or killed. In other religions, woman has been denied an education, married without consent, sold by parents, refused the confidence of her husband, and in many instances doomed to the funeral pyre upon his death.


You are aware that during early Medieval times, there was actually a council held—made up of prominent Biblical scholars—on the question of whether women should actually even be considered human, right?

Roman women pre-Christianity had a fair amount of rights compared to most of the pagan—primitive, barbarian—world.  Greek women were respected more than Christian women.  Your experience as a woman living in a watered down, half-assed version of Christianity is not indicative of the other 90% of women over the past 2,000 years. 




> Wherever Christianity is felt and realized, woman is free. Christ during his sojourn on earth exalted the female sex to a consideration previously unknown.


This is a falsehood tied to a vast generalization.  




> All right, don't cuss me out or anything, but how does homosexuality square away with your ideas of Natural Law? Just curious.


I don’t understand what this means.




> Yes, I know absolutely that there is a God. He revealed Himself to mankind through the Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments.
> 
> Consider this, beachmaster. If someone was being deceived, how would that person know for sure that he or she was truly being deceived? You see, your skepticism is fundamentally flawed at the point where you refuse to be skeptical of your own skepticism.
> 
> No, I would not fight for your "right" to not believe in God because you have no right to disbelieve Him. Rights come from God, so how can He give anyone a right to deny His existence, especially when those rights are contingent upon our obedience to Him? God has made it clear in His word that all men should believe on Him by means of His gospel. Those who reject His generous offer of salvation will face an eternal penalty. It's just as simple as that, beachmaster.


Do they let you drive cars?  

Dangerous move if they do.

----------


## Kade

> Kade,
> 
> Our tax money is used to promote humanism, which Christians oppose, through federally funded education.  Our tax money is used to fund murder via abortion.  Our tax money is given as welfare to many whose immoral lifestyles we find deplorable (laziness, sexual promiscuity, illegally entering the country, etc.).  Basically, the government steals my family's money and "redistributes the wealth" so to speak.  So it looks like we both have the same problem.  Where do you think the government uses your tax money to "promote religion (which I am assuming is a reference to Christianity)?
> 
> I am a home educator, and my taxes fund the public school down the street, yet I can receive no tax credit for my children's curriculum or educational endeavors.  There is a problem here.  You think the state wants to encourage individual thinkers?
> 
> All right, don't cuss me out or anything, but how does homosexuality square away with your ideas of Natural Law? Just curious.


Each other those points are worthwhile... I'm pro-choice, but I don't think your tax money should support abortion. As for education, that is a different story... your livelihood may very well be dependent on the capacity of this countries production of informed citizens.. 

I don't like home schooling, I don't even agree with it... but that's me.. .in my mind it allows one person, like yourself, to contribute minimal to a fast paced growing environment of thinkers... perhaps you cannot be made to see that, and perhaps this argument is worthless, but I will take my hundreds of professors and teachers over my lifetime over one person or group who shares your version of reality...

Not to be mean, but it is very obvious from your answers that a better education would have gone a LONG way for you, I do hope that you teach your children to, at the very least, be tolerant. My tolerance came from diversity... being forced to be next to so many differing opinions... that you are just now getting these differences, and that you must defend your rationalization is a sign that society has failed you...

I went to public school not far from you, in Cobb County, GA. My education was not destructive... I was introduced to all sorts of cultures and ideas, including many people like yourself... I chose the path of an open mind... 

I have to pay, not with money, but with the destruction of this great country, for every person who thinks that 12 years of home schooling and stringent intolerant education is better than a diverse education. The best I can offer is that people who disagree get involved with their local school systems... this country can't afford ignorance.

----------


## beachmaster

> Yes, I know *absolutely* that there *is* a God. He revealed Himself to mankind through the Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments.


No, he reveals himself to mankind through MY word... I am God.  My words therefore are the Word of God.  Who are you to dispute that?





> Consider this, beachmaster. If someone was being deceived, how would that person know *for sure* that he or she was truly being deceived? You see, your skepticism is fundamentally flawed at the point where you refuse to be skeptical of your own skepticism.


You miss your own point.  How would they know for sure if they were being deceived if in fact they were being deceived?  THEY WOULDN'T!  Don't you get that?





> No, I would not fight for your "right" to not believe in God because you have no right to disbelieve Him. Rights come from God, so how can He give anyone a right to deny His existence, especially when those rights are contingent upon our obedience to Him? God has made it clear in His word that all men should believe on Him by means of His gospel. Those who reject His generous offer of salvation will face an eternal penalty. It's just as simple as that, beachmaster.


And you support Ron Paul?  He is for freedom... including freedom to worship or believe, not worship or disbelieve.  You must have come to the wrong forum my friend.  I think you meant to sign up for the Huck's Army forum.

----------


## Macon, GA

Come on.....  How does homosexuality fit in to the Evolutionary Scheme?  Are you saying that there are animals in nature that only prefer to "mate" with the same sex?  Animals that are "attracted" to the same sex exclusively.  

No way....

----------


## Kade

> Billy D Kid,
> 
> The disdain I feel for false teachers who profess to be Christians far outweighs any disdain I may have for atheists.  I despise the Joel Osteens and the Rick Warrens of Christianity....  You can throw in the Benny Hinns and the John Hagees too.  People who have gotten rich off the ignorance of Christians make me sick.


That is an admirable sentiment... I wish you would spread that message...

----------


## beachmaster

> Yes, I know *absolutely* that there *is* a God. He revealed Himself to mankind through the Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments.


If you buy the Old Testament, you'd better reconsider trusting Jesus, the Prince of Peace, the Son of Man!

Psalm 146:3
Put not your trust in *princes*, nor in the *son of man*, in whom there is no help.

----------


## Kade

> Yes, I know *absolutely* that there *is* a God. He revealed Himself to mankind through the Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments.
> 
> Consider this, beachmaster. If someone was being deceived, how would that person know *for sure* that he or she was truly being deceived? You see, your skepticism is fundamentally flawed at the point where you refuse to be skeptical of your own skepticism.



For The Loss. You could benefit from a serious discussion with some open minded people... a nice coffee shop somewhere, ...just relax sit down, and discuss some philosophy... 

This kind of drivel my friend is unacceptable... people don't believe me when I tell them that people like you exist...especially up here in the North. I'm from the South, I've seen it first hand, and I have to explain to them that there is in fact an extremist insane branch of religion growing in this country...and you sir, are about a half-pence away from Phelps and Jeffs. 

I wish I could explain this stuff better, but I blame myself for not making it all too clear... your understanding of human deception might be better answered by literature... 

I suggest these two great studies and works:

http://www.amazon.com/Red-Queen-Evol.../dp/0060556579

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Desi.../dp/0465021433


Both explain the power of human evolution in the game of deception, as it relates to sexual selection. It is our desire to reproduce that has made us an innate "lie detectors"....






> No, I would not fight for your "right" to not believe in God because you have no right to disbelieve Him. Rights come from God, so how can He give anyone a right to deny His existence, especially when those rights are contingent upon our obedience to Him? God has made it clear in His word that all men should believe on Him by means of His gospel. Those who reject His generous offer of salvation will face an eternal penalty. It's just as simple as that, beachmaster.


This is just bat$#@!. You have yet to just sit back for a second and explain how the fact that the WORD explains GOD and GOD explains the WORD is not circular...

The logic you apply can refer to anything... any piece of paper, hell... it could apply to a carton of milk that declares itself the "Best Milk in the World" 

Why do you ask, because it said so... Your asking us to believe that the source of your authority is legitimate based on the fact that the source itself claims that authority... it's just not right man... 

Using hellfire to scare people into believing is just dishonest and sickening. You can always tell a person's heart by what they believe and how they believe... 

You notice that no believer claims they are going to be punished... frankly, any creator that creates life only to punish it severely for the crime of not believing is not worth a lick of salt.

----------


## Macon, GA

Oh Kade..... how would you even know what kind of education I have had....

I am a product of public education.  I graduated from a State University Magna Cum Laude and have also enjoyed graduate school while maintaining a 4.0.   

It is obvious that you don't even begin to have an inkling of an idea as to what constitutes homeschooling.  My oldest child scored post high school on standardized tests while in the 6th grade.  My other two children consistently score 2, 3, or 4 grades higher than their public school counterparts based on standardized testing.  I have an 8 year old who plays Vivaldi Concertos on her tiny viola.  My other two are the youngest children to ever obtain membership in Mercer University's Youth Orchestra.  Both are able to play college level pieces on their violins, although they are only 11 and 12.  

Compared to your average public school child....  I think we are doing o.k.

For the record, I am not the only person who contributes to my children's education.  They take classes with college professors as well as others who have tremendously advanced their education.

Send your children to public school if you so choose.  I opted out.  Been there and done that... both as a student and as a teacher.  I was not impressed.

----------


## Cinnaboo

> Come on.....  How does homosexuality fit in to the Evolutionary Scheme?  Are you saying that there are animals in nature that only prefer to "mate" with the same sex?  Animals that are "attracted" to the same sex exclusively.  
> 
> No way....


Evolution has nothing to do with the point I'm trying to make.

I'm saying that it occurs in nature. So you can't argue that it's a strictly human phenomenon, brought on by confusion and the misdirected introspection of boys who didn't sign up for little league.

----------


## sophocles07

> No, I would not fight for your "right" to not believe in God because you have no right to disbelieve Him. Rights come from God, so how can He give anyone a right to deny His existence, especially when those rights are contingent upon our obedience to Him? God has made it clear in His word that all men should believe on Him by means of His gospel. Those who reject His generous offer of salvation will face an eternal penalty. It's just as simple as that, beachmaster.


When you say this, are we even talking about “rights”?  Because it is obvious God, assuming his existence, _has_ given the “right” to disagree.  At least in life.  As evidenced by the myriad of atheists and agnostics and non-Christians.

And if you are punished in the afterlife for not believing, why do we need to set up civic orders based in his “laws”?




> Come on..... How does homosexuality fit in to the Evolutionary Scheme? Are you saying that there are animals in nature that only prefer to "mate" with the same sex? Animals that are "attracted" to the same sex exclusively.


There are several species which have homosexual relations.  You can search this on google and probably get an easy list for you, “teacher.”

And I still don’t understand what you mean by “fit in to the Evolutionary Scheme”.  

The fact that sexual relations takes place without procreation—just as in masturbation, oral and (heterosexual) anal sex—does not mean it is “a proof” against evolution.  It simply shows that humans find sexual stimulation extremely pleasing, which is also an evolutionary trait—sex being pleasurable obviously causing the desire to perform the act which results in procreation.

----------


## Kade

> Oh Kade..... how would you even know what kind of education I have had....
> 
> I am a product of public education.  I graduated from a State University Magna Cum Laude and have also enjoyed graduate school while maintaining a 4.0.   
> 
> It is obvious that you don't even begin to have an inkling of an idea as to what constitutes homeschooling.  My oldest child scored post high school on standardized tests while in the 6th grade.  My other two children consistently score 2, 3, or 4 grades higher than their public school counterparts based on standardized testing.  I have an 8 year old who plays Vivaldi Concertos on her tiny viola.  My other two are the youngest children to ever obtain membership in Mercer University's Youth Orchestra.  Both are able to play college level pieces on their violins, although they are only 11 and 12.  
> 
> Compared to your average public school child....  I think we are doing o.k.
> 
> For the record, I am not the only person who contributes to my children's education.  They take classes with college professors as well as others who have tremendously advanced their education.
> ...


Fair. Scores on standardized tests are not impressive to me... I worry about what they might be inoculated against... to be honest. The state of public education in general right now is nothing to celebrate... but I have my feelings about that separate... your children sound wonderful and I hope they do well, rather, I know they will. All I can ask, or beg, is that they maintain some openness.. don't send them out in the world hating others... please.

I do take offense to creationism being taught as science, because it is not... I can back this up for pages if you like.

----------


## sophocles07

> Why do you ask, because it said so... Your asking us to believe that the source of your authority is legitimate based on the fact that the source itself claims that authority... it's just not right man...


Correct.  It seems like there is some sort of “wall” past which the religious cannot pass—they cannot answer the above question about believing something because that something claims to be authoritative.  They, at this point, recede from _discussion_ and up the same rhetoric as before.

It’s pitiful.

----------


## Macon, GA

In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:

Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.[11]
Despite the "homosexual" appearances of some animal behavior, this behavior does not stem from a "homosexual" instinct that is part of animal nature. Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, explains:

Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.[

----------


## Kade

> In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:
> 
> Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.[11]
> Despite the "homosexual" appearances of some animal behavior, this behavior does not stem from a "homosexual" instinct that is part of animal nature. Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, explains:
> 
> Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.[


I can send you hundreds of sources refuting this... hell, American Bison have full anal penetration between themselves... 

That is beside the point, perhaps a sort of populist answer to this?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15750604/

----------


## Macon, GA

Kade,

When have I ever said that I "HATE" anybody?  You are assuming that I do, but you are wrong in that assumption.

I am not impressed with standardized scores either, however they are a good point of reference.  My children are ranked "nationally."  I can compare their scores to others in the same grade level.  I am more impressed when my twelve year old finishes reading The Odyssey and then asks for more like it.

If my children enter the world "hating" others, then I have failed as a mother.  You would probably be surprised if you met my family.  You may even like us....    !

----------


## Macon, GA

Dinner time calls.  I will try and check back in tomorrow some time.

Have a good evening all......

----------


## beachmaster

> frankly, any creator that creates life only to punish it severely for the crime of not believing is not worth a lick of salt.


Agree.  I would not worship such a monster.  

We have criminal laws against torturing ANIMALS!  It's considered Immoral, Inhumane!  

Why on earth would I worship a beast that tortures or creates a place of eternal torture for my fellow man, let alone animals?  I wouldn't, not even if I believed it really existed (which obviously, I do not).

----------


## Kade

> Kade,
> 
> When have I ever said that I "HATE" anybody?  You are assuming that I do, but you are wrong in that assumption.
> 
> I am not impressed with standardized scores either, however they are a good point of reference.  My children are ranked "nationally."  I can compare their scores to others in the same grade level.  I am more impressed when my twelve year old finishes reading The Odyssey and then asks for more like it.
> 
> If my children enter the world "hating" others, then I have failed as a mother.  You would probably be surprised if you met my family.  You may even like us....    !


Ha. *scoff*

I never hate people I meet in person. Seriously. I'm sure I would love your family. I'm just one of those people who discusses politics and religion openly... regardless of consequences. 

 I'm a graduate from the University of Notre Dame, and I got in with an essay that could have been titled:

"An Atheist's Survival in the Deep South"

Figure that one out...=P 

I wanted so badly to learn about the faith I was raised in that I finished with a theology degree... when I finish law school I'm entering politics... and I guarantee there will be one group only who is going to be blocking my path... 

Is that tolerance?

----------


## beachmaster

> Correct.  It seems like there is some sort of wall past which the religious cannot passthey cannot answer the above question about believing something because that something claims to be authoritative.  They, at this point, recede from _discussion_ and up the same rhetoric as before.
> 
> Its pitiful.


Yup.  I can't imagine Theocrat engaging in discussion on the points that have been raised.  Probably will just be "you'll burn in hell for your disbelief".  

He doesn't realize that God made hell just for people who would believe what is taught in ancient texts that have been copied, redacted, translated, re-translated, re-redacted, re-copied over and over.  He's testing humans, and the idiots will get punished.  It's the skeptics and critical thinkers that God will reward. He'll say "well done, you passed my test!".  Oh hallelujah, glory be the day!

----------


## Kade

> Yup.  I can't imagine Theocrat engaging in discussion on the points that have been raised.  Probably will just be "you'll burn in hell for your disbelief".  
> 
> He doesn't realize that God made hell just for people who would believe what is taught in ancient texts that have been copied, redacted, translated, re-translated, re-redacted, re-copied over and over.  He's testing humans, and the idiots will get punished.  It's the skeptics and critical thinkers that God will reward. He'll say "well done, you passed my test!".  Oh hallelujah, glory be the day!


Clever beachmaster. That point has been argued by several prominent philosophers... what if it the only real test was to maximize your knowledge and love for this life, in every way you can? Think about it... all evidence points to no god, and this conclusion could be the culmination of a powerful intelligent creator as attempt to fulfill a desire for ultimate "free will"... not that I believe it of course, but what an interesting turn of events.... you can place the litany of idiots throughout time in one category... the oblivious to knowledge and progress, and oblivious to liberty, tolerance, and love... it applies to ALL generations, and it is regardless of the accident of upbringing or location at birth... how far have you progressed as a human, in thought and behavior? If god existed it would be ultimately reasonable and intelligent, and all would and could conclude that it were those people who best represented its vision. It is harder to believe truth in fear, to believe against the grain, because your rational mind tells you so... these people believe for selfish reasons, for reward, for immortality... 

We have but one life to live, and to live at its fullest, armed with this information alone, who are we to tell others what they can and cannot do, who are we to harm others, they share this same struggle, to be happy, and to be free...

It is this that we honor, even amidst accusations that we, as non-believers, have nothing to look forward to... it is patently false.. we have this life, and the things we have not experienced, our future children, or future jobs, our future happiness, and that hope that we can live a fulfilled life and potentially help others to do the same...

Who is to say or know, if there is a god at all, that this isn't its desire? Why wouldn't it be? Its vastly more rational explanation and vastly more common sense... and it does not require fear, or demand towards anything but the ability for your own mind to grasp rational concepts and to think for yourself...

Excellent.

----------


## Theocrat

> No, he reveals himself to mankind through MY word... I am God.  My words therefore are the Word of God.  Who are you to dispute that?


God said that there would be false prophets in the last days calling themselves "the Christ" and/or "God," so you're just a liar. Your word has no authority in matters of absolute truth.




> You miss your own point. How would they know for sure if they were being deceived if in fact they were being deceived? THEY WOULDN'T! Don't you get that?


You're right. I was answering too quickly and didn't think over my response. My apologies for that. What I meant to say is how can the person who's doing the deceiving know for sure that he himself isn't deceived.




> And you support Ron Paul? He is for freedom... including freedom to worship or believe, not worship or disbelieve. You must have come to the wrong forum my friend. I think you meant to sign up for the Huck's Army forum.


That's right. I support Congressman Paul because he has a great understanding of the religious intent of our Founders which allowed freedom to flourish in these United States, and he's a constitutionalist. Mike Huckabee is not conservative, and he's definitely not a constitutionalist. So Huck's Army is just a boy scouts club, to me.

----------


## WilliamC

> You are correct, but there is no denying that no group is more despised in this country than atheists.  You want to become an instant pariah - just proclaim yourself to be an atheist.  Like most libertarians my view is live and let live.  But you know as well as I do, no one who admits to being an atheist has a prayer, so to speak, to being elected to office in this country.  Folks don't care who you pray to, as long as you pray to somebody.


I guess it's a good thing I never plan to run for any sort of public office then.

I'm not much good at lying.

----------


## sophocles07

> God said that there would be false prophets in the last days calling themselves "the Christ" and/or "God," so you're just a liar. Your word has no authority in matters of absolute truth.


Bleehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...




> That's right. I support Congressman Paul because he has a great understanding of the religious intent of our Founders which allowed freedom to flourish in these United States, and he's a constitutionalist. Mike Huckabee is not conservative, and he's definitely not a constitutionalist. So Huck's Army is just a boy scouts club, to me.


Blehhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

----------


## WilliamC

> Kade,
> 
> Our tax money is used to promote humanism, which Christians oppose, through federally funded education.  Our tax money is used to fund murder via abortion.  Our tax money is given as welfare to many whose immoral lifestyles we find deplorable (laziness, sexual promiscuity, illegally entering the country, etc.).  Basically, the government steals my family's money and "redistributes the wealth" so to speak.  So it looks like we both have the same problem.  Where do you think the government uses your tax money to "promote religion (which I am assuming is a reference to Christianity)?


As someone who is pretty much the definition of a secular humanist I deplore the fact that government does these things. 




> I am a home educator, and my taxes fund the public school down the street, yet I can receive no tax credit for my children's curriculum or educational endeavors.  There is a problem here.  You think the state wants to encourage individual thinkers?


Of course not. While I am not religious I sometimes think it would be better to home school my three kids, since the quality of the education they will receive at the public schools is quite sub-par.

I only have one in grade school now but he is quite bored with classes since he (in many ways but by no means all ways) is so far ahead of his grade. But he is also getting socialized at his school and he isn't rebelling or anything so it's not so critical to me that he gets out of the system. 

At least we don't have broadcast, cable, or satellite TV in the house, just DVD's. And we don't allow unrestricted access to the internet either, so in many ways we are doing some of the same things that religious folks sometimes do and for pretty much the same reason. I want my kids to be able to critically think  for themselves and make their own decisions. 




> All right, don't cuss me out or anything, but how does homosexuality square away with your ideas of Natural Law? Just curious.


Well not having any personal experience in this all I can say is that homosexuality is not uncommon in the animal kingdom by any means. Doesn't lead to the production of offspring so it's not evolutionarily advantageous to the individual, but on a population level it seems to be a way of fostering cooperation or simply relieving stress.

see here for an example, google will turn up plenty more. 

I'm not that anxious to cooperate all the time and I prefer the stress myself

----------


## Cinnaboo

> In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:
> 
> Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.[11]
> Despite the "homosexual" appearances of some animal behavior, this behavior does not stem from a "homosexual" instinct that is part of animal nature. Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, explains:
> 
> Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.


I actually knew this to be true, and almost added an addendum saying as much, but I was a little weary of typing. Oh well.

The reason I didn't was because I consider homosexual activity to be an example of homosexuality, even if the animal in question also engages in sex with the opposite gender. This is partly because, though I acknowledge that most people have a tendency to favor one gender over the other, I don't see any reason for people to categorize their sexuality so vocally, except as a silly self-restraint.


You are very wrong, however, in concluding that there are zero species that exhibit true homosexuality. Several have been known to raise young together, and some even mate for life. Most notably those no good penguins.

http://positiveliberty.com/2005/09/gay-penguins.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...8LEOL500.shtml

----------


## beachmaster

> God said that there would be false prophets in the last days calling themselves "the Christ" and/or "God," so you're just a liar. Your word has no authority in matters of absolute truth.


Prove I'm lying.





> You're right. I was answering too quickly and didn't think over my response. My apologies for that. What I meant to say is how can the person who's doing the deceiving know for sure that he himself isn't deceived.


Maybe the deceiver is being deceived.  I don't deny that possibility.  Maybe the entity that is deceiving you, making you believe it is the real god, is itself deceived.  Hell, maybe it really thinks it's God and has fooled you too!  





> That's right. I support Congressman Paul because he has a great understanding of the religious intent of our Founders which allowed freedom to flourish in these United States, and he's a constitutionalist. Mike Huckabee is not conservative, and he's definitely not a constitutionalist. So Huck's Army is just a boy scouts club, to me.


Congressman Paul supports my RIGHT to not believe in any gods and my RIGHT to not worship any gods.  You don't.  WTF?

----------


## Theocrat

> Correct.  It seems like there is some sort of wall past which the religious cannot passthey cannot answer the above question about believing something because that something claims to be authoritative.  They, at this point, recede from _discussion_ and up the same rhetoric as before.
> 
> Its pitiful.


You fail to comprehend that God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent in His nature, and therefore, He Himself is the final authority in all matters of knowledge, reality, truth, morality, beauty, etc. Yes, His authority is self-authenticating because *there is no standard nor being higher than He*.

Consider the alternative. If claims about truth, reality, knowledge, beauty, morality, etc. cannot be authenticated by the person who makes these claims, then there will have to be something or someone else to authenticate them. But then who authenticates that thing or person, and then what person or thing authenticates the person or thing that authenticated the previous thing or person who made the epistemological, aesthetic, metaphysical, and/or ethical claims? You can see this would just be a long chain that would go on for eternity, but then you couldn't authenticate anything on your own.

God is the "wall" by which all things that are beautiful, true, moral, etc. are standing against in the universe. The "atheist" worldview, as I've said many times, cannot account for *absolutes*, *standards of morality*, *laws of logic*, and a host of other universal, invariant, abstract entities because their worldview already assumes that the universe only contains material, finite, impersonal, tangible things which evolve by themselves through random processes (given enough time), and therefore, they only can deal with empirical observations that are tested through their senses (sound, taste, sight, smell, and touch).

----------


## WilliamC

> Billy D Kid,
> 
> The disdain I feel for false teachers who profess to be Christians far outweighs any disdain I may have for atheists.  I despise the Joel Osteens and the Rick Warrens of Christianity....  You can throw in the Benny Hinns and the John Hagees too.  People who have gotten rich off the ignorance of Christians make me sick.


We seem share a common sense of disdain for  those who seemingly share our beliefs but would use fraud or coercion to convert others to them. 

I can't stand the fact that militant atheists wish to forcebly remove all vestiges of religion from government and the public purview. While government should not be used to force any particular religion on the population neither should it be used to force a lack of religion   on the population.

----------


## sophocles07

> You fail to comprehend that God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent in His nature, and therefore, He Himself is the final authority in all matters of knowledge, reality, truth, morality, beauty, etc. Yes, His authority is self-authenticating because there is no standard nor being higher than He.


You’ve done exactly what I said you would do. 

Good $#@!ing job.




> Consider the alternative. If claims about truth, reality, knowledge, beauty, morality, etc. cannot be authenticated by the person who makes these claims, then there will have to be something or someone else to authenticate them. But then who authenticates that thing or person, and then what person or thing authenticates the person or thing that authenticated the previous thing or person who made the epistemological, aesthetic, metaphysical, and/or ethical claims? You can see this would just be a long chain that would go on for eternity, but then you couldn't authenticate anything on your own.


They CAN be “authenticated” by the person, though; you fail to understand this.  Having a colorless vague “God” to “authenticate” these matters only means that a bunch of writers have impressed their moral system—through the Bible—into social orders.  It does not mean that “God” does so.  God is a literary character.




> God is the "wall" by which all things that are beautiful, true, moral, etc. are standing against in the universe. The "atheist" worldview, as I've said many times, cannot account for absolutes, standards of morality, laws of logic, and a host of other universal, invariant, abstract entities because their worldview already assumes that the universe only contains material, finite, impersonal, tangible things which evolve by themselves through random processes (given enough time), and therefore, they only can deal with empirical observations that are tested through their senses (sound, taste, sight, smell, and touch).


Look, you idiot: I’ve been over this about 10+ times throughout this thread; if you can’t grasp

SIMPLE

$#@!ING

SCIENTIFIC

CONCEPTS

there is no use continuing argument with you.

GO back to my answer to this, and reply DIRECTLY TO EACH ARGUMENT.  I don’t want this vague re-statement of your same original point.  I”VE ALREADY ARGUED IT.  You have not responded.  You just continue re-stating the same idiotic “ideas.”

----------


## Theocrat

> They CAN be authenticated by the person, though; you fail to understand this.  Having a colorless vague God to authenticate these matters only means that a bunch of writers have impressed their moral systemthrough the Bibleinto social orders.  It does not mean that God does so.  God is a literary character.


Says who, sophocles07? You? Who made you the final authority on such matters, *O finite man*? Oh, I mean, O evolved chimp from a rock rained upon for millions of years which came from nothing...




> Look, you idiot: Ive been over this about 10+ times throughout this thread; if you cant grasp
> 
> SIMPLE
> 
> $#@!ING
> 
> SCIENTIFIC
> 
> CONCEPTS
> ...


Your answers were unacceptable, sophocles07 because, you see, those electrochemical processes in your brain which came together by themselves didn't agree with the ones in my brain, so therefore, I have to keep reiterating my point. Don't blame me, though. I'm just a result of natural selection, so I can help but repeat myself because that's what my genes tell me to do.

----------


## sophocles07

> Says who, sophocles07? You? Who made you the final authority on such matters, O finite man? Oh, I mean, O evolved chimp from a rock rained upon for millions of years which came from nothing...


I say so because there is _nothing else that could authenticate_ such matters.  Even the Bible is merely, as I’ve said, man-made moral systems.  God is a man-made literary character.  A literary character “authenticates” your religious/ethical claims.  NOT a “God.”




> Your answers were unacceptable, sophocles07 because, you see, those electrochemical processes in your brain which came together by themselves didn't agree with the ones in my brain, so therefore, I have to keep reiterating my point. Don't blame me, though. I'm just a result of natural selection, so I can help but repeat myself because that's what my genes tell me to do.


This makes absolutely no sense; I'll take it as saying "I don't know how to respond to your arguments, sophocles07, so I'll respond with rhetorical flourish."

----------


## Andrew-Austin

How is it possible that a debate about the reality of this beautiful world we live in, can manage to be so ugly and close minded?

 For the love of God and Science, stop trying to impose your beliefs on other people. There is absolutely no reason why theists and atheists need to be enemies.

There are many unanswered questions in this world. I don't care how much scientific or philosophical thinking you have done, you don't have the answers. After scanning both of the theist and atheist posts in this thread, I honestly think my IQ level has dropped a few points. As a believer in a "God" (though not in the traditional since at all) and an advocate of scientific knowledge, theist vs. atheist debates on the internet are pretty much always dull for me.

 Maybe its time for radical atheists to diversify their knowledge base and look into philosophy more, and theists to embrace science more? Nahh... That would require to much critical, open minded thinking. Lets just stick with the dogmatic Christians versus arrogant Dawkins fans meme for the rest of eternity...

----------


## Cinnaboo

> There are many unanswered questions in this world. I don't care how much scientific or philosophical thinking you have done, you don't have the answers.


Only one side of this argument claims to.

----------


## Andrew-Austin

> Only one side of this argument claims to.


No that is not the case, unless you want to pigeonhole that side (and the vast amount of flavors of it that exist) into one neat little category thats easy for you to argue against. Which is what happens almost all of the time in these debates.

I suppose it would be asking to much, to give the debate a more fitting name.

----------


## adara7537

I think the problem that atheists have with theists, more specifically Christians, is that it seems to them that Christianity is constantly shoved in their face. Never once has an atheist accosted me and asked me if I believed in God. I can't even count how many Christians have. Usually born agains with that hell fire brimstone $#@!. 

Maybe it's because I live in GA? Who knows, the point is I don't think atheists would be care so much if the Christians stopped trying to change our science books (my county was on Penn and Teller's Bull$#@! about it), ban Harry Potter books from school libraries, and didn't branch into things like the Westboro Baptist Church so that I have obscene things spewed at me while I enter a restaurant because they assume I am gay. Or how about my county not allowing the '96 Olympic volleyball tournament here because the "life style advocated by the gay community" was "incompatible with the standards to which this community subscribes."

I think most atheists see religion as doing much more harm to people than it ever did good in addition to the fact that God is the only thing people believe in to the extent they do with absolutely no proof what so ever that he/it exists.

----------


## beachmaster

> For the love of God and Science, stop trying to impose your beliefs on other people. There is absolutely no reason why theists and atheists need to be enemies.
> 
> There are many unanswered questions in this world. I don't care how much scientific or philosophical thinking you have done, you don't have the answers.


This is what I've been saying all along.  Nobody knows whether there is a god or gods.  If we'd all just admit that though we may strongly believe one way or the other (I just simply don't believe either way personally, which makes it much easier for me), we just don't know absolutely for sure.  Some people cannot come to that conclusion and will declare without proof that they know the answers... but the rest of us know that is pure bull$#@!.  

If we can't conclude that it is all based on faith, belief, or lack of same, then we don't stand a chance at peace.

Even the bible says that believers should operate on faith, not science or reason (Lean not unto thy own understanding), yet some persist in doing just that, and in so doing they disavow "faith".  Too bad.

----------


## sophocles07

> No that is not the case, unless you want to pigeonhole that side (and the vast amount of flavors of it that exist) into one neat little category thats easy for you to argue against. Which is what happens almost all of the time in these debates.


The basic tenet of science is that phenomenon are observed, studied, and that based in this empirical knowledge, conclusions are gathered.

Scientists claim only what is factual; they don't say "this is the nature of the creator" or any other metaphysical--BEYOND the physical world--bull$#@!.

Theists, on the other hand, have apparently a book that tells them everything, and that's it for that side.

----------


## Cinnaboo

> No that is not the case, unless you want to pigeonhole that side (and the vast amount of flavors of it that exist) into one neat little category thats easy for you to argue against. Which is what happens almost all of the time in these debates.


I don't think it's unfair to assume that all religions involve faith, which is belief without evidence.

----------


## Andrew-Austin

> I think the problem that atheists have with theists, more specifically Christians, is that it seems to them that Christianity is constantly shoved in their face. Never once has an atheist accosted me and asked me if I believed in God. I can't even count how many Christians have. Usually born agains with that hell fire brimstone $#@!. 
> 
> Maybe it's because I live in GA? Who knows, the point is I don't think atheists would be care so much if the Christians stopped trying to change our science books (my county was on Penn and Teller's Bull$#@! about it), ban Harry Potter books from school libraries, and didn't branch into things like the Westboro Baptist Church so that I have obscene things spewed at me while I enter a restaurant because they assume I am gay. Or how about my county not allowing the '96 Olympic volleyball tournament here because the "life style advocated by the gay community" was "incompatible with the standards to which this community subscribes."
> 
> I think most atheists see religion as doing much more harm to people than it ever did good in addition to the fact that God is the only thing people believe in to the extent they do with absolutely no proof what so ever that he/it exists.


I can empathize with what these atheists have been through. However I suggest you refer to these people as ignorant bumpkins, instead of Christians. It is just so easy for the mind to pigeonhole all Christians into some dark corner, and then take the next step to mentally doing the same to all of theism. 

Just because someone claims to live by the word of a man named Jesus, does not mean they actually are. Labels are tossed around today like crazy, and people get lost in them. Catch my drift?




> I don't think it's unfair to assume that all religions involve faith, which is belief without evidence.


If you have not learned the difference between bare spirituality and religion, then there is not much I can say to you. 

I suppose that I have to prove to you that there is some form of a "God" in this universe using science? No thanks I am not able to, just as atheists are proving there is not one. That does not stop some atheists in believing there is not some form of God, while at the same time running away from philosophy like a school girl.  

Philosophy, empiricism, and experience is what I would use to explain why I think there is a "God", if I even cared to do so.

----------


## beachmaster

Several of the founding fathers were Deists.  The hardcore hellfire christians aren't satisfied with them either.  They are still evil doers in some minds.  Theodore Roosevelt referred to Thomas Paine as a "filthy little atheist".

You just can't win with the hellfire fundies... unless you happen to be one of them!  lol

Theocrat... the very idea is repulsive to all that Ron Paul stands for.  Ron Paul will not bring in a theocracy.  Quite the opposite.  Change your moniker or go worship with Huck's Army... The Ron Paul Revolution will have NOTHING to do with theocracy.

----------


## adara7537

> I can empathize with what these atheists have been through. However I suggest you refer to these people as ignorant bumpkins, instead of Christians. It is just so easy for the mind to pigeonhole all Christians into some dark corner, and then take the next step to mentally doing the same to all of theism. 
> 
> Just because someone claims to live by the word of a man named Jesus, does not mean they actually are. Labels are tossed around today like crazy, and people get lost in them. Catch my drift?


Yes well unfortunately they aren't bumpkins. Westboro Baptist is sure, but the people who decided to stamp our science books not so much. 

And I understand what you are saying about lumping them all into the same category as far as theism is general I am quite fond of Buddhism though I suppose technically it's a philosophy. I have Christian friends-they are my favorite kind, they keep their faith to themselves, just as I also keep my agnosticism to myself.  Every once in a while we have healthy open minded debate on the subject and I thoroughly enjoy it and I think in the end we both end up walking away having learned something. 

I realize that if you look at what religion is supposed to teach, morals, all of that, it is not a bad thing. When people start manipulating it to suit their purpose it becomes bad and that is what has been happening for quite some time. It is constantly being manipulated to try to oppress and force the belief on others and there in the problem lies. For instance I do not see the Atheism Coalition having a hand in my politics but I certainly see a Christian Coalition.

----------


## Cinnaboo

> If you have not learned the difference between bare spirituality and religion, then there is not much I can say to you.
> 
> I suppose that I have to prove to you that there is some form of a "God" in this universe using science? No thanks I am not able to, just as atheists are proving there is not one. That does not stop some atheists in believing there is not some form of God, while at the same time running away from philosophy like a school girl.  
> 
> Philosophy, empiricism, and experience is what I would use to explain why I think there is a "God", if I even cared to do so.


Well, I am not one of those atheists, and that's just the way I run.

In regards to my arrogance, why am I any more obligated to disprove the Abrahamic God than you are that the earth was destroyed and reborn in the course of Ragnarok? Odin led the fight against the Giants and Loki so you could gaze upon the grazing elk, set against a foggy Icelandic sunrise.

From my perspective, seeing as all religions are without evidence (which is a rare thing for a religious person who would bother with this sort of thread to concede), the only reason to elevate monotheism above the dead pagan faiths and Hinduism is prevalence. If there is no evidence, why am I speaking above my means to simply dismiss any undocumented notion presented to me?

I don't preach on it. I just don't consider faith a virtue. So as far as conceit goes, you'd think the person who believes the stars are there for his viewing pleasure would win out.

Also, I hope you can appreciate that atheism vs. theism isn't merely about whether or not a higher power is logical and consistent with the universe. Theists, for the most part, also claim to know His intentions, sometimes in freightening detail. Unfortunately for the rational theists, like yourself, Deism dwindled rather rapidly after the theory of evolution, so those who remain in the churches now ascribe themselves to books of prophecy and miracles. Books which endorse love and hate in equal measure. I'm sure you know what sort of things can be justified by God's literal word, and a contradiction does not count as a retraction.

_"With or without [religion] youd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion."_

And no, I do not know the difference between spirituality and faith.

----------


## UKObserver

> I have an english copy of the Koran, but I haven't read much of it yet. I do want learn standard Arabic so that I can read it in its original text. I have found that Muslims in the Middle East tend to respect people more that can read and understand the Koran in Arabic. I also have learned that most Muslims are ok with the new testament and hold Jesus in high regard. I have a lot of respect for Muslims and I want to share my faith with them and learn more about theirs.


I find with many translations, they are very difficult to read because of the way the Qur'an is in the Arabic. It has a totally unique style that doesn't come over well with translation.

Regards Jesus (as): We believe that he was a a Prophet of God and that he will return and destroy a figure equivalent to the anti-Christ, so there are many similarities.

I'm a convert; if you have any questions I'm more than happy to answer them (without trying to proselytise, don't worry!).

----------


## beachmaster

> From my perspective, seeing as all religions are without evidence (which is a rare thing for a religious person who would bother with this sort of thread to concede)


That's because to them, FAITH is a substance, and it's also evidence.

Hebrews 11

 1Now faith is the *substance* of things hoped for, the *evidence* of things not seen.

This is truly mind boggling that someone can claim faith is substance AND evidence.  It that were true, shouldn't it apply to all faith?  I have faith in flying whales... is that faith evidence of flying whales?  Or keeping it down to earth.. say I have faith in the Hindu gods... is that evidence of their existence?  The Christian would reply NO, it only applied to THEIR faith, not the Hindus.

I'd like to have faith that Ron Paul is the next president of the USA and that be all the evidence we need that it is true.  Sure would be nice, but it's just simply not true.  We'll have to wait and see.

----------


## Cinnaboo

> That's because to them, FAITH is a substance, and it's also evidence.


Good point. However, if they'll look at the definition of _evidence_, they'll see that the word leans toward demonstrable truth, such as in legal context. Exhibit A! That's how I meant it, and I hope no one misunderstood.

I wouldn't dare argue that the philosophical epiphanies of the religious are insincere.

----------


## Theocrat

> Several of the founding fathers were Deists.  The hardcore hellfire christians aren't satisfied with them either.  They are still evil doers in some minds.  Theodore Roosevelt referred to Thomas Paine as a "filthy little atheist".


I was wondering, beachmaster, if you could give me some evidence from the original sources of the Founding Fathers that would prove your claim that they were deists. I find it difficult to believe that they were deists, especially when you consider that deism teaches that God leaves the universe to operate on its own without the interference of the Creator in any way. Yet, reading their documents, such as the Declaration of Independence, you find them saying things like this:

_When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..._

_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..._

_And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor._




> You just can't win with the hellfire fundies... unless you happen to be one of them! lol


It's not about winning arguments, beachmaster. It's about spreading ideas, learning from each other, and proclaiming truth so that people can live better lives under God. I think you'll find that even us "hellfire fundies" have a hard time winning arguments with each other. It's equally difficult to try and win arguments with "humanistic fundamentalists," like "atheists," too. That's because they don't believe in *absolute truth*.




> Theocrat... the very idea is repulsive to all that Ron Paul stands for. Ron Paul will not bring in a theocracy. Quite the opposite. Change your moniker or go worship with Huck's Army... The Ron Paul Revolution will have NOTHING to do with theocracy.


How is a theocracy repulsive to all that Congressman Paul stands for? I think you're mistaken, beachmaster. You see, all of the ideas and philosophies of Dr. Paul's political philosophy assume that there is a God from which these ideas originate. They're definitely *not* "atheistic" ideas, as you and many other antitheists on these forums want to believe.

Who do you think you are to speak for the "Ron Paul Revolution" by excluding any political thought and philosophy that doesn't agree with *your own*? This revolution is about us, as Americans, acknowledging that we have the liberty to believe, argue, and disagree freely amongst ourselves whatever our creed, custom, or color may be.

I can tell you, beachmaster, that America was definitely not established as a "democracy" (where the majority of the people decide what's right and wrong in matters of law and government), but rather, we were established as a "constitutional republic" (where representatives of moral and religious integrity are chosen to represent the people and design laws in accordance with an eternally established Law), which comes from a *theocratic* understanding of civil governance. Now, you may not agree with that, but my point is my views are closer to Rep. Paul's than yours (from what I've read from you in these forums) because Dr. Paul assumes the rule of law as a basis for limiting government and preserving God-given rights (which don't exist in the doctrine of deism, by the way).

In an "atheist" universe, there is no fixed standard or rule of law because nature is constantly changing, and therefore, laws will change. A theocracy recognizes this change, too, but at least there's a fixed standard (rule of law) by which changes in law are limited. You don't have that in an "atheist" universe, where things are only subject to random processes and inorganic matter. Therefore, I believe my views are closer to Congressman Paul than yours, beachmaster, but I'm not going to go so far as to say that your views have no place in this "Ron Paul Revolution" of ours.

----------


## beachmaster

> I was wondering, beachmaster, if you could give me some evidence from the original sources of the Founding Fathers that would prove your claim that they were deists. I find it difficult to believe that they were deists, especially when you consider that deism teaches that God leaves the universe to operate on its own without the interference of the Creator in any way. Yet, reading their documents, such as the Declaration of Independence, you find them saying things like this:
> 
> _When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..._
> 
> _We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..._
> 
> _And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor._


Nobody is claiming they were all deists.  Some were.  Some were Christian, and among those were some like John Adams who was a Unitarian who denied hell among other things.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/s...7/secular.html

Washington revealed almost nothing to indicate his spiritual frame of mind, hardly a mark of a devout Christian.
-----------

Adams, a Unitarian, flatly denied the doctrine of eternal damnation. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, he wrote:

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
------------

Even most Christians do not consider Jefferson a Christian. In many of his letters, he denounced the superstitions of Christianity. He did not believe in spiritual souls, angels or godly miracles. Although Jefferson did admire the morality of Jesus, Jefferson did not think him divine, nor did he believe in the Trinity or the miracles of Jesus. In a letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787, he wrote, "Question with boldness even the existence of a god."
-------------

Called the father of the Constitution, Madison had no conventional sense of Christianity. In 1785, Madison wrote in his Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments:

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."
---------

Although Franklin received religious training, his nature forced him to rebel against the irrational tenets of his parents Christianity. His Autobiography revels his skepticism, "My parents had given me betimes religions impressions, and I received from my infancy a pious education in the principles of Calvinism. But scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself.

". . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."




> It's not about winning arguments, beachmaster. It's about spreading ideas, learning from each other, and proclaiming truth so that people can live better lives under God. I think you'll find that even us "hellfire fundies" have a hard time winning arguments with each other. It's equally difficult to try and win arguments with "humanistic fundamentalists," like "atheists," too. That's because they don't believe in *absolute truth*.


Christians can't even agree on absolute truth.  Is it a sin to lie?  To drink?  To gamble?  On these and many other issues, Christians disagree.  Some say it's a sin to lie, unless you are protecting the life of another.  Some say it's a sin to kill, unless you are killing for your country.  Some say it's godly to always obey the governing authorities as per Romans 13, others say no, it would be wrong to obey Hitler or Mao.  





> How is a theocracy repulsive to all that


A theocracy means that a certain brand of religion will dominate all others, and will enforce IT'S translation of biblical law on others, even non believers.  Did you know that there are groups under the labels of Theonomy, Dominionist, and/or Reformed theology which want to make the Old Testament the law of the land?  I'm sure you do know this.  I wouldn't be surprised a bit if you were among their ranks.


http://www.reformed.org/ethics/index...ethics/GI.html

Here is the rub. Theonomy poses for many today the specter of civil oppression. "If we go along with this," they seem to be saying, "then we'll end up persecuting -- yes, even killing -- people." And it is true that the death penalty was required for some things, under these laws, that are not so punished today. But the reader should take time to reflect on two things.

The first is that the Law of Moses came from Jehovah. We must therefore beware of taking a negative view of these holy precepts. I may not understand why God required the punishment he did, but I have no right to set myself up as a judge of these laws. No, a thousand times no. There is nothing in these laws unworthy of the true God. If I have difficulty with them, the problem is in me -- not in these laws.
Under the law (torah), Moses had a man stoned for picking up sticks on the sabbath.  By the way, do all christians agree on what day the sabbath is?  Or even if the sabbath is still in effect?  Well under a theocracy, you will have an arbitrary decision made by your rulers... watch out if you disagree and are caught in violation thereof! 




> Congressman Paul stands for? I think you're mistaken, beachmaster. You see, all of the ideas and philosophies of Dr. Paul's political philosophy assume that there is a God from which these ideas originate. They're definitely *not* "atheistic" ideas, as you and many other antitheists on these forums want to believe.


Did you ever notice that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution don't name a god nor a messiah/christ?  Neither mandate worship of a god either.  In fact the Constitution is clear that this is outside of the bounds of government.  The "god" that is mentioned in the Declaration is a God of Nature.  A Pantheist as myself can believe in such a God.  So can a Deist.  You got a problem with that?





> Who do you think you are to speak for the "Ron Paul Revolution" by excluding any political thought and philosophy that doesn't agree with *your own*? This revolution is about us, as Americans, acknowledging that we have the liberty to believe, argue, and disagree freely amongst ourselves whatever our creed, custom, or color may be.


Holy $#@!... did you just say I have the liberty to believe?  Anything I wish to believe (or more aptly, just anything I happen to believe)?  Maybe you aren't so bad after all.





> I can tell you, beachmaster, that America was definitely not established as a "democracy" (where the majority of the people decide what's right and wrong in matters of law and government), but rather, we were established as a "constitutional republic" (where representatives of moral and religious integrity are chosen to represent the people and design laws in accordance with an eternally established Law),


I am well aware and have been for many decades that our nation was founded as a Republic, and I'm also aware that we lost the Republic around the time of Lincoln and have devolved into a facade which more resembles democracy, which the founders decried.  And I'm aware that Ben Franklin essentially prophesied this would occur.





> which comes from a *theocratic* understanding of civil governance. Now, you may not agree with that, but my point is my views are closer to Rep. Paul's than yours (from what I've read from you in these forums) because Dr. Paul assumes the rule of law as a basis for limiting government and preserving God-given rights (which don't exist in the doctrine of deism, by the way).


Bull$#@!.  Ron Paul would NOT want to change our Constitution to reflect Christian Theonomy/Theocracy.  I have followed Ron Paul for over 20 years and I know that he stands for religious freedom.  Yes, he's a Christian but he doesn't wear it on his sleeve.  Yes, he believes that rights come from God.  But he also agrees that among those rights are Life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of Happiness (we have the right to pursue religion, spirituality, philosophy, or the absense of those as WE see fit to make us free and happy).  I would not be happy under a theocracy Mr. Theocrat.





> In an "atheist" universe, there is no fixed standard or rule of law because nature is constantly changing, and therefore, laws will change. A theocracy recognizes this change, too, but at least there's a fixed standard (rule of law) by which changes in law are limited.


Ok, so what day of the week is the sabbath on?



> You don't have that in an "atheist" universe, where things are only subject to random processes and inorganic matter. Therefore, I believe my views are closer to Congressman Paul than yours, beachmaster, but I'm not going to go so far as to say that your views have no place in this "Ron Paul Revolution" of ours.


Are you saying you won't stone me?

----------


## sophocles07

> I was wondering, beachmaster, if you could give me some evidence from the original sources of the Founding Fathers that would prove your claim that they were deists.


As beachmaster’s said, they weren’t all Deists.  But their views, in general, were NOWHERE near your insane ramblings in this thread.

I’ll give you Jefferson, all that I have in book-form at the present (I don’t like the practice of “searching around” google for quotes to justify an ideology very much):

“In consequence of some conversation with Dr. Rush, in the year 1798-99, I had promised some day to write him a letter giving him my view of the Christian system.  I have reflected often on it since, & even sketched the outlines of my own mind.  I should first take a general view of the moral doctrines of the most remarkable of the antient philosophers, of whose ethics we have sufficient information to make an estimate, say of Pythagoras, Epicurus, Epictetus, Socrates, Cicero, Seneca, Antoninus.  I should do justice to the branches of morality they treated well; but point out the importance of those in which they are deficient.  I should then take a view of the deism and ethics of the Jews, and show in what a degraded state they were, and the necessity they presented of a reformation.  I should proceed to a view of the life, character, & doctrines of Jesus, who sensible of incorrectness of their ideas of the Deity, and of morality, _endeavored to bring them to the principles of a pure deism_, and juster notions of the attributes of God, to reform their moral doctrines _to the standard of reason, justice & philanthropy_, and to inculcate the belief of a future state.  This view would purposely omit the question of his divinity, & even his inspiration.  _To do him justice, it would be necessary to remark the disadvantages his doctrines have to encounter, not having been committed to writing by himself, but by the most unlettered of men, by memory, long after they had heard them from him; when much was forgotten, much misunderstood, & presented in very paradoxical shapes_.  Yet such are the fragments remaining as to show a master workman, and that his system of morality was the most benevolent & sublime probably that has been ever taught, and consequently more perfect than those of any of the antient philosophers.  [i]His character & doctrines have received still greater injury from those who pretend to be his special disciples, and who have disfigured and sophisticated his actions & precepts, from views of personal interest, so as to induce the unthinking part of mankind to throw off the whole system in disgust, and to pass sentence as an imposter on the most innocent, the most benevolent, the most eloquent and sublime character that ever has been exhibited to man.”
-Letter to Dr. Joseph Priestly, 9 April 1803 (italics mine)

You should note above that though he considers Jesus very highly—most high actually—as a systemizer of morality, a philosopher, one who uses reason, etc., he also does not—avoids actually—his “divinity.”  He actually says that Jesus brought the system to a “pure deism.” 

On the doctrines of Jesus:

“Hence [because he had but 3 years of preaching, “at most”] the doctrines which he really delivered were defective as a whole, and fragments only of what he did deliver have come to us mutilated, misstated, & often unintelligble.  ....
“They have been still more disfigured by the corruptions of schismatising followers, who have found an interest in sophisticating & perverting the simple doctrines he taught by engrafting on them the mysticisms of a Grecian sophist, frittering them into subtleties, & obscuring them with jargon, until they have caused good men to reject the whole in disgust, & to view Jesus himself as an imposter.”
-Letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, with a Syllabus, April 21 1803

His 11 April 1823 letter to John Adams contains a sufficient explanation of an overall idea.  You should read it.  He states he is not an atheist, and expresses great admiration for Christian morality, but does not make claims of “knowing” about the Creator, and even argues that it is impossible based on the Greek.  You should note that the Declaration of Independence quote does not mean that Jefferson was “a Christian” but that he believed in a “Creator,” which is general enough to cover most everyone at that time.  It has nothing to do with God being a creature exactly as written down in the Bible; the exact opposite in fact.

You should also take a look at “Query XVII: The different religions received into that state?” (Jefferson)

Also, from April 11 1823 letter (which I’ve suggested you read):

“And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.  But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors.”




> It's about spreading ideas,


As I’ve said before: YOU DON’T HAVE “IDEAS” unless you consider quoting verbatim the scripture as thought.




> How is a theocracy repulsive to all that Congressman Paul stands for?


He believes in freedom of religion, MAN.




> I think you're mistaken, beachmaster. You see, all of the ideas and philosophies of Dr. Paul's political philosophy assume that there is a God from which these ideas originate. They're definitely not "atheistic" ideas, as you and many other antitheists on these forums want to believe.


He does not assume this.  That’s why when he’s asked about religion or evolution, he says it’s irrelevant.  It’s private. 




> Who do you think you are to speak for the "Ron Paul Revolution" by excluding any political thought and philosophy that doesn't agree with your own? This revolution is about us, as Americans, acknowledging that we have the liberty to believe, argue, and disagree freely amongst ourselves whatever our creed, custom, or color may be.


IF your views are diametrically opposed to Paul’s, we can then wonder how you support him, and why you are here.




> I can tell you, beachmaster, that America was definitely not established as a "democracy" (where the majority of the people decide what's right and wrong in matters of law and government), but rather, we were established as a "constitutional republic" (where representatives of moral and religious integrity are chosen to represent the people and design laws in accordance with an eternally established Law), which comes from a theocratic understanding of civil governance. Now, you may not agree with that, but my point is my views are closer to Rep. Paul's than yours (from what I've read from you in these forums) because Dr. Paul assumes the rule of law as a basis for limiting government and preserving God-given rights (which don't exist in the doctrine of deism, by the way).


Linking constitutional republicanism with theocracy is a $#@!ing joke of an argument.  Read the above Query by Jefferson on the subject.




> In an "atheist" universe, there is no fixed standard or rule of law because nature is constantly changing, and therefore, laws will change.


Yes, laws change.  Innate moral conscience does not on the real issues—murder for one.  “Nature is constantly changing” has nothing to do with civic order.  An atheist social order could just as easily invent and enforce a “fixed standard or rule of law” as they do in Saudi Arabia; my bet is it would be much more humane.




> A theocracy recognizes this change, too, but at least there's a fixed standard (rule of law) by which changes in law are limited.


YES, a “fixed standard” written down by men two thousand years ago.  It’s still man-made though.

----------


## sophocles07

Also, Theocrat: can you read Hebrew, Aramaic, or koine Greek?

----------


## beachmaster

From the link I posted above (yes, I googled it... but that's why God invented Google after all right? ): 

As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom:

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, *in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.*"
Smoke that!

----------


## WilliamC

> Holy $#@!... did you just say I have the liberty to believe?  Anything I wish to believe (or more aptly, just anything I happen to believe)?  Maybe you aren't so bad after all.


Yes, but do you have the liberty to _not_ believe?

Or will you be destroyed for that?

----------


## beachmaster

> Yes, but do you have the liberty to _not_ believe?
> 
> Or will you be destroyed for that?


Under Theocrat's Utopia, probably.  By stoning I'm sure.

----------


## WilliamC

> Under Theocrat's Utopia, probably.  By stoning I'm sure.


Would that be stoning by bong or stoning by rocks

----------


## sophocles07

> As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom:
> 
> "Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination." 
> Smoke that!


THIS should KILL the arguments of Theocrat once and for all.




> Would that be stoning by bong or stoning by rocks


Bongs of course are prohibited by a theocratic nation.

Or at least on Sundee.

----------


## beachmaster

> Bongs of course are prohibited by a theocratic nation.
> 
> Or at least on Sundee.


I dunno... Moses might have been a stoner!

Check it out:

http://www.cannabisculture.com/magaz...kanehbosm.html

And Paul probably indulged in magic mushrooms.  That might explain his trip to the high heavens. 

And don't forget, they had long hair back then.  The first hippies!

----------


## sophocles07

True.  I'm not aware of any specific "rule" in the Bible against drug use.  Though I'm sure "Theocrats" would equate smoking marijuana with some brand of "immorality."

----------


## WilliamC

> I dunno... Moses might have been a stoner!
> 
> Check it out:
> 
> http://www.cannabisculture.com/magaz...kanehbosm.html
> 
> And Paul probably indulged in magic mushrooms.  That might explain his trip to the high heavens. 
> 
> And don't forget, they had long hair back then.  The first hippies!


Hey now, we all know Ron Paul likes a big salad, but he never said anything about magic mushrooms with it!

Although the entire manna from heaven could have been mushrooms, since it seemingly sprang up from nothing every morning.

----------


## sophocles07

I think he meant Biblical Paul.

----------


## Ginobili

I must say, living in the deep bible belt, at least here, Theist dont hate atheists such as my self... they outright despise them. In a town not too far from me (about 30 miles), a guy with a wife and 2 childrens house was set on fire, one of their cars completely totalled from fire damage/physical abuse, and death threats sent to them. Why? Because they proclaimed they were atheists. And then when the police investigate it, they dont really care, because HEY! they are middle of no where redneck hicks who believe 100% w/e they are told, and 100% oppose that which they are told to.

----------


## sophocles07

> I must say, living in the deep bible belt, at least here, Theist dont hate atheists such as my self... they outright despise them. In a town not too far from me (about 30 miles), a guy with a wife and 2 childrens house was set on fire, one of their cars completely totalled from fire damage/physical abuse, and death threats sent to them. Why? Because they proclaimed they were atheists. And then when the police investigate it, they dont really care, because HEY! they are middle of no where redneck hicks who believe 100% w/e they are told, and 100% oppose that which they are told to.


Jesus $#@!ing Christ.

----------


## WilliamC

> Jesus $#@!ing Christ.


Isn't that anatomically impossible?

----------


## sophocles07

I have no idea how long his penis was.

----------


## beachmaster

> True.  I'm not aware of any specific "rule" in the Bible against drug use.  Though I'm sure "Theocrats" would equate smoking marijuana with some brand of "immorality."


Wiitchraft or something... I'm sure the word "sorcery" will come up sooner or later.

----------


## MalcolmGandi

http://www.redicecreations.com/speci...r/abraham.html

"I didn't say it would be easy.  I just said it would be the truth."  -Morpheus

----------


## Macon, GA

I came on here expecting to read some good debating, and what I find disgusts me.  

If theists do hate atheists, it could be because of your willingness to make some of the remarks found in the above posts, which are disgusting, offensive, and sickening with no consideration of others.  

Among most atheists and theists, there is no common ground to be found.  We are diametrically opposed in our world view and presuppositions.  It becomes hard to even relate to one another.  As evidenced in the above posts, many of you are incredibly angry and hostile.  Sarcasm drips from your posts.  You are intolerant of Christians while demanding that they tolerate you.... Incredible.  The guilty dog usually howls the loudest.

Don't worry though, I don't have any plans to "burn down" any professing atheist's house....  or bomb any abortion clinics.  I will just keep plugging along, educating my children and teaching them God's Laws, which in turn will be taught to the next generation, and the next generation, and the next generation.  

Yes, I am one of the "Theonomists" that you "fear."  Based on your post though, you don't have much of an understanding as to what that constitutes.  It looks like you think it is a bunch of crazed people running around with rocks just waiting to "stone" the next person.  Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Man's choice is between theonomy and autonomy, God's Law versus self-law.  Fallen man will only create laws and societies which, in their developed form, amplify man's sin.  When man exalts his own laws above God's Law, tyranny is inevitable.  We see it evidenced in America today. Tyranny is rule without God, and America is quickly moving into statist tyranny.  Ask yourself, "Why?"

----------


## Macon, GA

Why I Believe in God

By: The Rev. Cornelius Van Til, Ph.D.

You have noticed, haven't you, that in recent times certain scientists like Dr. James Jeans and Sir Arthur Eddington, as well as some outstanding philosophers like Dr. C.E.M. Joad, have had a good deal to say about religion and God? Scientists Jeans and Eddington are ready to admit that there may be something to the claims of men who say they have had an experience of God, while Philosopher Joad says that the "obtrusiveness of evil" has virtually compelled him to look into the argument for God's existence afresh. Much like modernist theologian Dr. Reinhold Niebuhr who talks about original sin, Philosopher Joad speaks about evil as being ineradicable from the human mind.

Then, too, you have on occasion asked yourself whether death ends all. You have recalled, perhaps, how Socrates the great Greek philosopher, struggled with that problem the day before he drank the hemlock cup. Is there anything at all, you ask yourself, to the idea of a judgement after death? Am I quite sure, you say, that there is not? How do I know that there is no God?

In short, as a person of intelligence, having a sense of responsibility, you have from time to time asked yourself some questions about the foundation of your thought and action. You have looked into, or at least been concerned about, what the philosophers call your theory of reality . So when I suggest that you spend a Sunday afternoon with me discussing my reasons for believing in God, I have the feeling that you are basically interested in what I am proposing for discussion.

To make our conversation more interesting, let's start by comparing notes on our past. That will fit in well with our plan, for the debate concerning heredity and environment is prominent in our day. Perhaps you think that the only real reason I have for believing in God is the fact that I was taught to do so in my early days. Of course I don't think that is really so. I don't deny that I was taught to believe in God when I was a child, but I do affirm that since I have grown up I have heard a pretty full statement of the argument against belief in God. And it is after having heard that argument that I am more than ever ready to believe in God. Now, in fact, I feel that the whole of history and civilization would be unintelligible to me if it were not for my belief in God. So true is this, that I propose to argue that unless God is back of everything, you cannot find meaning in anything. I cannot even argue for belief in Him, without already having taken Him for granted. And similarly I contend that you cannot argue against belief in Him unless you also first take Him for granted. Arguing about God's existence, I hold, is like arguing about air. You may affirm that air exists, and I that it does not. But as we debate the point, we are both breathing air all the time. Or to use another illustration, God is like the emplacement on which must stand the very guns that are supposed to shoot Him out of existence. However if, after hearing my story briefly, you still think it is all a matter of heredity and environment, I shall not disagree too violently. My whole point will be that there is perfect harmony between my belief as a child and my belief as a man, simply because God is Himself the environment by which my early life was directed and my later life made intelligible to myself.

The "Accident of Birth"

We are frequently told that much in our life depends on "the accident of birth". In ancient time some men were said to spring full-grown from the foreheads of the gods. That, at any rate, is not true today. Yet I understand the next best thing happened to you. You were born, I am told, in Washington, D.C., under the shadow of the White House. Well, I was born in a little thatched roof house with a cow barn attached, in Holland. You wore "silver slippers" and I wore wooden shoes.

Is this really important for our purpose? Not particularly, but it is important that neither of us was born in Guadalcanal or Timbuktu. Both of us, I mean, were born in the midst and under the influence of "Christian civilization." We shall limit our discussion, then, to the "God of Christianity." I believe, while you do not believe or are not sure that you do believe, in this particular kind of God. That will give point to our discussion. For surely there is no sense in talking about the existence of God, without knowing what kind of God it is who may or may not exist.

So much then we have gained. We at least know in general what sort of God we are going to make the subject for our conversation. If now we can come to a similar preliminary agreement as to the standard or test by which to prove or disprove God's existence, we can proceed. You, of course, do not expect me to bring God into the room here so that you may see Him. If I were able to do that, He would not be the God of Christianity. All that you expect me to do is to make it reasonable for you to believe in God. And I should like to respond quickly by saying that that is just what I am trying to do. But a moment's thought makes me hesitate. If you really do not believe in God, then you naturally do not believe that you are his creature. I, on the other hand, who do believe in God also believe, naturally, that it is reasonable for God's creature to believe in God. So I can only undertake to show that, even if it does not appear reasonable to you, it is reasonable for you, to believe in God.

I see you are getting excited. You feel a little like a man who is about to undergo a major operation. You realize that if you are to change your belief about God, you will also have to change your belief about yourself. And you are not quite ready for that. Well, you may leave if you desire. I certainly do not wish to be impolite. I only thought that as an intelligent person you would be willing to hear the "other side" of the question. And after all I am not asking you to agree with what I say. We have not really agreed on what we mean by God more than in a general and formal way. So also we need not at this point agree on the standard or test in more than a general or formal way. You might follow my argument, just for argument's sake.

Childhood

To go on, then, I can recall playing as a child in a sandbox built into a corner of the hay-barn. From the hay-barn I would go through the cow-barn to the house. Built into the hay- barn too, but with doors opening into the cow-barn, was a bed for the working-man. How badly I wanted permission to sleep in that bed for a night! Permission was finally given. Freud was still utterly unknown to me, but I had heard about ghosts and "forerunners of death." That night I heard the cows jingle their chains. I knew there were cows and that they did a lot of jingling with their chains, but after a while I was not quite certain that it was only the cows that made all the noises I heard. Wasn't there someone walking down the aisle back of the cows, and wasn't he approaching my bed? Already I had been taught to say my evening prayers. Some of the words of that prayer were to this effect: "Lord, convert me, that I may be converted." Unmindful of the paradox, I prayed that prayer that night as I had never prayed before.

I do not recall speaking either to my father or mother about my distress. They would have been unable to provide the modern remedy. Psychology did not come to their library table -- not even The Ladies Home Journal ! Yet I know what they would have said. Of course there were no ghosts, and certainly I should not be afraid anyway, since with body and soul I belonged to my Savior who died for me on the Cross and rose again that His people might be saved from hell and go to heaven! I should pray earnestly and often that the Holy Spirit might give me a new heart so that I might truly love God instead of sin and myself.

How do I know that this is the sort of thing they would have told me? Well, that was the sort of thing they spoke about from time to time. Or rather, that was the sort of thing that constituted the atmosphere of our daily life. Ours was not in any sense a pietistic family. There were not any great emotional outbursts on any occasion that I recall. There was much ado about making hay in the summer and about caring for the cows and sheep in the winter, but round about it all there was a deep conditioning atmosphere. Though there were no tropical showers of revivals, the relative humidity was always very high. At every meal the whole family was present. There was a closing as well as an opening prayer, and a chapter of the Bible was read each time. The Bible was read through from Genesis to Revelation. At breakfast or at dinner, as the case might be, we would hear of the New Testament, or of "the children of Gad after their families, of Zephon and Haggi and Shuni and Ozni, of Eri and Areli." I do not claim that I always fully understood the meaning of it all. Yet of the total effect there can be no doubt. The Bible became for me, in all its parts, in every syllable, the very Word of God. I learned that I must believe the Scripture story, and that "faith" was a gift of God. What had happened in the past, and particularly what had happened in the past in Palestine, was of the greatest moment to me. In short, I was brought up in what Dr. Joad would call "topographical and temporal parochialism." I was "conditioned" in the most thorough fashion. I could not help believing in God -- in the God of Christianity -- in the God of the whole Bible!

Living next to the Library of Congress, you were not so restricted. Your parents were very much enlightened in their religious views. They read to you from some Bible of the World instead of from the Bible of Palestine. No, indeed, you correct me, they did no such thing. They did not want to trouble you about religious matters in your early days. They sought to cultivate the "open mind" in their children.

Shall we say then that in my early life I was conditioned to believe in God, while you were left free to develop your own judgment as you pleased? But that will hardly do. You know as well as I that every child is conditioned by its environment. You were as thoroughly conditioned not to believe in God as I was to believe in God. So let us not call each other names. If you want to say that belief was poured down my throat, I shall retort by saying that unbelief was poured down your throat. That will get us set for our argument.

Early Schooling

To the argument we must now shortly come. Just another word, however, about my schooling. That will bring all the factors into the picture.

I was not quite five when somebody -- fortunately I cannot recall who -- took me to school. On the first day I was vaccinated and it hurt. I can still feel it. I had already been to church. I recall that definitely because I would sometimes wear my nicely polished leather shoes. A formula was read over me at my baptism which solemnly asserted that I had been conceived and born in sin, the idea being that my parents, like all men, had inherited sin from Adam, the first man and the representative of the human race. The formula further asserted that though thus conditioned by inescapable sin I was, as a child of the Covenant, redeemed in Christ. And at the ceremony my parents solemnly promised that as soon as I should be able to understand they would instruct me in all these matters by all the means at their disposal.

It was in pursuance of this vow that they sent me to a Christian grade school. In it I learned that my being saved from sin and my belonging to God made a difference for all that I knew or did. I saw the power of God in nature and His providence in the course of history. That gave the proper setting for my salvation, which I had in Christ. In short, the whole wide world that gradually opened up for me through my schooling was regarded as operating in its every aspect under the direction of the all-powerful and all-wise God whose child I was through Christ. I was to learn to think God's thoughts after him in every field of endeavor.

Naturally there were fights on the "campus" of the school and I was engaged in some -- though not in all -- of them. Wooden shoes were wonderful weapons of war. Yet we were strictly forbidden to use them, even for defensive purposes. There were always lectures both by teachers and by parents on sin and evil in connection with our martial exploits. This was especially the case when a regiment of us went out to do battle with the pupils of the public school. The children of the public school did not like us. They had an extensive vocabulary of vituperation. Who did we think we were anyway? We were goody goodies -- too good to go to the public school! "There! take that and like it!" We replied in kind. Meanwhile our sense of distinction grew by leaps and wounds. We were told in the evening that we must learn to bear with patience the ridicule of the "world." Had not the world hated the church, since Cain's time?

How different your early schooling was! You went to a "neutral" school. As your parents had done at home, so your teachers now did at school. They taught you to be "open-minded." God was not brought into connection with your study of nature or history. You were trained without bias all along the line.

Of course, you know better now. You realize that all that was purely imaginary. To be "without bias" is only to have a particular kind of bias. The idea of "neutrality" is simply a colorless suit that covers a negative attitude toward God. At least it ought to be plain that he who is not for the God of Christianity is against Him. You see, the world belongs to Him, and that you are His creature, and as such are to own up to that fact by honoring Him whether you eat or drink or do anything else. God says that you live, as it were, on His estate. And His estate has large ownership signs placed everywhere, so that he who goes by even at seventy miles an hour cannot but read them. Every fact in this world, the God of the Bible claims, has His stamp indelibly engraved upon it. How then could you be neutral with respect to such a God? Do you walk about leisurely on a Fourth of July in Washington wondering whether the Lincoln Memorial belongs to anyone? Do you look at "Old Glory" waving from a high flagpole and wonder whether she stands for anything? Does she require anything of you, born an American citizen as you are? You would deserve to suffer the fate of the "man without a country" if as an American you were neutral to America. Well, in a much deeper sense you deserve to live forever without God if you do not own and glorify Him as your Creator. You dare not manipulate God's world and least of all yourself as His image-bearer, for you own final purposes. When Eve became neutral as between God and the Devil, weighing the contentions of each as though they were inherently on the face of them of equal value, she was in reality already on the side of the devil!

There you go again getting excited once more. Sit down and calm yourself. You are open-minded and neutral are you not? And you have learned to think that any hypothesis has, as a theory of life, an equal right to be heard with any other, have you not? After all I am only asking you to see what is involved in the Christian conception of God. If the God of Christianity exists, the evidence for His existence is abundant and plain so that it is both unscientific and sinful not to believe in Him. When Dr. Joad, for example says: "The evidence for God is far from plain," on the ground that if it were plain everybody would believe in Him, he is begging the question. If the God of Christianity does exist, the evidence for Him must be plain. And the reason, therefore, why "everybody" does not believe in Him must be that "everybody" is blinded by sin. Everybody wears colored glasses. You have heard the story of the valley of the blind. A young man who was out hunting fell over a precipice into the valley of the blind. There was no escape. The blind men did not understand him when he spoke of seeing the sun and the colors of the rainbow, but a fine young lady did understand him when he spoke the language of love. The father of the girl would not consent to the marriage of his daughter to a lunatic who spoke so often of things that did not exist. But the great psychologists of the blind men's university offered to cure him of his lunacy by sewing up his eyelids. Then, they assured him, he would be normal like "everybody" else. But the simple seer went on protesting that he did see the sun.

So, as we have our tea, I propose not only to operate on your heart so as to change your will, but also on your eyes so as to change your outlook. But wait a minute. No, I do not propose to operate at all. I myself cannot do anything of the sort. I am just mildly suggesting that you are perhaps dead, and perhaps blind, leaving you to think the matter over for yourself. If an operation is to be performed it must be performed by God Himself.

Later Schooling

Meanwhile let us finish our story. At ten I came to this country and after some years decided to study for the ministry. This involved preliminary training at a Christian preparatory school and college. All my teachers were pledged to teach their subjects from the Christian point of view. Imagine teaching not only religion but algebra from the Christian point of view! But it was done. We were told that all facts in all their relations, numerical as well as others, are what they are because of God's all comprehensive plan with respect to them. Thus the very definitions of things would not merely be incomplete but basically wrong if God were left out of the picture. Were we not informed about the views of others? Did we not hear about evolution and about Immanuel Kant, the great modern philosopher who had conclusively shown that all the arguments for the existence of God were invalid? Oh, yes, we heard about all these things, but there were refutations given and these refutations seemed adequate to meet the case.

In the Seminaries I attended, namely Calvin, and Princeton before its reorganization along semi-modernist lines in 1929, the situation was much the same. So for instance Dr. Robert Dick Wilson used to tell us, and, as far as we could understand the languages, show us from the documents, that the "higher critics" had done nothing that should rightfully damage our child-like faith in the Old Testament as the Word of God. Similarly Dr. J. Gresham Machen and others made good their claim that New Testament Christianity is intellectually defensible and that the Bible is right in its claims. You may judge of their arguments by reading them for yourself. In short, I heard the story of historic Christianity and the doctrine of God on which it is built over and over from every angle by those who believed it and were best able to interpret its meaning.

The telling of this story has helped, I trust, to make the basic question simple and plain. You know pretty clearly now what sort of God it is of which I am speaking to you. If my God exists it was He who was back of my parents and teachers. It was He who conditioned all that conditioned me in my early life. But then it was He also who conditioned everything that conditioned you in your early life. God, the God of Christianity, is the All-Conditioner!

As the All-Conditioner, God is the All-Conscious One. A God Who is to control all things must control them "by the counsel of His will." If He did not do this, He would himself be conditioned. So then I hold that my belief in Him and your disbelief in Him are alike meaningless except for Him.

----------


## Macon, GA

cont.

Objections Raised

By this time you are probably wondering whether I have really ever heard the objections which are raised against belief in such a God. Well, I think I have. I heard them from my teachers who sought to answer them. I also heard them from teachers who believed they could not be answered. While a student at Princeton Seminary I attended summer courses in the Chicago Divinity School. Naturally I heard the modern or liberal view of Scripture set forth fully there. And after graduation from the Seminary I spent two years at Princeton University for graduate work in philosophy. There the theories of modern philosophy were both expounded and defended by very able men. In short I was presented with as full a statement of the reasons for disbelief as I had been with the reasons for belief. I heard both sides fully from those who believed what they taught.

You have compelled me to say this by the look on your face. Your very gestures suggest that you cannot understand how any one acquainted with the facts and arguments presented by modern science and philosophy can believe in a God who really created the world, who really directs all things in the world by a plan to the ends He has in view for them. Well, I am only one of many who hold to the old faith in full view of what is said by modern science, modern philosophy, and modern Biblical criticism.

Obviously I cannot enter into a discussion of all the facts and all the reasons urged against belief in God. There are those who have made the Old Testament, as there are those who have made the New Testament, their life-long study. It is their works you must read for a detailed refutation of points of Biblical criticism. Others have specialized in physics and biology. To them I must refer you for a discussion of the many points connected with such matters as evolution. But there is something that underlies all these discussions. And it is with that something that I now wish to deal.

You may think I have exposed myself terribly. Instead of talking about God as something vague and indefinite, after the fashion of the modernist, the Barthians, and the mystic, a god so empty of content and remote from experience as to make no demands upon men, I have loaded down the idea of God with "antiquated" science and "contradictory" logic. It seems as though I have heaped insult upon injury by presenting the most objectionable sort of God I could find. It ought to be very easy for you to prick my bubble. I see you are ready to read over my head bushels of facts taken from the standard college texts on physics, biology, anthropology, and psychology, or to crush me with your sixty-ton tanks taken from Kant's famous book, The Critique of Pure Reason . But I have been under these hot showers now a good many times. Before you take the trouble to open the faucet again there is a preliminary point I want to bring up. I have already referred to it when we were discussing the matter of test or standard.

The point is this. Not believing in God, we have seen , you do not think yourself to be God's creature. And not believing in God you do not think the universe has been created by God. That is to say, you think of yourself and the world as just being there. Now if you actually are God's creature, then your present attitude is very unfair to Him. In that case it is even an insult to Him. And having insulted God, His displeasure rests upon you. God and you are not on "speaking terms." And you have very good reasons for trying to prove that He does not exist. If He does exist, He will punish you for your disregard of Him. You are therefore wearing colored glasses. And this determines everything you say about the facts and reasons for not believing in Him. You have had your picnics and hunting parties there without asking His permission. You have taken the grapes of God's vineyard without paying Him any rent and you have insulted His representatives who asked you for it.

I must make an apology to you at this point. We who believe in God have not always made this position plain. Often enough we have talked with you about facts and sound reasons as though we agreed with you on what these really are. In our arguments for the existence of God we have frequently assumed that you and we together have an area of knowledge on which we agree. But we really do not grant that you see any fact in any dimension of life truly. We really think you have colored glasses on your nose when you talk about chickens and cows, as well as when you talk about the life hereafter. We should have told you this more plainly than we did. But we were really a little ashamed of what would appear to you as a very odd or extreme position. We were so anxious not to offend you that we offended our own God. But we dare no longer present our God to you as smaller or less exacting than He really is. He wants to be presented as the All-Conditioner, as the emplacement on which even those who deny Him must stand.

Now in presenting all your facts and reasons to me, you have assumed that such a God does not exist. You have taken for granted that you need no emplacement of any sort outside of yourself. You have assumed the autonomy of your own experience. Consequently you are unable -- that is, unwilling -- to accept as a fact any fact that would challenge your self-sufficiency. And you are bound to call that contradictory which does not fit into the reach of your intellectual powers. You remember what old Procrustes did. If his visitors were too long, he cut off a few slices at each end; if they were too short, he used the curtain stretcher on them. It is that sort of thing I feel that you have done with every fact of human experience. And I am asking you to be critical of this your own most basic assumption. Will you not go into the basement of your own experience to see what has been gathering there while you were busy here and there with the surface inspection of life? You may be greatly surprised at what you find there.

To make my meaning clearer, I shall illustrate what I have said by pointing out how modern philosophers and scientists handle the facts and doctrines of Christianity.

Basic to all the facts and doctrines of Christianity and therefore involved in the belief in God, is the creation doctrine. Now modern philosophers and scientists as a whole claim that to hold such a doctrine or to believe in such a fact is to deny our own experience. They mean this not merely in the sense that no one was there to see it done, but in the more basic sense that it is logically impossible. They assert that it would break the fundamental laws of logic.

The current argument against the creation doctrine derives from Kant. It may fitly be expressed in the words of a more recent philosopher, James Ward: "If we attempt to conceive of God apart from the world, there is nothing to lead us on to creation" (Realm of Ends , p. 397). That is to say, if God is to be connected to the universe at all, he must be subject to its conditions. Here is the old creation doctrine. It says that God has caused the world to come into existence. But what do we mean by the word "cause"? In our experience, it is that which is logically correlative to the word "effect". If you have an effect you must have a cause and if you have a cause you must have an effect. If God caused the world, it must therefore have been because God couldn't help producing an effect. And so the effect may really be said to be the cause of the cause. Our experience can therefore allow for no God other than one that is dependent upon the world as much as the world is dependent upon Him.

The God of Christianity cannot meet these requirements of the autonomous man. He claims to be all-sufficient. He claims to have created the world, not from necessity but from His free will. He claims not to have changed in Himself when He created the world. His existence must therefore be said to be impossible and the creation doctrine must be said to be an absurdity.

The doctrine of providence is also said to be at variance with experience. This is but natural. One who rejects creation must logically also reject providence. If all things are controlled by God's providence, we are told, there can be nothing new and history is but a puppet dance.

You see then that I might present to you great numbers of facts to prove the existence of God. I might say that every effect needs a cause. I might point to the wonderful structure of the eye as evidence of God's purpose in nature. I might call in the story of mankind through the past to show that it has been directed and controlled by God. All these evidences would leave you unaffected. You would simply say that however else we may explain reality, we cannot bring in God. Cause and purpose, you keep repeating, are words that we human beings use with respect to things around us because they seem to act as we ourselves act, but that is as far as we can go.

And when the evidence for Christianity proper is presented to you the procedure is the same. If I point out to you that the prophecies of Scripture have been fulfilled, you will simply reply that it quite naturally appears that way to me and to others, but that in reality it is not possible for any mind to predict the future from the past. If it were, all would again be fixed and history would be without newness and freedom.

Then if I point to the many miracles, the story is once more the same. To illustrate this point I quote from the late Dr. William Adams Brown, an outstanding modernist theologian. "Take any of the miracles of the past," says Brown, "The virgin birth, the raising of Lazarus, the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Suppose that you can prove that these events happened just as they are claimed to have happened. What have you accomplished? You have shown that our previous view of the limits of the possible needs to be enlarged; that our former generalizations were too narrow and need revision; that problems cluster about the origin of life and its renewal of which we had hitherto been unaware. But the one thing which you have not shown, which indeed you cannot show, is that a miracle has happened; for that is to confess that these problems are inherently insoluble, which cannot be determined until all possible tests have been made" (God at Work, New York, 1933, p. 169). You see with what confidence Brown uses this weapon of logical impossibility against the idea of a miracle. Many of the older critics of Scripture challenged the evidence for miracle at this point or at that. They made as it were a slow, piece-meal land invasion of the island of Christianity. Brown, on the other hand, settles the matter at once by a host of stukas from the sky. Any pill boxes that he cannot destroy immediately, he will mop up later. He wants to get rapid control of the whole field first. And this he does by directly applying the law of non-contradiction. Only that is possible, says Brown, in effect, which I can show to be logically related according to my laws of logic. So then if miracles want to have scientific standing, that is be recognized as genuine facts, they must sue for admittance at the port of entry to the mainland of scientific endeavor. And admission will be given as soon as they submit to the little process of generalization which deprives them of their uniqueness. Miracles must take out naturalization papers if they wish to vote in the republic of science and have any influence there.

Take now the four points I have mentioned -- creation, providence, prophecy, and miracle. Together they represent the whole of Christian theism. Together they include what is involved in the idea of God and what He has done round about and for us. Many times over and in many ways the evidence for all these has been presented. But you have an always available and effective answer at hand. It is impossible! It is impossible! You act like a postmaster who has received a great many letters addressed in foreign languages. He says he will deliver them as soon as they are addressed in the King's English by the people who sent them. Till then they must wait in the dead letter department. Basic to all the objections the average philosopher and scientist raises against the evidence for the existence of God is the assertion or the assumption that to accept such evidence would be to break the rules of logic.

I see you are yawning. Let us stop to eat supper now. For there is one more point in this connection that I must make. You have no doubt at some time in your life been to a dentist. A dentist drills a little deeper and then a little deeper and at last comes to the nerve of the matter.

Now before I drill into the nerve of the matter, I must again make apologies. The fact that so many people are placed before a full exposition of the evidence for God's existence and yet do not believe in Him has greatly discouraged us. We have therefore adopted measures of despair. Anxious to win your good will, we have again compromised our God. Noting the fact that men do not see, we have conceded that what they ought to see is hard to see. In our great concern to win men we have allowed that the evidence for God's existence is only probably compelling. And from that fatal confession we have gone one step further down to the point where we have admitted or virtually admitted that it is not really compelling at all. And so we fall back upon testimony instead of argument. After all, we say, God is not found at the end of an argument; He is found in our hearts. So we simply testify to men that once we were dead, and now we are alive, that once we were blind and that now we see, and give up all intellectual argument.

Do you suppose that our God approves of this attitude of His followers? I do not think so. The God who claims to have made all facts and to have placed His stamp upon them will not grant that there is really some excuse for those who refuse to see. Besides, such a procedure is self-defeating. If someone in your home town of Washington denied that there was any such thing as a United States Government would you take him some distance down the Potomac and testify to him that there is? So your experience and testimony of regeneration would be meaningless except for the objective truth of the objective facts that are presupposed by it. A testimony that is not an argument is not a testimony either, just as an argument that is not a testimony is not even an argument.

Waiving all this for the moment, let us see what the modern psychologist of religion, who stands on the same foundation with the philosopher, will do to our testimony. He makes a distinction between the raw datum and its cause, giving me the raw datum and keeping for himself the explanation of the cause. Professor James H. Leuba, a great psychologist of Bryn Mawr, has a procedure that is typical. He says, "The reality of any given datum -- of an immediate experience in the sense in which the term is used here, may not be impugned: When I feel cold or warm, sad or gay, discouraged or confident, I am cold, sad, discouraged, etc., and every argument which might be advanced to prove to me that I am not cold is, in the nature of the case, preposterous; an immediate experience may not be controverted; it cannot be wrong." All this seems on the surface to be very encouraging. The immigrant is hopeful of a ready and speedy admittance. However, Ellis Island must still be passed. "But if the raw data of experience are not subject to criticism, the causes ascribed to them are. If I say that my feeling of cold is due to an open window, or my state of exultation to a drug, or my renewed courage to God, my affirmation goes beyond my immediate experience; I have ascribed a cause to it, and that cause may be the right or the wrong one." (God or Man, New York, 1933, p. 243.) And thus the immigrant must wait at Ellis Island a million years. That is to say, I as a believer in God through Christ, assert that I am born again through the Holy Spirit. The Psychologist says that is a raw datum of experience and as such incontrovertible. We do not, he says, deny it. But it means nothing to us. If you want it to mean something to us you must ascribe a cause to your experience. We shall then examine the cause. Was your experience caused by opium or God? You say by God. Well, that is impossible since as philosophers we have shown that it is logically contradictory to believe in God. You may come back at any time when you have changed your mind about the cause of your regeneration. We shall be glad to have you and welcome you as a citizen of our realm, if only you take out your naturalization papers!

We seem now to have come to a pretty pass. We agreed at the outset to tell each other the whole truth. If I have offended you it has been because I dare not, even in the interest of winning you, offend my God. And if I have not offended you I have not spoken of my God. For what you have really done in your handling of the evidence for belief in God, is to set yourself up as God. You have made the reach of your intellect, the standard of what is possible or not possible. You have thereby virtually determined that you intend never to meet a fact that points to God. Facts, to be facts at all -- facts, that is, with decent scientific and philosophic standing -- must have your stamp instead of that of God upon them as their virtual creator.

Of course I realize full well that you do not pretend to create redwood trees and elephants. But you do virtually assert that redwood trees and elephants cannot be created by God. You have heard of the man who never wanted to see or be a purple cow. Well, you have virtually determined that you never will see or be a created fact. With Sir Arthur Eddington you say as it were, "What my net can't catch isn't fish."

Nor do I pretend, of course, that once you have been brought face to face with this condition, you can change your attitude. No more than the Ethiopian can change his skin or the leopard his spots can you change your attitude. You have cemented your colored glasses to your face so firmly that you cannot even take them off when you sleep. Freud has not even had a glimpse of the sinfulness of sin as it controls the human heart. Only the great Physician through His blood atonement on the Cross and by the gift of His Spirit can take those colored glasses off and make you see facts as they are, facts as evidence, as inherently compelling evidence, for the existence of God.

It ought to be pretty plain now what sort of God I believe in. It is God, the All-Conditioner. It is the God who created all things, Who by His providence conditioned my youth, making me believe in Him, and who in my later life by His grace still makes me want to believe in Him. It is the God who also controlled your youth and so far has apparently not given you His grace that you might believe in Him.

You may reply to this: "Then what's the use of arguing and reasoning with me?" Well, there is a great deal of use in it. You see, if you are really a creature of God, you are always accessible to Him. When Lazarus was in the tomb he was still accessible to Christ who called him back to life. It is this on which true preachers depend. The prodigal [son] thought he had clean escaped from the father's influence. In reality the father controlled the "far country" to which the prodigal had gone. So it is in reasoning. True reasoning about God is such as stands upon God as upon the emplacement that alone gives meaning to any sort of human argument. And such reasoning, we have a right to expect, will be used of God to break down the one-horse chaise of human autonomy.

But now I see you want to go home. And I do not blame you; the last bus leaves at twelve. I should like to talk again another time. I invite you to come to dinner next Sunday. But I have pricked your bubble, so perhaps you will not come back. And yet perhaps you will. That depends upon the Father's pleasure. Deep down in your heart you know very well that what I have said about you is true. You know there is no unity in your life. You want no God who by His counsel provides for the unity you need. Such a God, you say, would allow for nothing new. So you provide your own unity. But this unity must, by your own definition, not kill that which is wholly new. Therefore it must stand over against the wholly new and never touch it at all. Thus by your logic you talk about possibles and impossibles, but all this talk is in the air. By your own standards it can never have anything to do with reality. Your logic claims to deal with eternal and changeless matters; and your facts are wholly changing things; and "never the twain shall meet." So you have made nonsense of your own experience. With the prodigal you are at the swine-trough, but it may be that, unlike the prodigal, you will refuse to return to the father's house.

On the other hand by my belief in God I do have unity in my experience. Not of course the sort of unity that you want. Not a unity that is the result of my own autonomous determination of what is possible. But a unity that is higher than mine and prior to mine. On the basis of God's counsel I can look for facts and find them without destroying them in advance. On the basis of God's counsel I can be a good physicist, a good biologist, a good psychologist, or a good philosopher. In all these fields I use my powers of logical arrangement in order to see as much order in God's universe as it may be given a creature to see. The unities, or systems that I make are true because [they are] genuine pointers toward the basic or original unity that is found in the counsel of God.

Looking about me I see both order and disorder in every dimension of life. But I look at both of them in the light of the Great Orderer Who is back of them. I need not deny either of them in the interest of optimism or in the interest of pessimism. I see the strong men of biology searching diligently through hill and dale to prove that the creation doctrine is not true with respect to the human body, only to return and admit that the missing link is missing still. I see the strong men of psychology search deep and far into the sub-consciousness, child and animal consciousness, in order to prove that the creation and providence doctrines are not true with respect to the human soul, only to return and admit that the gulf between human and animal intelligence is as great as ever. I see the strong men of logic and scientific methodology search deep into the transcendental for a validity that will not be swept away by the ever-changing tide of the wholly new, only to return and say that they can find no bridge from logic to reality, or from reality to logic. And yet I find all these, though standing on their heads, reporting much that is true. I need only to turn their reports right side up, making God instead of man the center of it all, and I have a marvelous display of the facts as God has intended me to see them.

And if my unity is comprehensive enough to include the efforts of those who reject it, it is large enough even to include that which those who have been set upright by regeneration cannot see. My unity is that of a child who walks with its father through the woods. The child is not afraid because its father knows it all and is capable of handling every situation. So I readily grant that there are some "difficulties" with respect to belief in God and His revelation in nature and Scripture that I cannot solve. In fact there is mystery in every relationship with respect to every fact that faces me, for the reason that all facts have their final explanation in God Whose thoughts are higher than my thoughts, and Whose ways are higher than my ways. And it is exactly that sort of God that I need. Without such a God, without the God of the Bible, the God of authority, the God who is self-contained and therefore incomprehensible to men, there would be no reason in anything. No human being can explain in the sense of seeing through all things, but only he who believes in God has the right to hold that there is an explanation at all.

So you see when I was young I was conditioned on every side; I could not help believing in God. Now that I am older I still cannot help believing in God. I believe in God now because unless I have Him as the All-Conditioner, life is Chaos.

I shall not convert you at the end of my argument. I think the argument is sound. I hold that belief in God is not merely as reasonable as other belief, or even a little or infinitely more probably true than other belief; I hold rather that unless you believe in God you can logically believe in nothing else. But since I believe in such a God, a God who has conditioned you as well as me, I know that you can to your own satisfaction, by the help of the biologists, the psychologists, the logicians, and the Bible critics reduce everything I have said this afternoon and evening to the circular meanderings of a hopeless authoritarian. Well, my meanderings have, to be sure, been circular; they have made everything turn on God. So now I shall leave you with Him, and with His mercy.

The End

----------


## beachmaster

> I came on here expecting to read some good debating, and what I find disgusts me.  
> 
> If theists do hate atheists, it could be because of your willingness to make some of the remarks found in the above posts, which are disgusting, offensive, and sickening with no consideration of others.  
> 
> Among most atheists and theists, there is no common ground to be found.  We are diametrically opposed in our world view and presuppositions.  It becomes hard to even relate to one another.  As evidenced in the above posts, many of you are incredibly angry and hostile.  Sarcasm drips from your posts.  You are intolerant of Christians while demanding that they tolerate you.... Incredible.  The guilty dog usually howls the loudest.
> 
> Don't worry though, I don't have any plans to "burn down" any professing atheist's house....  or bomb any abortion clinics.  I will just keep plugging along, educating my children and teaching them God's Laws, which in turn will be taught to the next generation, and the next generation, and the next generation.  
> 
> Yes, I am one of the "Theonomists" that you "fear."  Based on your post though, you don't have much of an understanding as to what that constitutes.  It looks like you think it is a bunch of crazed people running around with rocks just waiting to "stone" the next person.  Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
> ...


Macon, you seem to be directing your hostility at me, for merely bringing up theonomy.  It seems I've touched a sore spot.  I think also you may be frustrated because we've pointed out that this country wasn't founded on Christianity.  That much is too obvious when you just read the Declaration and the Constitution, with not so much as a mention of Jesus in those founding documents, along with the words of some of the founders.  America was a nation founded on the rule of law, and that law was clearly NOT God's law.  You see nothing in our founding documents about obeying the sabbath, or not worshipping idols, loving the Lord your God with all your heart, etc.  It's just not there.  I don't know what to tell you.

We have seen in history and presently that theocracies are dangerous to liberty.  The middle east has lots of theocracies, governments based on their interpretations and ideas of God's law.  From what I've learned, theocracy is far from what Ron Paul would stand for.  If this pisses you off, I'm truly sorry for you.
Freedom means not being forced to worship.  

I have never preached intolerance for Christianity or any other religion. I do have a strong level of intolerance for theocracy however.  I would rather kill myself than live under such a system.

----------


## beachmaster

> The point is this. Not believing in God, we have seen , you do not think yourself to be God's creature. And not believing in God you do not think the universe has been created by God. That is to say, you think of yourself and the world as just being there. Now if you actually are God's creature, then your present attitude is very unfair to Him. In that case it is even an insult to Him. And having insulted God, His displeasure rests upon you. God and you are not on "speaking terms." And you have very good reasons for trying to prove that He does not exist. If He does exist, He will punish you for your disregard of Him.


People like the author of this letter are so disingenuous it just amazes me.  I didn't (and won't) take the time to read all of that letter from those two posts, but in just scanning over it this paragraph caught my eye.

The author is being disingenuous because he will say the exact same thing to someone who believes in God, if it's not the RIGHT God.  If you ask the author, I'm sure you will find that according to him, a Muslim who believes in God would be subject to the same punishment as the atheist or agnostic, merely because he believes in the wrong God.  Same for a Pagan who may believe in multiple Gods.  

It does not satisfy you for an atheist to become a theist.  It is not enough.  You will then insist that they believe in the exact same God you believe in or else they will be subjected to the same wrath.  

I happen to believe in the possibility of an intelligent Universe of sorts.  (Note I said "possibility", for I really don't know).  As a Pantheist I can accept that Everything (I mean everything) that makes up the Universe... collectively known simply as The Universe, or All that Is, could be "God".  Whether or not that "God" has an intelligence is another matter, but suffice to say, that I can believe in a type of a God.  No, it may not fit your definition of God, and that's just too bad.  

I can also accept the thought that since I'm the only thing that I know for sure exists (I think, therefore I AM), that makes me I AM, which is another term for God.  I mentioned jokingly in a prior post that I am God.  But truly, I could be God, or a piece of God.

But because I can believe in these POSSIBILITIES, you still will say I'm either making a mockery of your God (I'm not).  Or you may conclude that I'm some kind of evil filthy Pagan.  Or you may even accuse me of being an Atheist.  I'm pretty much as Atheist as you, with one exception... you believe in one more God than I do.  You don't believe in all of the other proposed Gods out there.  That makes you an atheist in the eyes of those followers, or at least the equivalent of one (an infidel).  

Everyone is a heretic or infidel to somebody.  How do you like being an infidel?  How would you like it for followers of other belief systems to tell you that you will be punished by their God for your disbelief?  You see, we have a lot in common.  We both disbelieve in God.  You disbelieve in the God of the Muslims, Hindus, etc. while my only difference is that I add your God to the list.  That makes me so evil?  Please!

----------


## Macon, GA

Hey beachmaster,

I was not directing my frustration at you.  

Sophocles is the one whose vulgarity I find disgusting and unnecessary.  I plan on responding to your posts later....

Can anyone explain to me how to put someone on "ignore?"

----------


## Spirit of '76

> Can anyone explain to me how to put someone on "ignore?"


Click on their unsername and view their public profile.  You should see a link there that says, "Add ***** to your ignore list".

----------


## A rope leash

There once was an atheist who lived his life in a small town.  He stayed away from churches and bars, and busied himself with adademic pursuits.  He only attended church on the occasions that he was forced into, like weddings and funerals. 

It was during one of these occasions that the man had a tiny bit too much to drink, and began spewing his disbelief in anything related to god. The attending townsfolk were properly appalled, and as the atheist entered a life of open disavowel of anything theologic, he quickly saw his professional and societal value diminish. Everyone, it seemed, trusted the church, and would not hear any blasphemy, or science. 

The atheist armed himself with astronomy and physics, and a healthy dose of anthropology.  He held his own his entire life, intellectually decimating the religious with his evidences of a negative existence factor for gods of any sort. He made a point of it whenever he could, never once changing a single mind among the faithful, but sealing his reputation as a heretic of the first order.

The atheist wound up in an old house at the top of the old hill, and was known as the old atheist bastard on the hill long before he was fifty. For many years, he kept to himself mostly, having taken his battles directly to the preachers, who from time to time would be cornered at Kroger and forced to admit the impossibility of their beliefs. 

The old atheist bastard was an incessant pain in the ass to the faithful, but they managed to tolerate the man and his science with an almost cheerful disdain. The old man lived to be quite old, despite his own wishes and expectations. He was completely forgotten by the time he died, and broke as well.  His body was chucked into pauper's grave, and a young priest who knew nothing of him said a few begging words as the dirt was shoveled over his body. That was the end of the old atheist bastard.  

Or so he thought.  The old bastard was surprised to discover that there was indeed a life after death.  It was, in fact, quite as described by the faithful.  He found himself standing at a set of golden gates, looking at an angel. The angel opened the gates and beckoned him inside. The old atheist looked in and saw an obvious bliss. He shrugged his shoulders, and stepped inside, and saw immediately God the Fantastic, whereupon he fell to his knees, offering blatant fealty.

The angel said, "Knock it off, fool, and come on in..."

The old atheist stood and wiped tears of joy from his eyes, and took a step forward, stopping there...

"But why me?"




The angel smirked.





"You kept talking about God!"

----------


## weatherbill

Paaleeeze! This thread title and subject is a joke!!!

I am a christian who's been in several churches for close to two decades. There is no "hate" among christians for aitheists and all the churches I've been a part of have expressed hate for the sin, but not hate for the sinner.,.........and if you choose to continue in this, you love and make a lie, just like the politicians you despise!
   there is no inbread hatetred for aitheists.....in fact, it was christians who signed the bill of rights for freedom of religion, which includes the religion of atheism

----------


## beachmaster

> Hey beachmaster,
> 
> I was not directing my frustration at you.  
> 
> Sophocles is the one whose vulgarity I find disgusting and unnecessary.  I plan on responding to your posts later....
> 
> Can anyone explain to me how to put someone on "ignore?"


Well I was the one who brought up theonomy, so that's how I came to that conclusion.  Still, I see from previous posts that I have offended others by merely airing my thoughts.  Oh well, that's just how it goes.  I really don't get offended by theists until they suggest that I'm going to hell, or that they should have the right to tell me what to believe.  I don't deny that they have the right to say those things, but I have the right to tell them that they are offensive, just as you have the right to say that Sophocles or whoever is writing things offensive to you.  But being offended and being angry are two different things.  I get offended all the time, but it doesn't always follow that I must get angry about it.  I accept it as a part of life.

Now back to what I was saying earlier, about how some Christians are not satisfied that a person is merely a theist vs. an atheist, and how hypocritical I find that to be, it should be noted that many if not most Christians think that Jews are going to hell, and they will say offensive things to the Jews.  It's not that the practicing Jew is atheist by any means.  No, in fact, the believing Jew believes in the SAME GOD as the Christians, the God of the Old Testament.  They call him something different (Hashem - "the name").  They believe that Christians blaspheme God when they call him by a name such as Yahweh or Jehovah.  They believe in the same God however, and yet are still infidels worthy of hell because they do not believe in the same Messiah as the Christians.  They haven't been "washed in the blood".  They will tell the "wrong believing" Jew that they will be punished for their disbelief in Jesus as the Son of God.  It would be the same punishment presumably that the atheist will get  And yet they worshipped that same God (Jehovah, Yahweh or whatever you want to call it) long before Christians came around.  The Old Testament (Tanach) is THEIR BOOK for crying out loud!

Then you have Jehovah's witnesses.... believe in the same God but in a different and heretical way.  You've got the Mormons who believe in a master God... still not good enough because the evangelical will say they added to the scriptures with the Book of Mormon.  Still they are theists.  Theists who many Christians say will burn forever and ever in hell, right alongside the Atheist, Agnostic, Hindu, Wiccan, Muslim or Buddhist.  

Seventh Day Adventists and other groups have a great point in that evangelicals worship on the wrong day.  They say Sunday worship is a pagan rite, and the true believer worships on the 7th day, just as the Old Testament laws dictate, and rightly point out that nowhere in the New Testament was the day changed, nor nullified.  They point out that Jesus said as long as there is a heaven and earth, the law shall not pass away (even though Jesus himself apparently violated the sabbath).

Maybe you are different.  I don't know.  Do you believe that all Theists are ok, as opposed to atheists and agnostics?  Would you be okay with a theocratic government that had it's laws based on the Koran, or the Hindu Vedas, or the Book of Mormon?  If not, why not?  Can you prove that your belief system is superior to theirs?  Please don't answer that your vision of God and his system of salvation is superior because it is more loving, or provides a way for all men to be saved.  Other religions teach similar ideas in different ways.  The Muslim says all men will be saved eventually, at least most men.  Well maybe not all Muslims say that, but many do to my understanding.  Don't say that the Muslim way is proven to be wrong because their God is unjust for some reason, say the way women are treated in Muslim countries for one example.  They could justify their God's laws the same way the Old Testament theonomist justifies his God.  I'll re quote from a Christian Theonomist website that I brought up earlier.............





> http://www.reformed.org/ethics/index...ethics/GI.html
> 
> "Here is the rub. Theonomy poses for many today the specter of civil oppression. "If we go along with this," they seem to be saying, "then we'll end up persecuting -- yes, even killing -- people." And it is true that the death penalty was required for some things, under these laws, that are not so punished today. But the reader should take time to reflect on two things.
> 
> The first is that the Law of Moses came from Jehovah. We must therefore beware of taking a negative view of these holy precepts. *I may not understand why God required the punishment he did, but I have no right to set myself up as a judge of these laws.* No, a thousand times no. There is nothing in these laws unworthy of the true God. *If I have difficulty with them, the problem is in me -- not in these laws."*


You see, the Christian Theonomist justifies that which seems in his own mind to be immoral or evil, or at the minimum difficult to swallow, by claiming that the problem is in himself, not with God or his laws.  The Muslim can justify Allah's laws in the very same way.  If the Muslim has any difficulty with Allah's harsh punishments, the problem is not with Allah, it's with the believer.

Therefore, for the sake of argument let's assume that in the final tally, it turns out that there is in fact a God, and it is Allah, the god of Mohammed.  You die and you have to face him.  He declares that all along, you have been an infidel and are therefore worthy of being boiled in excrement (or whatever the punishment is).  Who would you be to argue with Allah?

So my thoughts are summed up by noting that the Christian theist is not happy with the idea of any old theistic idea, nor would he or she be happy with just any old Theonomic government.  Nope.  There's only one way and that's THEIR way, with THEIR God, and THEIR idea or interpretation of God's law, THEIR idea of how God should be obeyed.  All others can go to hell.

I am grateful that our founding fathers did not set up a theocracy!  That's what their fathers fled!

----------


## Macon, GA

Beachmaster.....  

The Founders inherited a nation founded by Christians and built on, to use a phrase from John Adams, “the general principles of Christianity.” Colonies became the states that created the national government. There was a worldview prior to 1787 that did not pass into oblivion when the Constitution was finally ratified in 1791. Many of the state constitutions were specifically Christian, and all were generally religious.  None of this changed with the ratification of the Constitution. In fact, today the 50 state constitutions mention God using various terms such as “Supreme Ruler of the Universe” and “Almighty God,” being the most common.  I imagine if I were to do some research in to the State Constitutions I might find some theocratic leanings (I will look in to this later),.

Beginning in 1774, Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the army. It sponsored the publication of a Bible. Christian morality was adopted by the armed forces, and public lands were made available to promote Christianity among the Indians. John Adams, representing Massachusetts, and George Washington, representing Virginia, were present. On March 16, 1776, “by order of Congress” a “day of Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer” where people of the nation were called on to “acknowledge the over ruling providence of God” and bewail their “manifold sins and transgressions, and, by a sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease his righteous displeasure, and, through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness.” 

Congress set aside December 18, 1777 as a day of thanksgiving so the American people “may express the grateful feelings of their hearts and consecrate themselves to the service of their divine benefactor” and on which they might “join the penitent confession of their manifold sins . . . that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of remembrance.” Congress also recommended that Americans petition God “to prosper the means of religion for the promotion and enlargement of that kingdom which consists in righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.” 

Just some interesting quotes:

John Adams and John Hancock: _We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus! [April 18, 1775]

John Adams:
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798

Charles Carroll - signer of the Declaration of Independence         "Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure...are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."

In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."
In 1787 when Franklin helped found Benjamin Franklin University, it was dedicated as "a nursery of religion and learning, built on Christ, the Cornerstone."

Alexander Hamilton:_• Hamilton began work with the Rev. James Bayard to form the Christian Constitutional Society to help spread over the world the two things which Hamilton said made America great:_(1) Christianity_(2) a Constitution formed under Christianity. _“The Christian Constitutional Society, its object is first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States.”

Patrick Henry:_"Orator of the Revolution." _• This is all the inheritance I can give my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.”_—The Last Will and Testament of Patrick Henry

Samuel Johnston:_• “It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans (Muslims), pagans, etc., may be elected to high offices under the government of the United States. Those who are Mahometans, or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the office of President or other high office, [unless] first the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves._[Elliot’s Debates, Vol. IV, pp 198-199, Governor Samuel Johnston, July 30, 1788 at the North Carolina Ratifying Convention]

James Madison_“ We’ve staked our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all of our heart.”
“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]_

At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22; _“For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, _the LORD is our king; _He will save us.”

Thomas Paine:_“ It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences, and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles: he can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author.” _“ The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools, in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only, has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of creation to the Creator himself, they stop short, and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of his existence. They labour with studied ingenuity to ascribe every thing they behold to innate properties of matter, and jump over all the rest by saying, that matter is eternal.” “The Existence of God--1810”

George Washington:

“ It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.”
“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.” [speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779]
"To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian" [May 2, 1778, at Valley Forge]
During his inauguration, Washington took the oath as prescribed by the Constitution but added several religious components to that official ceremony. Before taking his oath of office, he summoned a Bible on which to take the oath, added the words “So help me God!” to the end of the oath, then leaned over and kissed the Bible. _

I see an awful lot of Christianity present in the founding of our country....  Are you suggesting that it had no influence over the drafting of the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence? What about the State's Constitutions?

----------


## beachmaster

> I see an awful lot of Christianity present in the founding of our country....  Are you suggesting that it had no influence over the drafting of the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence? What about the State's Constitutions?


I've never said that Christians had no influence over the drafting of the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence.  Clearly many of the founders adhered to a form of Christianity.  Some no doubt would be classified by today's evangelical to be heretics.  Thom Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and others that I've quoted.  Some of the ones I've quoted before have said or written things that were antithetical to other things they've said, as you have pointed out.

However, in the end, it appears that Deism was more influential, for they kept the name Jesus out of the founding documents.  See the letter excerpt I quoted from Thomas Jefferson in previous post (re quoted below). 

And as you point out, they reference a nameless "Almighty God", or "Supreme Ruler of the Universe", terms that are not Christian, and can be appreciated by the Muslim, the Jew, the Christian, the Deist, and possibly the Pantheist.  

I'm unaware of any state constitutions which name Jesus, though there may be some.  If you know of any, please post.  I'll be sure not to live in such a state.  I believe in religious freedom and freedom from religion and certainly freedom from the tyranny of religious persecution.  How about you?


In case you missed this from my prior post, please comment on these statements from founding fathers:




> http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/s...7/secular.html
> 
> 
>     Washington revealed almost nothing to indicate his spiritual frame of mind, hardly a mark of a devout Christian.
> 
> -----------
> 
> *Adams, a Unitarian, flatly denied the doctrine of eternal damnation.* In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, he wrote:
> 
> ...



There are plenty more. And it's odd that you quote Thomas Paine, that "filthy little atheist" according to T. Roosevelt.  A deist, not an atheist.  And certainly not a Christian.


Comments on these quotes?

[Edit to add:  Oh yeah, that other Jefferson quote:  




> As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom:
> 
> "Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, *in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.*"


]

----------


## Macon, GA

When setting up the structure of our national government, what would you say the underlying moral structure was?  The Constitution was based upon law, and that law was founded upon biblical and Natural Law (thought by most to be Christian).  The institutions, the elected officials, and the foundational documents were to be under the "Higher Law" principles.  These "Higher Law" principles protected the people from an arbitrary law-system.  

The framers of the Constitution were aware that they were dealing with an overwhelmingly Christian people.  It would not have been possible for them to frame a document that would not be acceptable to the Christian beliefs of the people.

As a side note.... I did find where the Constitution affirms its Christian character and purpose.  

The seventh article declares it to be framed and adopted "by the unanimous consent of the States, the seventeenth day of September in the year of OUR LORD 1787, and of the Independence of the United States of America the twelfth."  The date of the Constitution is twofold:  first it is dated from the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, and then from the birth of our independence.  

The Constitution recognizes the "Christian Sabbath."

Article 1, section 7, says:

"If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law."  

We can see that it was presumed by the people that the President of the United States would not employ himself in public business on Sunday...  The obligation on the President to respect the observance of Sunday is greatly superior to any which could have been created by a constitutional enactment.

I threw in the Thomas Paine quote, to show that even a non-Christian sees the absurdity in Evolution... He acknowledges a Creator.

I am off to exercise....  will check back in later.

Also,  do you or any others here know how to work the "ignore" feature.  I am not very computer savvy.

----------


## Theocrat

> Nobody is claiming they were all deists.  Some were.  Some were Christian, and among those were some like John Adams who was a Unitarian who denied hell among other things.
> 
> http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/s...7/secular.html
> 
> Washington revealed almost nothing to indicate his spiritual frame of mind, hardly a mark of a devout Christian.
> -----------
> 
> Adams, a Unitarian, flatly denied the doctrine of eternal damnation. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, he wrote:
> 
> ...


Thank you for the link, but it seems to me the author of that article has some misunderstandings about the Treaty of Tripoli. He tries to use the Treaty of Tripoli to prove that our Founding Fathers (which, by the way, includes many more than just George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and James Madison) were not Christian as well as our country not being based on Christian principles. There's a whole entire context surrounding the Treaty of Tripoli that he's forgetting. You can read more about that here.

The fact of the matter is that I can give you other quotes from the Founders mentioned in that article that would show they were Christians, but those would be of no profit to you because you simply would not just brush them off and not believe them.




> Christians can't even agree on absolute truth. Is it a sin to lie? To drink? To gamble? On these and many other issues, Christians disagree. Some say it's a sin to lie, unless you are protecting the life of another. Some say it's a sin to kill, unless you are killing for your country. Some say it's godly to always obey the governing authorities as per Romans 13, others say no, it would be wrong to obey Hitler or Mao.


Christians may not agree on every doctrine taught in the Holy Bible collectively, but we all still agree that the Bible is *absolutely* God's word, and when we argue our different beliefs to one another, at least we have the Bible as a basis for establishing our arguments. "Atheists," on the other hand, are just arbitrary when they argue *anything* they believe because they make themselves the standard of what's right and wrong.




> A theocracy means that a certain brand of religion will dominate all others, and will enforce IT'S translation of biblical law on others, even non believers. Did you know that there are groups under the labels of Theonomy, Dominionist, and/or Reformed theology which want to make the Old Testament the law of the land? I'm sure you do know this. I wouldn't be surprised a bit if you were among their ranks.


You're correct that I am a theonomist, dominionist, and adhere to Reformed theology. That's nothing to be ashamed of, either. I share the same sentiments about this as *Macon, GA* (just read his response, #314 on this forum thread).




> Did you ever notice that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution don't name a god nor a messiah/christ? Neither mandate worship of a god either. In fact the Constitution is clear that this is outside of the bounds of government. The "god" that is mentioned in the Declaration is a God of Nature. A Pantheist as myself can believe in such a God. So can a Deist. You got a problem with that?


What's your point? Did you know that neither the Declaration of Independence nor the U.S. Constitution state that *America is a secular nation because there is no God that mankind is responsible to, and science is all that matters in knowing how the universe works*?

You have to understand how the Founders understood God, and the majority of them held to the Christian conception of God, like Samuel Adams, Charles Carroll, William Cushing, John Dickinson, John Hancock, Patrick Henry, John Jay, and many others.




> Bull$#@!. Ron Paul would NOT want to change our Constitution to reflect Christian Theonomy/Theocracy. I have followed Ron Paul for over 20 years and I know that he stands for religious freedom. Yes, he's a Christian but he doesn't wear it on his sleeve. Yes, he believes that rights come from God. But he also agrees that among those rights are Life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of Happiness (we have the right to pursue religion, spirituality, philosophy, or the absense of those as WE see fit to make us free and happy). I would not be happy under a theocracy Mr. Theocrat.


I've visited Congressman Paul before in his office in Washington, D.C. last year, and you know what I found out, beachmaster? He's actually read many works from theonomists like R.J. Rushdoony and Gary North, and he told me that he found their writings to be quite interesting, especially in their economic formulations! He didn't consider their works a threat to constitutional republicanism. So, you don't know for sure that Dr. Paul would not change the Constitution to reflect Christian Theonomy/Theocracy. He even believes the Constitution was *divinely inspired*!

By the way and with all due respect, your happiness is really *irrelevant* in a theocracy, beachmaster, where God is the source of law. Where there is the rule of law by an absolute standard (God's revelation), the only happiness that matters is our obedience to that law in order to ensure peace, prosperity, and preservation of God-given rights to all citizens.





> Ok, so what day of the week is the sabbath on?


Simply put, the Christian sabbath is on Sunday, the first day of the week because that's the day Jesus Christ rose from the dead, and it's also where we see in the New Testament era of history, according to the Scriptures, the apostles and disciples of Christ (1st Century Church) worshipping and fellowshipping God. Does that satisfy you?




> Are you saying you won't stone me?


No, I won't stone you. I still love you, O pantheist supporter of Congressman Paul.

----------


## Theocrat

> I shall not convert you at the end of my argument. I think the argument is sound. I hold that belief in God is not merely as reasonable as other belief, or even a little or infinitely more probably true than other belief; I hold rather that unless you believe in God you can logically believe in nothing else. But since I believe in such a God, a God who has conditioned you as well as me, I know that you can to your own satisfaction, by the help of the biologists, the psychologists, the logicians, and the Bible critics reduce everything I have said this afternoon and evening to the circular meanderings of a hopeless authoritarian. Well, my meanderings have, to be sure, been circular; they have made everything turn on God. So now I shall leave you with Him, and with His mercy.
> 
> The End


Wow! I love that quote, Macon, GA. Dr. Van Til rocks!

----------


## Theocrat

> Hey beachmaster,
> 
> I was not directing my frustration at you.  
> 
> Sophocles is the one whose vulgarity I find disgusting and unnecessary.  I plan on responding to your posts later....
> 
> Can anyone explain to me how to put someone on "ignore?"


You have to forgive sophocles07 in his vulgarity, Macon, GA. He has such a difficult time controlling those electrochemical processes in his brain as well as those random gene sequences in his DNA which cause him to act and speak in such a manner.  Then again, what can you expect from a person who believes we're all nothing more than just evolved animals from inorganic matter and impersonal forces in nature by means of natural selection? In the end, rationality and respect are moot for him, my friend.

----------


## Macon, GA

Theocrat....  

I could tell that we were like minded.

I am still trying to figure out how to place Sophocles on ignore.  While I enjoy this discussion, including his/her input, I am not interested in reading any more of his/her vile comments about Jesus.

I am still laughing about the title of this thread...  It seems to me that the atheists hate the theists much more than the theist hate the atheists.  

Your SISTER..... 

Macon

----------


## sophocles07

> I came on here expecting to read some good debating, and what I find disgusts me. 
> 
> If theists do hate atheists, it could be because of your willingness to make some of the remarks found in the above posts, which are disgusting, offensive, and sickening with no consideration of others.


Jesus having sex is offensive?




> Among most atheists and theists, there is no common ground to be found. We are diametrically opposed in our world view and presuppositions. It becomes hard to even relate to one another. As evidenced in the above posts, many of you are incredibly angry and hostile. Sarcasm drips from your posts. You are intolerant of Christians while demanding that they tolerate you.... Incredible. The guilty dog usually howls the loudest.


I really think you need to consider that we are mostly responding to “Theocrat”.  He’s violently theocratic, and (apparently) insane.  I don’t think I’ve responded to your posts in the same manner, because you don’t tell me your beliefs “should be the law.”




> Don't worry though, I don't have any plans to "burn down" any professing atheist's house.... or bomb any abortion clinics. I will just keep plugging along, educating my children and teaching them God's Laws, which in turn will be taught to the next generation, and the next generation, and the next generation.


Self-righteous twaddle, anyone? 




> Man's choice is between theonomy and autonomy, God's Law versus self-law. Fallen man will only create laws and societies which, in their developed form, amplify man's sin. When man exalts his own laws above God's Law, tyranny is inevitable. We see it evidenced in America today. Tyranny is rule without God, and America is quickly moving into statist tyranny. Ask yourself, "Why?"


Your choice is between a man-made “God’s” law or non-deluded man-made law.  That’s it.  




> The Founders inherited a nation founded by Christians and built on, to use a phrase from John Adams, “the general principles of Christianity.” Colonies became the states that created the national government. There was a worldview prior to 1787 that did not pass into oblivion when the Constitution was finally ratified in 1791. Many of the state constitutions were specifically Christian, and all were generally religious. None of this changed with the ratification of the Constitution. In fact, today the 50 state constitutions mention God using various terms such as “Supreme Ruler of the Universe” and “Almighty God,” being the most common. I imagine if I were to do some research in to the State Constitutions I might find some theocratic leanings (I will look in to this later),.


This is utter nonsense.  Of course, many were Christians, and I’ve posted Jefferson’s praise of Jesus’ MORAL SYSTEM; he also, and he won out in this respect, wanted no religion governing the laws.  He reviewed PAGAN philosophers, JEWISH moral systems, and CHRISTIAN moral systems, and took the best and discarded the rest—see his thoughts on what he calls the “fable” of the virgin birth.

But then I see you probably proceeded in searching some Christian site for “founders’ quotes”.  Good job.




> The Constitution was based upon law, and that law was founded upon biblical and Natural Law (thought by most to be Christian).


It was just as much based in the Roman pagan system, where LAW was the supreme ruler.




> I am still trying to figure out how to place Sophocles on ignore. While I enjoy this discussion, including his/her input, I am not interested in reading any more of his/her vile comments about Jesus.


God damn you are a whiny little pussy.

----------


## Theocrat

> Quote:
> As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom:
> 
> "Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."
> Smoke that!
> 
> THIS should KILL the arguments of Theocrat once and for all.


Oh, oh, you...got...me. Aaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrggggggggghhhhhhh....uhhhhhhhhh.

*_Resurrection_*

You think only *Thomas Jefferson* has authority to speak on matters of Christianity in matters of American jurisprudence? Take this, O sophocles07:

_I . . . recommend my Soul to that Almighty Being who gave it, and my body I commit to the dust, relying upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins._ (Will of Samuel Adams) - Samuel Adams, *Father of the American Revolution and Signer of the Declaration of Independence*

_On the mercy of my Redeemer I rely for salvation and on His merits; not on the works I have done in obedience to His precepts._ (From an autographed letter in our possession written by Charles Carroll to Charles W. Wharton, Esq., on September 27, 1825, from Doughoragen, Maryland.) - Charles Carroll, *Signer of the Declaration of Independence*

_Sensible of my mortality, but being of sound mind, after recommending my soul to Almighty God through the merits of my Redeemer and my body to the earth . . ._ (Will of William Cushing) - William Cushing, *First Associate Justice Appointed by George Washington to the Supreme Court*

_Rendering thanks to my Creator for my existence and station among His works, for my birth in a country enlightened by the Gospel and enjoying freedom, and for all His other kindnesses, to Him I resign myself, humbly confiding in His goodness and in His mercy through Jesus Christ for the events of eternity._ (Will of John Dickinson) - John Dickinson, *Signer of the Constitution*

_I John Hancock, . . . being advanced in years and being of perfect mind and memory-thanks be given to God-therefore calling to mind the mortality of my body and knowing it is appointed for all men once to die [Hebrews 9:27], do make and ordain this my last will and testamentPrincipally and first of all, I give and recommend my soul into the hands of God that gave it: and my body I recommend to the earth . . . nothing doubting but at the general resurrection I shall receive the same again by the mercy and power of God. . ._ (Will of John Hancock) - John Hancock, *Signer of the Declaration of Independence*

_This is all the inheritance I can give to my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed._ (Will of Patrick Henry) - Patrick Henry, *Governor of Virginia and a Patriot*

_Unto Him who is the author and giver of all good, I render sincere and humble thanks for His manifold and unmerited blessings, and especially for our redemption and salvation by His beloved son. He has been pleased to bless me with excellent parents, with a virtuous wife, and with worthy children. His protection has companied me through many eventful years, faithfully employed in the service of my country; His providence has not only conducted me to this tranquil situation but also given me abundant reason to be contented and thankful. Blessed be His holy name!_ (Will of John Jay) - John Jay, *First Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court*

_In the name of God, Amen. I, Daniel of Saint Thomas Jenifer . . . of dispossing mind and memory, commend my soul to my blessed Redeemer. . ._ (Will of Daniel St. Thomas Jenifer) - Daniel St. Thomas Jenifer, *Signer of the Constitution*

_First, I think it proper to express my unshaken opinion of the immortality of my soul or mind; and to dedicate and devote the same to the supreme head of the Universe  to that great and tremendous Jehovah,  Who created the universal frame of nature, worlds, and systems in number infinite . . . To this awfully sublime Being do I resign my spirit with unlimited confidence of His mercy and protection . . ._ (Will of Henry Knox) - Henry Knox, *Revolutionary War General and Secretary of War*

_In the name of God, Amen. I, John Langdon, . . . considering the uncertainty of life and that it is appointed unto all men once to die [Hebrews 9:27], do make, ordain and publish this my last will and testament in manner following, that is to say-First: I commend my soul to the infinite mercies of God in Christ Jesus, the beloved Son of the Father, who died and rose again that He might be the Lord of the dead and of the living . . . professing to believe and hope in the joyful Scripture doctrine of a resurrection to eternal life . . ._ (Will of John Langdon) - John Langdon, *Signer of the Constitution*

_With an awful reverence to the great Almighty God, Creator of all mankind, I, John Morton . . . being sick and weak in body but of sound mind and memory-thanks be given to Almighty God for the same, for all His mercies and favors-and considering the certainty of death and the uncertainty of the times thereof, do, for the settling of such temporal estate as it hath pleased God to bless me with in this life . . ._ (Will of John Morton) - John Morton, *Signer of the Declaration of Independence*

_I desire to bless and praise the name of God most high for appointing me my birth in a land of Gospel Light where the glorious tidings of a Savior and of pardon and salvation through Him have been continually sounding in mine ears._ (Robert Treat Paine, The Papers of Robert Treat Paine, Stephen Riley and Edward Hanson, editors (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1992), Vol. I, p. 48, March/April, 1749.) - Robert Treat Paine, *Signer of the Declaration of Independence*

_To the eternal, immutable, and only true God be all honor and glory, now and forever, Amen!. . ._ (Will of Charles Cotesworth Pinckney) - Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, *Signer of the Constitution*

_[F]irst, I give my soul to a holy, sovereign God Who gave it in humble hope of a blessed immortality through the atonement and righteousness of Jesus Christ and the sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit. My body I commit to the earth to be buried in a decent Christian manner. I fully believe that this body shall, by the mighty power of God, be raised to life at the last day; 'for this corruptable (sic) must put on incorruption and this mortal must put on immortality.' [I Corinthians 15:53]_ (Will of Rufus Putnam) - Rufus Putnam, *Revolutionary War General and First Surveyor General of the United States*

_My only hope of salvation is in the infinite, transcendent love of God manifested to the world by the death of His Son upon the cross. Nothing but His blood will wash away my sins. I rely exclusively upon it. Come, Lord Jesus! Come quickly!_ (Benjamin Rush, The Autobiography of Benjamin Rush, George Corner, editor (Princeton: Princeton University Press for the American Philosophical Society, 1948), p. 166, Travels Through Life, An Account of Sundry Incidents & Events in the Life of Benjamin Rush.) - Benjamin Rush, *Signer of the Declaration of Independence*

_I believe that there is one only living and true God, existing in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. . . . that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are a revelation from God. . . . that God did send His own Son to become man, die in the room and stead of sinners, and thus to lay a foundation for the offer of pardon and salvation to all mankind so as all may be saved who are willing to accept the Gospel offer._ (Lewis Henry Boutell, The Life of Roger Sherman (Chicago: A. C. McClurg and Company, 1896), pp. 272-273.) - Roger Sherman, *Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Signer of the Constitution*

_I think it proper here not only to subscribe to the entire belief of the great and leading doctrines of the Christian religion, such as the Being of God, the universal defection and depravity of human nature, the divinity of the person and the completeness of the redemption purchased by the blessed Savior, the necessity of the operations of the Divine Spirit, of Divine Faith, accompanied with an habitual virtuous life, and the universality of the divine Providence, but also . . . that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom; that the way of life held up in the Christian system is calculated for the most complete happiness that can be enjoyed in this mortal state; that all occasions of vice and immorality is injurious either immediately or consequentially, even in this life; that as Almighty God hath not been pleased in the Holy Scriptures to prescribe any precise mode in which He is to be publicly worshiped, all contention about it generally arises from want of knowledge or want of virtue._ (Will of Richard Stockton) - Richard Stockton, *Signer of the Declaration of Independence*

_Principally and first of all, I bequeath my soul to God the Creator and Giver thereof, and body to the Earth . . . nothing doubting but that I shall receive the same again at the General Resurrection thro the power of Almighty God; believing and hoping for eternal life thro the merits of my dear, exalted Redeemer Jesus Christ._ (Will of Jonathan Trumbull) - Jonathan Trumbull, *Governor of Connecticut and a Patriot*

[I]I entreat you in the most earnest manner to believe in Jesus Christ, for there is no salvation in any other [Acts 4:12]. . . . _f you are not reconciled to God through Jesus Christ, if you are not clothed with the spotless robe of His righteousness, you must forever perish._ (John Witherspoon, The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), Vol. V, pp. 276, 278, The Absolute Necessity of Salvation Through Christ, January 2, 1758.) - John Witherspoon, *Signer of the Declaration of Independence*

Now, what about *these* Founders (and there's many more just like them)? You think their Christian religious dictates had no bearing on how they viewed law and politics in American jurisprudence? You'd be very mistaken, sophocles07. Thomas Jefferson does not have the final say in matters of the Christian religion in politics, especially when it comes to the Bill of Rights that he had nothing to do with in the first place.




> Bongs of course are prohibited by a theocratic nation.


Actually, you'd be surprised to know that, as a theocrat, I'm not against marijuana in the least bit. I think it serves some very good purposes, especially in medicines and clothing I would even say smoking it is okay, as long as it's done in moderation, just like drinking alcohol. The Bible doesn't prohibit these things, but it does speak against not having a sober mind and drunkenness, which both come from smoking marijuana and drinking in excess, respectively.

----------


## sophocles07

> Actually, you'd be surprised to know that, as a theocrat, I'm not against marijuana in the least bit. I think it serves some very good purposes, especially in medicines and clothing I would even say smoking it is okay, as long as it's done in moderation, just like drinking alcohol. The Bible doesn't prohibit these things, but it does speak against not having a sober mind and drunkenness, which both come from smoking marijuana and drinking in excess, respectively.


Good to know we can at least get high while we’re our liberties trampled on.

Also, as far as I can tell, the quotes provided nothing that has any effect on the governance of the nation.  You’ve posted mostly personal expressions of Christianity.  

I’ve also already stated that many were Christians.  It doesn’t mean they wanted a theocracy.

----------


## Theocrat

> Hes violently theocratic, and (apparently) insane.  I dont think Ive responded to your posts in the same manner, because you dont tell me your beliefs should be the law.


(Lol) I'm "violently theocratic"?! How so? Whom have I killed because they don't believe as I do, pray tell?

I never said *my beliefs* should be the law. You're looking at it from the wrong angle, sophocles07. I said *God's law* should be the standard of law, by means of His own revelation to mankind, the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.

By the way, you want to force people to believe as you do just as much as you claim I do. You refuse to have any acknowledgment whatsoever of God (as understood in the Bible) in any level of constitutional government. What you fail to realize is by doing this, you're imposing law that is separated completely from God, which is an establishment of "atheism" in law, politics, and the philosophy of civil government as a whole. There is *no neutrality*.

----------


## sophocles07

> (Lol) I'm "violently theocratic"?! How so? Whom have I killed because they don't believe as I do, pray tell?


I didn’t mean literal violence, idiot; of course, the order you support would be a very violent one.




> I never said my beliefs should be the law. You're looking at it from the wrong angle, sophocles07. I said God's law should be the standard of law, by means of His own revelation to mankind, the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.


Yes, that’s the same thing as saying your beliefs should be the law.  You seem to be unable to grasp this: you only BELIEVE it is God’s law; which means you’re really calling for your BELIEFS to become the law.




> By the way, you want to force people to believe as you do just as much as you claim I do. You refuse to have any acknowledgment whatsoever of God (as understood in the Bible) in any level of constitutional government. What you fail to realize is by doing this, you're imposing law that is separated completely from God, which is an establishment of "atheism" in law, politics, and the philosophy of civil government as a whole. There is no neutrality.


This is ridiculous.

I can’t believe there still exists such a mentality in the US.

----------


## WilliamC

> I didn’t mean literal violence, idiot; of course, the order you support would be a very violent one.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that’s the same thing as saying your beliefs should be the law.  You seem to be unable to grasp this: you only BELIEVE it is God’s law; which means you’re really calling for your BELIEFS to become the law.
> 
> 
> 
> This is ridiculous.
> ...


I just don't know why he doesn't join Huckabee's army.

Huckabee wants to amend the Constitution to more closely fit gods law.

Theocrat would be a good addition to his team.

----------


## Theocrat

> I didnt mean literal violence, idiot; of course, the order you support would be a very violent one.


Do you even know how to have a discussion or argument with someone without being vulgar or personally insulting them, sophocles07? How old are you, 13 or something?




> Yes, thats the same thing as saying your beliefs should be the law. You seem to be unable to grasp this: you only BELIEVE it is Gods law; which means youre really calling for your BELIEFS to become the law.


God's law is God's law, whether I, you, or anyone else believes it to be so because it is *objectively true*. I don't just *believe* it to be so; I *know* it's the truth.

Let me ask you something. Do you want your beliefs to become the law? If not, then who's beliefs should be the basis of all law?




> This is ridiculous.
> 
> I cant believe there still exists such a mentality in the US.


*By what standard* are my beliefs or thoughts ridiculous, O wise one of rationality?

You may not believe such mentality as my own exists in the U.S., but what can you do about it, sophocles07? Bitch and whine, like an ungrateful wife?

----------


## sophocles07

> Do you even know how to have a discussion or argument with someone without being vulgar or personally insulting them, sophocles07? How old are you, 13 or something?


If we were going to have a real debate, you’d go back to my original arguments and make some sort of counterargument.  You have not done so, and past 30 pages of your sophistry has tired me out of “civility.”




> God's law is God's law, whether I, you, or anyone else believes it to be so because it is objectively true. I don't just believe it to be so; I know it's the truth.


Then you are a 

$#@!ing psycho.




> Let me ask you something. Do you want your beliefs to become the law? If not, then who's beliefs should be the basis of all law?


Rationality and basic human ethical standards.  

It’s true I want my beliefs to come into law—as allowing everyone the freedom to believe whatever they want.  NOT to enforce that everyone be an agnostic or atheist.

----------


## Theocrat

> If we were going to have a real debate, youd go back to my original arguments and make some sort of counterargument.  You have not done so, and past 30 pages of your sophistry has tired me out of civility.


I think I've dealt with your arguments already, sophocles07. You're just too arbitrary in your argumentation. You beg questions, attack your opponents personally (calling them idiots, psychos, etc.) and go down "rabbit trails." If you want, you can present them to me again, and I'll try to reexamine what your points are and respond as cogently and truthfully as I can.




> Then you are a
> 
> $#@!ing psycho.


Yeah, way to deal with my propositions there, sophocles07.  Real rational, you are...





> Rationality and basic human ethical standards.
> 
> Its true I want my beliefs to come into lawas allowing everyone the freedom to believe whatever they want. NOT to enforce that everyone be an agnostic or atheist.


Could you be more specific about "basic human ethical standards"?

You would allow everyone the freedom to believe whatever they want? What about the person who believes that everyone *does not* have the freedom to believe whatever *they want*? If you say yes, then that belief overrides your own because you couldn't believe whatever you wanted due to the other person's belief that you don't have the freedom to do so. On the other hand, if you say no, then your belief simply refutes itself.

----------


## sophocles07

> I think I've dealt with your arguments already, sophocles07. You're just too arbitrary in your argumentation. You beg questions, attack your opponents personally (calling them idiots, psychos, etc.) and go down "rabbit trails." If you want, you can present them to me again, and I'll try to reexamine what your points are and respond as cogently and truthfully as I can.


I’m not digging through this 34 page thread for the arguments.  You’ve probably read them several times; they involved the fact that abstract thought (what you referred to as “nonphysical entities” or something of that sort) is impossible without the material world it is grounded in, and that there being abstract thought or conception does not necessitate a Godhead. 

Your reply was to ask if chemicals could emote, or something to that effect, which is a stupid question.




> Yeah, way to deal with my propositions there, sophocles07.  Real rational, you are...


Your “proposition” was based in an utter irrationality.

“This is God’s Law because it says it’s God’s Law; it’s an objective truth that it is God’s Law because it says it’s God’s Law.”

There is no way to be rational in response to this; it makes argument impossible because it is clear you have departed so far from reason.

OBJECTIVE truth having to be VERIFIED and all.  

Can you read Hebrew, Aramaic, or koine Greek, THEOCRAT?




> Could you be more specific about "basic human ethical standards"?


Don’t hurt other people, don’t steal $#@!, etc.  See George Carlin’s deconstruction of the Ten Commandments.  Basically the Ten Commandments whittled down to the basic, non-mystical.




> You would allow everyone the freedom to believe whatever they want? What about the person who believes that everyone does not have the freedom to believe whatever they want? If you say yes, then that belief overrides your own because you couldn't believe whatever you wanted due to the other person's belief that you don't have the freedom to do so. On the other hand, if you say no, then your belief simply refutes itself.


You can believe it; it’s not going to matter though.  Unless you can convince enough people to aid in making a psychotic belief law.

----------


## Macon, GA

The freedom for everyone to believe what they want... and act upon their impulses with no consequences.  Because after all, WE decide right and wrong as individuals.

I guess Dahmer, Hitler and Manson could be productive members of this type of society.

----------


## sophocles07

> The freedom for everyone to believe what they want... 
> 
> I guess Dahmer, Hitler and Manson would be productive members of this type of society.


So YOU OPPOSE THE FREEDOM OF CITIZENS TO BELIEVE WHAT THEY WANT?

----------


## Cinnaboo

rofl

rofl


rofl

----------


## american.swan

I refused to read this thread for quite some time solely based on the title.  I am a theist and know many creationist professors in biology and physics.  

I feel that evolution is also a type of religion.  Carbon-14 dating seems suspect to me.  It takes a lot of faith in my mind to believe that a person came from a monkey, especially sense there is no evidence of a half-human monkey anywhere.

Intolerance is a huge problem among the people of the world.  The ability to agree to disagree is very important.  Theist and Atheist are both trying to explain their past and that is fine.   Biblically, God gave humans freedom.  The power to think and to do.  The power of choice.  God forcing obedience would be contrary to His character.  What would it prove to the universe at large if God forced us to love Him?  

Honestly, who has the time to read this long thread?  Shouldn't it have ended a long time ago with a simple agreement that all abuse is wrong and that tolerance should be cultivated?

Schools should be controlled locally, but beyond that, schools shouldn't be provided by the government anyways.  Apprenticeships should be the way to go.  Why argue over what should be taught in schools when the schools shouldn't be run by the government in the first place?

----------


## sophocles07

Evolution doesn't say we "came from monkies."

Can you provide me with some names of "Creationist professors" so I could see what they say on the subject?

----------


## Theocrat

> Your proposition was based in an utter irrationality.


On what grounds were my propositions based in "utter irrationality," sophocles07?




> This is Gods Law because it says its Gods Law; its an objective truth that it is Gods Law because it says its Gods Law.
> 
> There is no way to be rational in response to this; it makes argument impossible because it is clear you have departed so far from reason.


Think of it another way. Maybe you can't respond to my statements because you lack an understanding of what transcendental truths are, and you reject absolute truth.

Once again, given the materialistic presuppositions of your "atheistic" worldview, how can chemicals and cells reason in and of themselves? You still have not answered that question, sophocles07, and I don't think you can.




> Can you read Hebrew, Aramaic, or koine Greek, THEOCRAT?


I can read some Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, but I don't see how this is relevant to our discussion here. If by your question you're trying to imply that we as Christians cannot understand God's revelation unless we know the original languages it was written in, then I think you have a great misunderstanding of Who the God of the Bible is. Since God created all languages, He most certainly can communicate to any tribe, nation, or family on this Earth, being an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent Being no matter what the language of a people are. Read the Acts 2 and Acts 17 for more information about that.




> Dont hurt other people, dont steal $#@!, etc. See George Carlins deconstruction of the Ten Commandments. Basically the Ten Commandments whittled down to the basic, non-mystical.


I think those are excellent standards to live by, sophocles07. It's just too bad you refuse to acknowledge the God Who has written those moral standards upon your heart.

By the way, I'm going to have to pull one of your techniques by calling George Carlin a "$#@!ing idiot." I've watched his little charade on the Ten Commandments, and all I have to say about him is I hope he looks both ways the next time he crosses a street...




> You can believe it; its not going to matter though. Unless you can convince enough people to aid in making a psychotic belief law.


I have an interesting question for you, sophocles07. Are people who believe that it's okay to hurt other people, steal from other people, etc. allowed to believe and live whatever they want to? If not, then who are you to stop or limit their freedoms?

----------


## sophocles07

> On what grounds were my propositions based in "utter irrationality," sophocles07?


I explained immediately after I said that how they were utterly irrational.  

AS IN “they lack any semblance of rational thought.”




> Think of it another way. Maybe you can't respond to my statements because you lack an understanding of what transcendental truths are, and you reject absolute truth.


Define absolute truth.

You said objective truth.  How is something unverifiable ever objective truth?




> Once again, given the materialistic presuppositions of your "atheistic" worldview, how can chemicals and cells reason in and of themselves? You still have not answered that question, sophocles07, and I don't think you can.


Nor have I claimed the chemicals and cells “reason”.

And I have no clue why this matters.




> I can read some Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, but I don't see how this is relevant to our discussion here. If by your question you're trying to imply that we as Christians cannot understand God's revelation unless we know the original languages it was written in, then I think you have a great misunderstanding of Who the God of the Bible is.   Since God created all languages, He most certainly can communicate to any tribe, nation, or family on this Earth, being an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent Being no matter what the language of a people are. Read the Acts 2 and Acts 17 for more information about that.


I was just wondering if you had read it in the original.  Obviously, the translations were done by erring men and were not directly inspired by God, written “through” God, or however you’d like to phrase it.

Take the famous word translated “meek” in the King James version (Matthew 5:5).  Oi praeis.  This word appears throughout Greek literature, from Pindar to Aristotle and on and on.  The translation “meek” somewhat dislodges the original meaning of the word.  In Greek philosophy, the word we be have the sense of temperance or “mean”—just as the Delphi inscription tells us, meden agen.  “Nothing too much.”

This is one example of the slight alteration of meaning in translation.  You can easily look at all translation, especially that from Greek which was so different from our German-influenced English, from Homer to Euripides to whomever, and see that the original sound (which has a great importance in all writing), tone and meaning are changed, sometimes very slightly and sometimes very greatly.  

I would think that someone as interested as you are would want to get the thing _straight from the original_.  I do too, and I’m not even a Christian.  I can only read Greek though, and even that is difficult as I learned Attic and Doric dialects, but am not as familiar with the koine (common) Greek of the New Testament.

I don’t think we can just say “it doesn’t matter,” because it obviously does.  Human error down the centuries has obviously infected what you think of as “God’s word,” as human error would in all cases where copies of a text are passed down, recopied, reedicted, translated, retranslated, etc etc.  




> I think those are excellent standards to live by, sophocles07. It's just too bad you refuse to acknowledge the God Who has written those moral standards upon your heart.


Do I need a god to tell me not to kill someone?  




> By the way, I'm going to have to pull one of your techniques by calling George Carlin a "$#@!ing idiot." I've watched his little charade on the Ten Commandments, and all I have to say about him is I hope he looks both ways the next time he crosses a street...


I wouldn’t expect you to have a sense of humor.




> I have an interesting question for you, sophocles07. Are people who believe that it's okay to hurt other people, steal from other people, etc. allowed to believe and live whatever they want to? If not, then who are you to stop or limit their freedoms?


This is a simple-minded response, Theocrat.

Ron Paul’s been asked this question a million times.  He says there are strict boundaries that a libertarian draws: hurting others, damaging other peoples’ property, etc.  These things are not allowed.  You can believe what you want--you could believe it is ok to rape children--but it is NOT OK to actually do it.  This is Ron Paul 101, guy.

Are you saying Ron Paul is wrong?

----------


## beachmaster

> Christians may not agree on every doctrine taught in the Holy Bible collectively, but we all still agree that the Bible is *absolutely* God's word, and when we argue our different beliefs to one another, at least we have the Bible as a basis for establishing our arguments. "Atheists," on the other hand, are just arbitrary when they argue *anything* they believe because they make themselves the standard of what's right and wrong.


Theists are arbitrary.  They pick and choose which scriptures or doctrines apply.  For virtually every major doctrine a Christian may pull out of the bible, another Christian can espouse a contrary doctrine using the very same bible.  A classic case is Calvinism vs. Armenianism.  Trinity vs Oneness another.  And yes of course, each Christian can point to the other and say "They are not real Christians".  You can say that about Christians preaching other doctrines, many of which have to do with salvation and how it obtained.  History teaches us (well maybe not you) that these multiple understanding of the "scripture" lead to tyranny, torture, hatred, accusations of heresy, division, war, in essence a whole litany of negative outcomes.  And you claim you are not "arbitrary".  Bullbutter.

Atheists, Agnostics, Deists, and Pantheists do have a basis of standards with which to live by. One is the individual conscience.  The vast majority of people simply know that it's wrong to harm another outside of self defense.  They have history to study and by learning history they can use reason and common sense to determine what is good for society and the individual and find happy mediums to conclude what is right and what is wrong. 

You've still not answered many of my questions, such as is lying wrong?  If it is wrong, then why would Yahweh send lying spirits and strong delusion as sayeth the scriptures?

You still have not answered why your religion has any more credibility than other religions.  Do not the theists of Hinduism, Islam and Judaism flavors have just as much a right to have their religion's scriptures be used as the bases of a theocracy?  If not, why is that?  Who is being arbritrary here Theocrat?  I say live and let live, agree to disagree, and let everyone determine their own basis for living in peace and harmony with their fellow man, and let history, reason and common sense dictate what constitutes a crime.

You on the other hand insist that YOUR religion, YOUR understanding of the bible and, YOUR doctrines dictate how we should all live and what the government should use as it's standard in making and enforcing law.

Under your plan, not only Atheists, Agnostics, and Deists would be subject to your ideals, but so would Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, 7th Day Adventists, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, or any other type of Theist.

Who is being arbitrary here?





> You're correct that I am a theonomist, dominionist, and adhere to Reformed theology. That's nothing to be ashamed of, either. I share the same sentiments about this as *Macon, GA* (just read his response, #314 on this forum thread).


So as a Theonomist, do you advocate that all of the laws in the bible be enforced by the governments of the USA and the several States?  Yes or no?

Instead of going over every law written in the bible, laws which are purported to come from God... there are just so many of them.. how to treat your slaves, how to treat women, etc., so many that I could ask you to comment on as to their revelance in today's society, let's just keep it simple and stick for now with that most basic set of laws known as the 10 commandments.  Do you advocate that all law in the US and the several States bind the people to those laws?

*
“You shall have no other gods before me.”*

Do you advocate this be a law I should be bound to honor, and should it be enforced on me by the state with punishment proscribed by Yahweh?  If not the State, then who would enforce this law?

*“You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them"*

Same question... should the state enforce this law?  Should the state have the authority to come into my house to see if I have any idols?  Should the state be able to arrest me if I have a figurine of Buddha hanging from my rear view mirror?

Let's skip ahead to my favorite... 

*“Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates."*

Since there is no law anywhere in the bible that strikes this one down, nor any law that changes it in any way, I'll assume that this commandment should be taken as literally as possible... that no work is to be done on the 7th day of the week.  

Do you therefore advocate that in order to keep the law sacred, all commerce in the US should cease entirely on the sabbath day?  Again, who would you suggest enforce this law?

Let's see what the punishment was for violating the sabbath shall we?

Numbers 15:32-36

And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.

And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.

And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.

And the LORD said unto Moses, *The man shall be surely put to death*: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.

And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and *stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.* 
So to keep everything nice and holy, and in keeping the 10 commandments sacred, should it be law here in the US and the several States to bind the people to this law?  In many areas in the past (and still in the present in a few places), there are so called "blue laws" which call for stores to be closed or booze not to be sold on the 1st day of the week. Nowhere in the bible is the 1st day of the week referred to as the "sabbath" of course.  But for the sake of argument, say it was.... aren't the laws and enforcement thereof rather weak?  I've not heard of anyone being stoned to death because they violated the sabbath in modern times.  

Don't you think the sabbath laws need a little teeth?  

All of the laws... honor your mother and father (Jesus dishonored his mother by the way..."Woman, what have I to do with thee?"), coveting your neighbor's property (including his wife... clearly property under the biblical law)... should the US and the several States start putting teeth into enforcing these laws?

Who would be the arbiter of how the law is to be interpreted and enforced?  

Should the electric chair be replaced by stoning pits?  Under the bible, capital punishment was clearly to be carried out by stoning.  Not drowning, not burning, not clubbing... but stoning.  Shall this too be made policy in these United States?

If you don't advocate putting teeth into enforcing God's laws, then you are just spiritually jerking off aren't you?






> What's your point? Did you know that neither the Declaration of Independence nor the U.S. Constitution state that [B]America is a secular nation because there is no God that mankind is responsible to, and science is all that matters in knowing how the universe works?
> 
> You have to understand how the Founders understood God, and the majority of them held to the Christian conception of God, like Samuel Adams, Charles Carroll, William Cushing, John Dickinson, John Hancock, Patrick Henry, John Jay, and many others.



You have to understand that even if the majority of the founding fathers were Christian, they chose not to put Jesus' name into the Declaration and Constitution, and they would all tell you that all shall have equal rights... as T. Jefferson said, the Mohammedan, the Hindoo, the Deist, , infidels of all denominations.




> I've visited Congressman Paul before in his office in Washington, D.C. last year, and you know what I found out, beachmaster? He's actually read many works from theonomists like R.J. Rushdoony and Gary North, and he told me that he found their writings to be quite interesting, especially in their economic formulations! He didn't consider their works a threat to constitutional republicanism. So, you don't know for sure that Dr. Paul would not change the Constitution to reflect Christian Theonomy/Theocracy. He even believes the Constitution was *divinely inspired*!


Their works aren't truly threatening to me either, because it's all just religious masterbation.  It will never come to pass.  Paul and other Christians are welcome to believe that the Constitution was divinely inspired.  You are welcome to believe that too.  I'm ok with you believing whatever you want.  Just know that if you come to my door with an order to have me stoned for having an idol or violating the sabbath, you will be met with extreme force.  





> By the way and with all due respect, your happiness is really *irrelevant* in a theocracy, beachmaster, where God is the source of law.


Yes, in a theocracy you are right.  My happiness would be irrelevant.  Which is just another reason I would fight any attempt to bring such a tyrannical system to fruition.





> Where there is the rule of law by an absolute standard (God's revelation), the only happiness that matters is our obedience to that law in order to ensure peace, prosperity, and preservation of God-given rights to all citizens.


Does that include the laws about the rights (or lack thereof) that slaves have?  It's right there in the bible... shall I put forth some very embarrassing bible quotes for you to read?  

You think I would be happy having to cease virtually all activity on the sabbath day under threat of being stoned to death?  That's happiness?  One wonders what depression would be like under your utopia.





> Simply put, the Christian sabbath is on Sunday, the first day of the week because that's the day Jesus Christ rose from the dead, and it's also where we see in the New Testament era of history, according to the Scriptures, the apostles and disciples of Christ (1st Century Church) worshipping and fellowshipping God. Does that satisfy you?


Yeah right!  lol

First off, since we are discussing "God's law", please show me where the sabbath law was nullified?  Did Jesus ever say "I give you a new law, the sabbath shall be kept from henceforth on the 1st day of the week"?  Did Paul do that?  Peter?  John? Anyone?  No.

Second, have you ever heard the phrase "What would Jesus do?".  Sure you have.  Jesus kept the sabbath on the 7th day (well sometimes anyway... yes it's true he violated the law a little, but that's another story).  To be christlike, you must do as Christ did, walk as he walked.  

Third, there is a division among bible believers on this point.  I've been in 1st day sabbath congregations and 7th day sabbath congregations.  I know first hand all of the arguments both ways, and whilst still a believer, I easily saw that the sabbath wasn't changed.  Sure you can worship the Lord on any day of the week, including Sunday.  But the sabbath day was a day of rest.  It's a lot of work to get all the kiddies ready for church on Sunday, to get yourself all dressed up, and afterward to meet up with your fellow believers down at the Golden Coral, where you hire a company to feed you (which they do for profit).  Hardly can this be considered "keeping the sabbath day holy" wouldn't you agree (I'm sure you won't).

So who do you think should be the arbiter of this conflict?  You?




> No, I won't stone you. I still love you, O pantheist supporter of Congressman Paul.


I can't understand why you wouldn't advocate my stoning.  I violate the sabbath.  I have idols in my house (I don't worship them, so maybe I get a pass there).  Maybe you can explain how it is you want God's law enforced, but you are quick to let me slide if I violate them.  Don't you want God's law to have teeth man?

What about that commandment to honor your father and mother?  Should the victim of a pedophile father honor his father?  

What does God's law say about that?

I think you have a lot of explaining to do as to how your theocracy would operate, and who should arbitrate it.

Hey it's Sunday... have you been shopping or dining out today?  A capital offense you know!

----------


## WilliamC

> I refused to read this thread for quite some time solely based on the title.  I am a theist and know many creationist professors in biology and physics.  
> 
> I feel that evolution is also a type of religion.  Carbon-14 dating seems suspect to me.  It takes a lot of faith in my mind to believe that a person came from a monkey, especially sense there is no evidence of a half-human monkey anywhere.


Well...not entirely correct.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ns-chimps.html

Currently there is more similarity, on a genetic level, between chimpanzees and humans than there is between horses and donkeys. 

Even if the sperm/egg fertilization barrier would prevent in vivo fertilization between us and chimpanzees, it is very likely that if some sick individual injected human sperm into a chimpanzee egg (or vice versa) the resulting embryo would be viable and, if transplanted into a surrogate mother, could develop until birth.

Note this is not something I would be interested in actually being done. 




> Intolerance is a huge problem among the people of the world.  The ability to agree to disagree is very important.  Theist and Atheist are both trying to explain their past and that is fine.   Biblically, God gave humans freedom.  The power to think and to do.  The power of choice.  God forcing obedience would be contrary to His character.  What would it prove to the universe at large if God forced us to love Him?  
> 
> Honestly, who has the time to read this long thread?  Shouldn't it have ended a long time ago with a simple agreement that all abuse is wrong and that tolerance should be cultivated?


100% agree. However when some posters claim that I (or at least my ideas) should be destroyed and that I (or at least what I believe) should be made extinct, then I don't see that as being very tolerant.

It's actually provocatively threatening to be honest. 

And I do learn more from debating with those who disagree with me than I do in lecturing to those who agree with every word I say, so there is some small value to be had for participating in this type of thread. 




> Schools should be controlled locally, but beyond that, schools shouldn't be provided by the government anyways.  Apprenticeships should be the way to go.  Why argue over what should be taught in schools when the schools shouldn't be run by the government in the first place?


Again 100% agreement.

Even though I think evolution is as sound a scientific theory as the atomic theory or the theory of gravity, I wouldn't presume to force someone to learn it if they feel it somehow harms their religious beliefs.

Federal involvement in education is bad.

----------


## beachmaster

I've quoted from this article before... http://www.reformed.org/ethics/index...ethics/GI.html
which is entitled: *Some Thoughts on Theonomy by G. I. Williamson*

This writer seems to hover somewhere between theonomy and antitheonomy.  But he brings up some of the same points I bring up.  Amazing how a theist and an agnostic can agree on some things!!




> "Do I sound like I am on the theonomists' bandwagon? I am not. One thing that has forced me to be cautious is the *lack of consistency* on the part of theonomists. *Take, for instance, their view of the Sabbath. If I understand certain theonomists, they say there is not the same kind of continuity for this law as there is for the rest. But other theonomists take a sharply different view.*"


Again I ask (as I infer from this writer), WHO SHALL BE THE ARBITER OF WHAT GOD'S LAW SAYS??

More...




> I am not impressed, therefore, by the "fear" argument. I refer to the fear that *if the state adopted a biblical legal order, there might be a great slaughter.* Admittedly, there would be killing. But there is killing now -- and plenty of it. The fact that the carnage is hidden from view does not mean that there is no such thing. There is. So the question is not Shall there be killing? but rather, Who shall be killed? *Shall it be the innocent or the guilty?*


Guilty of what?  Violating the sabbath perchance?

Still more....




> Take homosexuality, for example. We all oppose it. But that is not all. We also cite the Old Testament to prove that we are right. In 1980 we (the Reformed Ecumenical Synod) declared all homosexual practice to be sin, and quoted Moses to prove it. What strikes me, then, is this: *we are all theonomists when it suits us.* The real issue, then, is not theonomy or no theonomy. *The issue is how consistent we are in applying these laws.*


Yes, exactly.  If you will be consistent, you will have a whole list of people to stone!  If you don't advocate the enforcement of biblical law, then why the hell are you even wasting your time jerking off?




> What we need, then, is to get away from mere reaction to the word theonomy. Instead, we need to get down to specifics. If you say you're a theonomist, fine but tell me (as Calvin did) what this particular case law means for today. *What is the principle in it, and how does it apply?* If you cannot do that, *then it is neither here nor there to me that you are a theonomist*.


Amen to that!

----------


## Tdcci

> I feel that evolution is also a type of religion.  Carbon-14 dating seems suspect to me.  It takes a lot of faith in my mind to believe that a person came from a monkey, especially sense there is no evidence of a half-human monkey anywhere.


This is a very common misconception. Humans have not evolved from the modern monkey you see today; we share a common ancestor (so we're more like cousins). See Evolution 101, already posted by the thread starter but bears repeating. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

----------


## WilliamC

> I have an interesting question for you, sophocles07. Are people who believe that it's okay to hurt other people, steal from other people, etc. allowed to believe and live whatever they want to?


Sounds like you just described a typical Washington, DC type politician.




> If not, then who are you to stop or limit their freedoms?


I want for a well-armed and well-educated populace to stop and limit their freedoms.

Preferably through voting them out of office.

Preferably, but not exclusively.

----------


## Theocrat

> I explained immediately after I said that how they were utterly irrational.  
> 
> AS IN they lack any semblance of rational thought.


Well, sophocles07, that's just your own *personal opinion*. I would say that most Christians who read those propositions of mine would conclude that they make rational sense. I was asking by *what standards or laws of reasoning* were you making the claim that my thoughts were "utterly irrational." Are these standards just your own personal feelings about what rational thought should be, or are they universal and independent laws of reasoning?




> Define absolute truth.
> 
> You said objective truth. How is something unverifiable ever objective truth?


Absolute truth is an eternal, true, and actual state of something or someone that conforms with reality and facts, and it is verifiable, indisputable, and immutable, not necessarily contingent upon universal human acceptance and emotion. Absolute truth and objective truth are interchangeable.

Your question assumes that the existence of God is unverifiable, therefore, it's not objectively true, but you couldn't be more wrong about this sophocles07. God reveals Himself *daily* to all of mankind, so that *no man is without excuse*. God does this in three ways: by His *creation* (general revelation), by the *human conscience* (the "heart" of men), and by His own *infallible, inspired, and inerrant Word* (specific revelation). So, it's not that God hasn't given men sufficient knowledge and resources to know Who He is; the problem is men *refuse to acknowledge God*, having these evidences, by *suppressing the truth in unrighteousness due to their love for themselves and sin itself* (the breaking of God's commandments).

So, the truth of God is verifiable, sophocles07. Just ask the billions of Christians in the world today who have been touched by God's word, felt God's presence by His Spirit, experienced life-changing miracles in their lives by God's power, and have received answers to their questions in scientific experimentation and analysis by God's wisdom in providence. No, God has made Himself plenty known to multitudes of people since the beginning of time, my friend.

There are some things which aren't immediately verifiable about God due to the immaterial or transcendental nature of God. Because God is a Spirit, you can't just go into a laboratory and run scientific methods on Him personally. I think that's what you mean when you say "God is unverifiable." His existence is in a totally different realm of knowledge and metaphysics than just testing the biological composition of a white rat in a lab.

But suffice it to say, that you can know absolutely and positively that God exists, and that's one of the reasons why I continue in this discussion on this forum thread. God has changed my life and brought me through so many things that I can't even count them. That's why I get frustrated when antitheists, such as you, ridicule, rail, and repudiate my God (revealing your *hatred for Him*) because He's verified Himself to me and other Christians over and over and over again, and He continues to do so. Rationally speaking, if there were no evidences for the existence of God, I would have relinquished my belief in Him a long time ago! But here I stand today, a theist who has been loved by God, protected by God, and made to live and think more like Him in my life. As Martin Luther once said, "I can do no other, and I will not recant."

So, what's your excuse, sophocles07?




> Nor have I claimed the chemicals and cells reason.
> 
> And I have no clue why this matters.


That would be the logical conclusion from what you believe, if I've understood you correctly. Do you believe man has a soul? If not, then where does reason, emotion, intellect, volition, etc. take place in human beings, according to your worldview of "atheism"? Where does the capacity for men to create constitutions, write books, and debate come from, if human beings do not have a soul (an immaterial being within themselves), sophocles07? That's why it matters.





> I was just wondering if you had read it in the original. Obviously, the translations were done by erring men and were not directly inspired by God, written through God, or however youd like to phrase it.
> 
> Take the famous word translated meek in the King James version (Matthew 5:5). Oi praeis. This word appears throughout Greek literature, from Pindar to Aristotle and on and on. The translation meek somewhat dislodges the original meaning of the word. In Greek philosophy, the word we be have the sense of temperance or meanjust as the Delphi inscription tells us, meden agen. Nothing too much.
> 
> This is one example of the slight alteration of meaning in translation. You can easily look at all translation, especially that from Greek which was so different from our German-influenced English, from Homer to Euripides to whomever, and see that the original sound (which has a great importance in all writing), tone and meaning are changed, sometimes very slightly and sometimes very greatly.
> 
> I would think that someone as interested as you are would want to get the thing straight from the original. I do too, and Im not even a Christian. I can only read Greek though, and even that is difficult as I learned Attic and Doric dialects, but am not as familiar with the koine (common) Greek of the New Testament.
> 
> I dont think we can just say it doesnt matter, because it obviously does. Human error down the centuries has obviously infected what you think of as Gods word, as human error would in all cases where copies of a text are passed down, recopied, reedicted, translated, retranslated, etc etc.


Lest I be mistaken, I do believe that it's important to get into the original languages when studying the Bible. Good exegesis of Scripture is necessary for this. However, I do not believe that every single word in an English translation needs to be doubted when reading it, either. For instance, when reading John 3:16 in the Bible, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life," I don't need to say, "What does 'For' mean in the Greek? What does 'God' mean in the Greek? What does 'so' mean in the Greek?" so on, and so forth.

As I've said before, God is perfectly capable of transmitting His thoughts to whatever family, tribe, or nation He wants in whatever language it is because He is powerful enough to do that. I also believe that God gifts His own people with the knowledge, wisdom, understanding, and discernment to read and translate His own word to the masses faithfully. This is one way God preserves His own word, which God has promised He would do unto eternity. And yes, God is powerful enough to overcome the errant infirmities of sinful men in order to do it. If He can create a universe by His own breath, overcome death on the Earth by resurrection, perform miraculous healings, etc., etc., then surely He can preserve His own word through inferior means, if it's His will. And He has. It would be foolish to consider the contrary.

But, I still agree with you that we should get into the original languages to get a better understanding of what's going on in a passage, if possible. But we as Christians do not hold to what I call "strict and exclusive purity of the original tongue" exegesis, like the medieval Roman Catholics with their Latin and the Muslims with their Arabic, which says that no one can fully understand God's revelation unless they know the original language. God gives us more liberty and variety as His people to study and live His word by the language He has us born under.




> Do I need a god to tell me not to kill someone?


Once again, you've missed the whole point, sophocles07. I'm saying that *without this God*, you wouldn't even know if it were wrong to murder someone! But since God has given you a conscience to know right from wrong, because He has written His law (think "Ten Commandments") upon your "heart," you can know and reason that it's bad to kill someone in an immoral way. You may not believe that, but the truth of it is not dependent upon your assent to it or lack thereof.

But it brings me back to an earlier question. If you believe that God does not give us a conscience to know right and wrong by writing His laws within our "hearts," then what is the original source within humans to know such things? Is it the chemicals inside us, the cells living in us, the synapses firing in our brains, the blood flowing from our hearts that gives us a "moral compass" by which we make rational and ethical choices and respond to them in our environment, given the presuppositions of your materialistic and "atheistic" worldview?




> I wouldnt expect you to have a sense of humor.


I have a sense of humor, but George Carlin is not funny. He's an irate, pompous, miserable, ignorant, hopeless, and cynical old fool. He meant what he said in his Ten Commandments skit, so he wasn't trying to be hilarious. Maybe he was being facetious about worshiping the sun, though.




> This is a simple-minded response, Theocrat.
> 
> Ron Pauls been asked this question a million times. He says there are strict boundaries that a libertarian draws: hurting others, damaging other peoples property, etc. These things are not allowed. You can believe what you want--you could believe it is ok to rape children--but it is NOT OK to actually do it. This is Ron Paul 101, guy.


When you say "You can believe what you want--you could believe it is ok to rape children--but it is NOT OK to actually do it," you're just *begging the question*, my friend. You have not established nor proven why it's wrong to rape children, especially within the context of your worldview which believes that men are just evolved *animals* by means of natural selection (the best of a species will survive by their superior gene speciation or adaptability to the environment). In nature, animals get raped all the time, so why should we as "evolved animals" stop that which is only a part of our "animal instincts"? Who made you the arbiter that raping children is morally wrong to act upon? What if my "animal instincts" lead me to "prey" upon this children in order to satisfy my own natural and sexual drive? Can you really answer that, sophocles07, and stay true to the tenets of your "atheism" without being arbitrary and inconsistent? At least I know why Dr. Paul believes these things are wrong, and that's because he believes in a God Who gives us our rights and gives us laws by which we should live. That is his belief as a Christian. So what's your excuse, sophocles07?

----------


## WilliamC

> When you say "You can believe what you want--you could believe it is ok to rape children--but it is NOT OK to actually do it," you're just *begging the question*, my friend. You have not established nor proven why it's wrong to rape children, especially within the context of your worldview which believes that men are just evolved *animals* by means of natural selection (the best of a species will survive by their superior gene speciation or adaptability to the environment). In nature, animals get raped all the time, so why should we as "evolved animals" stop that which is only a part of our "animal instincts"? Who made you the arbiter that raping children is morally wrong to act upon? What if my "animal instincts" lead me to "prey" upon this children in order to satisfy my own natural and sexual drive? Can you really answer that, sophocles07, and stay true to the tenets of your "atheism" without being arbitrary and inconsistent? At least I know why Dr. Paul believes these things are wrong, and that's because he believes in a God Who gives us our rights and gives us laws by which we should live. That is his belief as a Christian. So what's your excuse, sophocles07?


If you need god to tell you it is wrong to rape children then you're worse off than I thought 

For me it's simple. I don't want to be raped because I know it would harm me. 

Therefore I know it would be harmful to anyone were they raped.

I know I don't want my children harmed, therefore I know other people don't want their children to be harmed.

It's called empathy, something you seem to be lacking in if you honestly make arguments like those above. 

So please, keep your religion, since it seems to be the only thing which keeps children safe from you.

----------


## beachmaster

> If you need god to tell you it is wrong to rape children then you're worse off than I thought


Maybe he's like those "children of God" in times of old who had to be told that it was wrong to $#@! an animal.

*Leviticus 18:23 - Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.*


Gosh it's a good thing we have the bible to tell us that!  

Of course it also tells us the punishment... for both the human AND the innocent animal!

*Leviticus 20

 15 " 'If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal.

 16 " 'If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. 
*

Yep, kill the animal too.  As if it was guilty of a sin!  lol

Now we know, animals can sin too.  Too funny!

----------


## WilliamC

> Maybe he's like those "children of God" in times of old who had to be told that it was wrong to $#@! an animal.
> 
> *Leviticus 18:23 - Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.*
> 
> 
> Gosh it's a good thing we have the bible to tell us that!  
> 
> Of course it also tells us the punishment... for both the human AND the innocent animal!
> 
> ...


That's exactly my point. Anyone who needs some sort of magic rule book to know the difference between right and wrong is missing something inside themselves.

edit: I guess they kill the animals to scare the other animals into behaving?

If you've never come across this it may or may not be amusing, night vision footage of someone in Iraq doing exactly what Leviticus 18:23 says not to.


warning, graphic content

----------


## Mach

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."
-- Susan B. Anthony 1896

----------


## Theocrat

> If you need god to tell you it is wrong to rape children then you're worse off than I thought


You're right, WilliamC. I do need God to tell me it's wrong to rape children because of my sinful nature, but guess what. *So do you and all of mankind.* That's why God has given us a conscience to know right from wrong by means of His holy laws being "written on our hearts" (Romans 1:18-23; Romans 2:11-16).

In retrospect, I would say that it is *you* who is worse off than I. Just read John 5:22-29. I pray you hear and believe the Gospel before it's too late, my friend.




> For me it's simple. I don't want to be raped because I know it would harm me.


Yeah, try explaining that to a rapist. You see, the rapist himself may not want to be raped because he doesn't want to be harmed (as you've mentioned), but *that still does not stop him from raping another person*. My point is in a society that has an ethic such as yours that "I won't rape anybody because I don't want to be raped, due to its harmful effects upon me" there are going to be people who contradict that ethical rule due to their own selfish, sexual desires anyway. You may believe that ethic, but it won't ensure a safe society, especially in an "atheistic," materialistic universe.

For all intents and purposes, is something necessarily wrong just because it hurts or harms someone? For instance, a parent may discipline his or her child by spanking them, but it's meant to help the child behave better, even though it hurts the child for a moment. A physician may have to give a shot to someone in order to fight off or protect the patient from a sickness or disease, but the painful injection may harm the patient for a little bit. I just hope you aren't implying that because something harms you, that makes it automatically wrong.

By the way, I absolutely believe that rape is wrong and immoral because it's stealing sexual pleasure and comfort from someone which was only intended for marriage. It's also a form of adultery (violation of the 7th Commandment), better known as fornication. I just don't want you to think that I'm defending rape nor rapists in any way. I was seeking to make a point.




> Therefore I know it would be harmful to anyone were they raped.


You don't know if everyone would think it's harmful to be raped, WilliamC. Believe it or not, there are some crazy and sick people out there who actually *like* to be raped. They even have movies showing women getting raped and killed, with their own consent. To them, rape is just as enjoyable as eating ice cream or something like that. There are many people who get pleasure out of being harmed or even harming themselves, like those who cut themselves to punish themselves or whip themselves out of self-mortification.




> I know I don't want my children harmed, therefore I know other people don't want their children to be harmed.


Once again, you don't know this for sure. There are cultures where people actually sacrifice their own children to a deity of some kind. Even God's chosen people in the Bible at the time, the Israelites, offered their children to the pagan gods of Moloch and Baal by burning them in fire. Even in times of sore famines, it was recorded that the *Israelites would eat their own children*! Hell, we harm our children all the time in this country whenever a woman has an abortion. So, it's not necessarily true that other people don't want to harm their own children just because *you* choose not to.




> It's called empathy, something you seem to be lacking in if you honestly make arguments like those above.


I hope you realize that I was asking those questions in hypotheticals, not literal truths of which I believe in. I'm still having a hard time understanding how "evolved animals" can have "empathy". It must be something the chemicals in our bodies do randomly... 




> So please, keep your religion, since it seems to be the only thing which keeps children safe from you.


Glory be to God for that!

----------


## WilliamC

> You're right, WilliamC. I do need God to tell me it's wrong to rape children because of my sinful nature,


Well then by all means keep your religion if it is all that stands between you and this despicable act.




> but guess what. *So do you and all of mankind.*


I can't speak for all mankind but speaking only for myself it is my own free-will and decision not to engage in violent actions that keeps me from doing so.





> That's why God has given us a conscience to know right from wrong by means of His holy laws being "written on our hearts" (Romans 1:18-23; Romans 2:11-16).


And I don't need religion to tell me that doing things to others that I don't want done to me is wrong.




> In retrospect, I would say that it is *you* who is worse off than I. Just read John 5:22-29. I pray you hear and believe the Gospel before it's too late, my friend.


Ah ha! A McCain supporter! Now you make sense. 





> Yeah, try explaining that to a rapist. You see, the rapist himself may not want to be raped because he doesn't want to be harmed (as you've mentioned), but *that still does not stop him from raping another person*. My point is in a society that has an ethic such as yours that "I won't rape anybody because I don't want to be raped, due to its harmful effects upon me" there are going to be people who contradict that ethical rule due to their own selfish, sexual desires anyway. You may believe that ethic, but it won't ensure a safe society, especially in an "atheistic," materialistic universe.


Then I'll get together with like minded folks and form a government to impose our collective will on those who would use violence to harm others. Or commit fraud against them. Hopefully we'll be strong enough to win the wars and do so, otherwise they'll be in charge and life will be bad for us. 

No, I don't care about the rights of rapists, I'd be happy for all of them to be killed in the act myself. Save a whole lot of expense in legal fees, court costs and incarceration that way.  




> For all intents and purposes, is something necessarily wrong just because it hurts or harms someone? For instance, a parent may discipline his or her child by spanking them, but it's meant to help the child behave better, even though it hurts the child for a moment. A physician may have to give a shot to someone in order to fight off or protect the patient from a sickness or disease, but the painful injection may harm the patient for a little bit. I just hope you aren't implying that because something harms you, that makes it automatically wrong.


Well we can come up with hypothetical situations all day long, but most folks know when someone is doing actual harm to an unwilling other. 

Are you saying you don't?

I believe that parents have much more leeway in discipling their own children than strangers have in discipling other peoples children.

And no, a doctor has no right to inject someone with a needle without their consent or unless they are injured and unable to give consent. 





> By the way, I absolutely believe that rape is wrong and immoral because it's stealing sexual pleasure and comfort from someone which was only intended for marriage. It's also a form of adultery (violation of the 7th Commandment), better known as fornication. I just don't want you to think that I'm defending rape nor rapists in any way. I was seeking to make a point.


Wow, you really don't get it do you?

Rape is a violent crime that has little to do with getting sexual pleasure (one doesn't need a partner for that) and much to do with seeking to dominate and physically harm others. If someone wants to pleasure themselves with rape fantasies then that's their business, but if they actually act on these fantasies then they are violating the rights of another individual.

As far as adultery goes that's between the parties involved as far as I'm concerned. If no one disagrees with it I am not interested in the sexual lives of consenting adults in private. 




> You don't know if everyone would think it's harmful to be raped, WilliamC. Believe it or not, there are some crazy and sick people out there who actually *like* to be raped. They even have movies showing women getting raped and killed, with their own consent. To them, rape is just as enjoyable as eating ice cream or something like that. There are many people who get pleasure out of being harmed or even harming themselves, like those who cut themselves to punish themselves or whip themselves out of self-mortification.


Again, you really don't get it do you?

If consenting adults have perverted sexual practices in private with each other I really am not interested.

If they do it in public or seek to use force or fraud to get non-consenting adults to participate, or if they seek to get children (and I'm more than willing to accept the legal 19 and older definition for what constitutes a child) involved then they are violating the rights of others and committing a crime.

Upon proper legal conviction of sexual crimes against children I'm all for immediate incarceration with no chance of parole for several years as a minimum, up to the death penalty as a maximum, depending on the details of the situation. 

However if they are caught in the act and summarily executed by whomever catches them I wouldn't be likely to charge the killer with a crime (if I were on a Grand Jury) or convict them of one (if I were on a trial jury) so long as there is clear evidence of molestation.





> Once again, you don't know this for sure. There are cultures where people actually sacrifice their own children to a deity of some kind.


Well supposing we come across such a culture then I suppose it depends on if they are trying to export their practices or not. If they aren't then I can't rightly say I'd be for declaring war on them since then I'd be responsible for their children. But if they were expansionist then it would be self-defense to declare war on them and defeat them to the point where their murderous ways were no threat to our society. 

Of course people of good conscious who wanted to sacrifice their own lives and treasure would be justified in trying to kidnap as many of the children to be sacrificed as possible so as to rescue them from their horrific fates, but then the children become the rescuers responsibility to raise and provide for. 





> Even God's chosen people in the Bible at the time, the Israelites, offered their children to the pagan gods of Moloch and Baal by burning them in fire. Even in times of sore famines, it was recorded that the *Israelites would eat their own children*!


I seem to recall a story about a man named Abraham and how god wanted him to kill his own child as well. And others in the old testament where god commanded his chosen to slaughter entire populations. Seems it wasn't just the pagans that had bloodthirsty gods. 




> Hell, we harm our children all the time in this country whenever a woman has an abortion.


I agree with Dr. Ron Paul that abortion should not be a Federal issue.





> So, it's not necessarily true that other people don't want to harm their own children just because *you* choose not to.


I never said that other people don't harm their own children, I merely stated that I know for myself that I don't want my children harmed, therefore I will not seek to harm other peoples children. 






> I hope you realize that I was asking those questions in hypotheticals, not literal truths of which I believe in. I'm still having a hard time understanding how "evolved animals" can have "empathy". It must be something the chemicals in our bodies do randomly...


You are correct, empathy is a neurological phenomenom that takes place in the brain and has been selected for via evolution.

see here and here and here  for some excellent references. 

Try getting empathy from someone who has significant damage to their cerebral cortex sometime, and get back to us on how well they respond.





> Glory be to God for that!


Whatever keeps you capable of functioning in a civil society works for me.

----------


## sophocles07

> Currently there is more similarity, on a genetic level, between chimpanzees and humans than there is between horses and donkeys.


Yeah.  I don’t know why everyone’s so down on “monkies” anyway.




> Well, sophocles07, that's just your own personal opinion. I would say that most Christians who read those propositions of mine would conclude that they make rational sense. I was asking by what standards or laws of reasoning were you making the claim that my thoughts were "utterly irrational." Are these standards just your own personal feelings about what rational thought should be, or are they universal and independent laws of reasoning?


No, they’re not my “own personal feelings”; I mean(t) that you lack reason in the sense that your claims are unverifiable, and mean close to nothing.

I’ve explained this already:

You cannot say “This is true because it says it’s true.”  You see how easily this could be applied to ANYTHING, right?  You would have to say “This is true because I’ve verified it is true in some other way.”  Like if someone tells me a cat just got run over by a car in the street.  The person telling me could be entirely lying.  I would have to go to the street and _verify_ whether or not it is true.  

I don’t know what you mean when you ask “what standards or laws of reasoning” I am using.  This is LOGIC 101.  Maybe you should read up on it; been up-n-goin since the Greeks, man.




> Absolute truth is an eternal, true, and actual state of something or someone that conforms with reality and facts, and it is verifiable, indisputable, and immutable, not necessarily contingent upon universal human acceptance and emotion. Absolute truth and objective truth are interchangeable.


Alright.  I don’t object to that idea, but I doubt very much that you’ve “hit upon absolute truth” in the Bible.




> Your question assumes that the existence of God is unverifiable, therefore, it's not objectively true, but you couldn't be more wrong about this sophocles07. God reveals Himself daily to all of mankind, so that no man is without excuse. God does this in three ways: by His creation (general revelation),


Yes, but this “creation” could have come about 10,000,000 + different ways.  You only believe that your God did this because the Bible tells you so.  What about the Hindu creation stories?




> by the human conscience (the "heart" of men),


This is just as easily explained—something it is not by religion—by evolution.




> and by His own infallible, inspired, and inerrant Word (specific revelation).


Paul tellin’ you so, ay?




> So, it's not that God hasn't given men sufficient knowledge and resources to know Who He is; the problem is men refuse to acknowledge God, having these evidences, by suppressing the truth in unrighteousness due to their love for themselves and sin itself (the breaking of God's commandments).


Yes I do love myself (as do you); I love me some sin, too.  God needs to come end several famines before I give him a glance.  




> So, the truth of God is verifiable, sophocles07. Just ask the billions of Christians in the world today who have been touched by God's word, felt God's presence by His Spirit, experienced life-changing miracles in their lives by God's power, and have received answers to their questions in scientific experimentation and analysis by God's wisdom in providence. No, God has made Himself plenty known to multitudes of people since the beginning of time, my friend.


This is just as applicable to someone in an insane asylum.

Tommy says he’s reincarnated Jesus.  Go ask him, he’ll tell you he’s “been touched by God’s word.”  It’s his time; messiah-time.  Do I need to believe him or figure out what part of his brain has _gone AWOL_?  

Give some specific examples of “life-changing miracles” specifically accomplished through “God’s power”; some that “have received answers to their questions in scientific experimentation and analysis by God’s wisdom in providence”.

By the way, this isn’t “verification.”  This would amount to a bunch of people claiming they “believed” something in their life was caused by “God”.  You’d have to show me some sort of PROOF that that was the actual cause of their life-changing/whatever “Miracle.”  As I said above, the person claiming a cat was hit on the street is not the verification; it is SEEING the cat.  

As Mick Jagger sings,

“Don’t want to talk, talk about Jesus—I just wanna see his faaace...”




> There are some things which aren't immediately verifiable about God due to the immaterial or transcendental nature of God. Because God is a Spirit, you can't just go into a laboratory and run scientific methods on Him personally. I think that's what you mean when you say "God is unverifiable." His existence is in a totally different realm of knowledge and metaphysics than just testing the biological composition of a white rat in a lab.


He showed himself undeniably in the narrative—literary narrative—of the Bible.  What’d he do, disappear after we started keeping modern records?




> But suffice it to say, that you can know absolutely and positively that God exists, and that's one of the reasons why I continue in this discussion on this forum thread. God has changed my life and brought me through so many things that I can't even count them. That's why I get frustrated when antitheists, such as you, ridicule, rail, and repudiate my God (revealing your hatred for Him) because He's verified Himself to me and other Christians over and over and over again, and He continues to do so. Rationally speaking, if there were no evidences for the existence of God, I would have relinquished my belief in Him a long time ago! But here I stand today, a theist who has been loved by God, protected by God, and made to live and think more like Him in my life. As Martin Luther once said, "I can do no other, and I will not recant."


I can’t hate something that does not exist.  I hate the self-righteousness of those who claim to not only KNOW God exists, but further that they KNOW what he wants and desires in civic institutions, and FURTHER to WANT to impress their “claims” on the entire world.

It’s the most arrogant $#@!ing thing you could possibly participate in.




> That would be the logical conclusion from what you believe, if I've understood you correctly.


Apparently you haven’t.




> Do you believe man has a soul?


I have no idea.  But I suspect not.  The “idea of the soul” can be historically traced back to primitive, animistic societies.  It didn’t pop out of Christian theology as new.  




> If not, then where does reason, emotion, intellect, volition, etc. take place in human beings, according to your worldview of "atheism"?


_I don’t know what you mean by this_.  NONE of these things necessitate a god; they are all easily explainable through scientific study.  




> Where does the capacity for men to create constitutions, write books, and debate come from, if human beings do not have a soul (an immaterial being within themselves), sophocles07? That's why it matters.


From the same instinct that allows a Chimp to make a tool.  We are merely further developed.

I don’t know what souls have to do with debating.  




> Lest I be mistaken, I do believe that it's important to get into the original languages when studying the Bible. Good exegesis of Scripture is necessary for this. However, I do not believe that every single word in an English translation needs to be doubted when reading it, either. For instance, when reading John 3:16 in the Bible, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life," I don't need to say, "What does 'For' mean in the Greek? What does 'God' mean in the Greek? What does 'so' mean in the Greek?" so on, and so forth.


Obviously, as these are common Greek words.  And this passage, I’ll admit, is very close to the actual Greek:

    

For God loved (gar o theos egaresen) the world in this way (ton kosmon outos), so that he gave (oste edoken) the single/only-begotten son ton monogene ton uion), (in order) that all (those) trusting in him (ina pas o misteuon eis auton) would not perish (me apoletai) but have everlasting life (alla eche sdoen aionion).  

You also have to see that the original, which is very non-decorative, non-ornamented—PLAIN GREEK—attains a kind of polished “Englishness” in translation.  This occurs in much of the translations from Classical and Attic Greek works.  Look at the translations of Sappho or Pindar throughout the ages (in English); the original—which is far superior in literary terms than the Biblical Greek—often becomes horribly twisted and an entire loss of tone happens.  Translations of Euripides and the Greek tragedians (and Aristophanes actually, possibly even more so) all have been mangled out of their original by 9th rate Thomas Wyatts.  

Anyway, I might go look through and find some more doubtful passages as examples.  I don’t really feel like it though, as it’s probably all on Google for a search (and has probably been discussed and re-discusses 1,000000000 times).  




> As I've said before, God is perfectly capable of transmitting His thoughts to whatever family, tribe, or nation He wants in whatever language it is because He is powerful enough to do that.


Of course, $#@!—God godda be dat strong, right???

You do see that “God” didn’t translate the Bible into English, RIIIIGHT?  




> I also believe that God gifts His own people with the knowledge, wisdom, understanding, and discernment to read and translate His own word to the masses faithfully. This is one way God preserves His own word, which God has promised He would do unto eternity. And yes, God is powerful enough to overcome the errant infirmities of sinful men in order to do it. If He can create a universe by His own breath, overcome death on the Earth by resurrection, perform miraculous healings, etc., etc., then surely He can preserve His own word through inferior means, if it's His will. And He has. It would be foolish to consider the contrary.


You know, one time Hercules took Atlas’ place for a while.  He was pretty $#@!in strong, too.




> But, I still agree with you that we should get into the original languages to get a better understanding of what's going on in a passage, if possible. But we as Christians do not hold to what I call "strict and exclusive purity of the original tongue" exegesis, like the medieval Roman Catholics with their Latin and the Muslims with their Arabic, which says that no one can fully understand God's revelation unless they know the original language. God gives us more liberty and variety as His people to study and live His word by the language He has us born under.


You mean: it’s ok if you’re a lazy bastard—you can still get the God juice through the KJV?





> Once again, you've missed the whole point, sophocles07. I'm saying that without this God, you wouldn't even know if it were wrong to murder someone! But since God has given you a conscience to know right from wrong, because He has written His law (think "Ten Commandments") upon your "heart," you can know and reason that it's bad to kill someone in an immoral way. You may not believe that, but the truth of it is not dependent upon your assent to it or lack thereof.


Blah blah blah

Believe this because you or the Bible tells me so?  This is ridiculous.




> But it brings me back to an earlier question. If you believe that God does not give us a conscience to know right and wrong by writing His laws within our "hearts," then what is the original source within humans to know such things? Is it the chemicals inside us, the cells living in us, the synapses firing in our brains, the blood flowing from our hearts that gives us a "moral compass" by which we make rational and ethical choices and respond to them in our environment, given the presuppositions of your materialistic and "atheistic" worldview?


Let me ask you a question: how does “emotion” occur?  Is it not a product of a biological system?  This can just as easily be applied to language, the operations of internal organs, the moral conscience, memory, and so on, all in their respective operations, all coming about through evolution.  

I think you’ve too far “Platonized” a conception of right and wrong and logic.  They are not “FORMS” placed in us or around us by God.  They are processes and operations which, like the fact of our liver or emotion doing a job within our body and mental state, do a job with respect to the outside world.  We reason and have moral/ethical conscience as a result of evolution; it is entirely MATERIAL based.  




> I have a sense of humor, but George Carlin is not funny. He's an irate, pompous, miserable, ignorant, hopeless, and cynical old fool. He meant what he said in his Ten Commandments skit, so he wasn't trying to be hilarious. Maybe he was being facetious about worshiping the sun, though.


Meant what he said so he can’t be trying to be hilarious?  You are aware that Aristophanes, when he wrote _Lysistrata_ *actually wanted the war to stop*, RIGHT?




> When you say "You can believe what you want--you could believe it is ok to rape children--but it is NOT OK to actually do it," you're just begging the question, my friend.


You should be aware that you are taking up the same position as Morton Downey Jr. toward Ron Paul in 1988.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=1

Note also his desire to have “Freedom of Religion.”




> You have not established nor proven why it's wrong to rape children, especially within the context of your worldview which believes that men are just evolved animals by means of natural selection (the best of a species will survive by their superior gene speciation or adaptability to the environment). In nature, animals get raped all the time, so why should we as "evolved animals" stop that which is only a part of our "animal instincts"? Who made you the arbiter that raping children is morally wrong to act upon? What if my "animal instincts" lead me to "prey" upon this children in order to satisfy my own natural and sexual drive? Can you really answer that, sophocles07, and stay true to the tenets of your "atheism" without being arbitrary and inconsistent? At least I know why Dr. Paul believes these things are wrong, and that's because he believes in a God Who gives us our rights and gives us laws by which we should live. That is his belief as a Christian. So what's your excuse, sophocles07?


The fact that rape occurs in the animal world—as it does in the human-animal world—has nothing, or little, to do with human morality.  

I’m not sure exactly what you want me to say here; I’ve already said I believe human conscience, morality, and reason to descend from innate, evolutionary traits.  It should be deduced by you, then, that not raping children is one of these innate moral rules.  The raping of children, even in a purely psychological kind of study, would be an _abnormality_ within the human population.  That is, the person is, in some way, retarded.  This could be either genetic or socially-produced.  

Also, raping of children, in a social kind of sense, causes mass unrest, more psychological problems, and is therefore undesired.  

Plus the plain fact that you’re infringing on someone’s right to have personal freedom—which is, even if not an evolutionary trait (though I believe it is, as did Kropotkin), something which should be man-made: even if these things were not evolutionary, we could/should still create them as man-made moral laws (which is the same thing the Bible did, create man-made laws; I just wouldn’t say God made them).

You can also see WilliamC and beachmaster’s posts, which also sum up my view of this.




> You're right, WilliamC. I do need God to tell me it's wrong to rape children because of my sinful nature, but guess what. So do you and all of mankind. That's why God has given us a conscience to know right from wrong by means of His holy laws being "written on our hearts" (Romans 1:18-23; Romans 2:11-16).


Damn, you’re $#@!ed up.




> For instance, a parent may discipline his or her child by spanking them, but it's meant to help the child behave better, even though it hurts the child for a moment. A physician may have to give a shot to someone in order to fight off or protect the patient from a sickness or disease, but the painful injection may harm the patient for a little bit. I just hope you aren't implying that because something harms you, that makes it automatically wrong.


This is all true.

It’s also obviously SOPHISTRY of the worst kind.



> By the way, I absolutely believe that rape is wrong and immoral because it's stealing sexual pleasure and comfort from someone which was only intended for marriage.



OOOOHHHH

so that’s why it’s wrong.

Gotcha.

*Psycho.*




> Believe it or not, there are some crazy and sick people out there who actually like to be raped. They even have movies showing women getting raped and killed, with their own consent. To them, rape is just as enjoyable as eating ice cream or something like that. There are many people who get pleasure out of being harmed or even harming themselves, like those who cut themselves to punish themselves or whip themselves out of self-mortification.


This is fetishism.  Most of these people would not like to be raped in the real sense.  It’s fantasy.

Then again, if they cooperated with the “rapist” in this way, it ceases to become rape.




> Once again, you don't know this for sure. There are cultures where people actually sacrifice their own children to a deity of some kind. Even God's chosen people in the Bible at the time, the Israelites, offered their children to the pagan gods of Moloch and Baal by burning them in fire. Even in times of sore famines, it was recorded that the Israelites would eat their own children! Hell, we harm our children all the time in this country whenever a woman has an abortion. So, it's not necessarily true that other people don't want to harm their own children just because you choose not to.


Yeah, thanks religion.

I’m sure no one ever sacrificed their child to “reason”.  

Just think: poor Iphigenia could be jammin with us right now if not for your kind of neurosis.

----------


## Mesogen

> I can't speak for all mankind but speaking only for myself it is my own free-will and decision not to engage in violent actions that keeps me from doing so.


May I interject that it is likely NOT any kind of free will that determines your desire or lack of desire to rape children. I'm going to guess that the thought of raping children is totally revolting to you on a visceral level. You might rationalize to yourself why you came to the "decision" not to rape children, but the "decision" was actually a result of your "gut." 





> Try getting empathy from someone who has significant damage to their cerebral cortex sometime, and get back to us on how well they respond.


Isn't it the frontal lobe? Don't they say that psychopaths have different "wiring" in their frontal lobe and they have trouble connecting with other people or empathizing at all with them?

----------


## WilliamC

> May I interject that it is likely NOT any kind of free will that determines your desire or lack of desire to rape children. I'm going to guess that the thought of raping children is totally revolting to you on a visceral level. You might rationalize to yourself why you came to the "decision" not to rape children, but the "decision" was actually a result of your "gut."


I can assure you that my intestines play no role in my thought processes.

It is a brain function. And also very much a product of my upbringing.

Sad but true, were I or most any other person raised from infancy in a society where atrocities were taught as normal and right, we would participate in them with little, if any self-doubts about the morality of our actions.

There is a reason that most of humanities history has been one of violence and brutality towards our fellow man.

The period of enlightenment we find ourselves in here in the Westernized world today is rather unique in the idea that all individuals have an intrinsic self-worth and should be treated equally under the law.

And yes, religion has played a large role in the development of this enlightened world-view, as has science and advancements in technology that allow some people to actually have the spare time to devote to thinking about these abstract ideas, as opposed to struggling every day just to stay alive.

One of the great achievements of humanity is our cultural evolution, which occurres on time scales vastly more rapid than our biological evolution. 

And now with the advent of the internet and true instantaneous global communications, we humans are at the beginning of another cultural revolution that none of us, from the most wealthy and powerful to the most poor and oppressed, can really comprehend or control.




> Isn't it the frontal lobe? Don't they say that psychopaths have different "wiring" in their frontal lobe and they have trouble connecting with other people or empathizing at all with them?


Yes, our morals are the product of brain activity in our cerebral cortex, but I don't pretend to know the exact regions responsible. The references I provided in my last response to Theocrat seem to be excellent starting points for those wishing to learn more about this.

Or just google "empathy evolution brain damage" as I did and go from there.

----------


## sophocles07

> May I interject that it is likely NOT any kind of free will that determines your desire or lack of desire to rape children. I'm going to guess that the thought of raping children is totally revolting to you on a visceral level. You might rationalize to yourself why you came to the "decision" not to rape children, but the "decision" was actually a result of your "gut."


I agree.  This revulsion at a practice is what I mean when I say that ethical and social standards can be "evolved" into innate qualities.  




> I can assure you that my intestines play no role in my thought processes.


I think he meant the term in the sense of the Greek “thumos”—“liver” but also “heart,” i.e. it is natural. 




> It is a brain function. And also very much a product of my upbringing.


True.  But I’m not aware of any culture that bred their children to see “raping children” as ok.  Extreme patriarchy has existed, where it is “ok” to rape women; but this is not exactly the same.




> Sad but true, were I or most any other person raised from infancy in a society where atrocities were taught as normal and right, we would participate in them with little, if any self-doubts about the morality of our actions.


One can be taught to do anything.  This is, though, not an argument against an innate moral compass.




> The period of enlightenment we find ourselves in here in the Westernized world today is rather unique in the idea that all individuals have an intrinsic self-worth and should be treated equally under the law.


I wouldn’t put it so simply.  Romans, for example, had an extreme amount of rights under the law.  So did male Greeks.  The enlightenment merely extended this to meet all (or at least all whites); and in the 20th century ALL people were included.

----------


## Macon, GA

> Instead of going over every law written in the bible, laws which are purported to come from God... there are just so many of them.. how to treat your slaves, how to treat women, etc., so many that I could ask you to comment on as to their revelance in today's society, let's just keep it simple and stick for now with that most basic set of laws known as the 10 commandments.


Actually.... according to rabbinic reckoning, the Torah has 613 laws.  In terms of Christian tallies, the number may be less because the ancient rabbinic count sometimes divides a single statement into more than one law.  Of these "613" many are not even enforceable by man, but by God only.  This greatly restricts the jurisdictions of the state, thus producing a Godly libertarianism which limits the powers of all human agencies.

Do you think the laws of any particular state or nation presently could be comprehended in only 613 laws?  You want to talk about slavery and bondage...  Look at the oppression we live under because we have set man up as lawgiver.  

Biblical Law seems oppressive to only those who want freedom to sin, or to those who have set themselves up as their own gods.  Because we have excluded God....  we have man and the state playing God.  The results are oppressive and tyrannical.

Did you know that Ted Bundy raised the question about law?  In 1989, "he rambled on once about hunters who stalked and killed deer and were never plagued by a guilty conscience.  Why are we so moralistic, Bundy wanted to know, when it comes to human life?  Why is a human life worth more than a deer's life?"  He also challenged any and all laws banning the pursuit and rape-murder of young women.

There is freedom under God's Law.  He set the limits; they are fixed.  Man's law and statist law have no limits.  The next session of any legislative body will increase the number of laws.  The humanistic state constantly expands its power, because its goal and the goal of its citizenry is to accrue enough power to play (or be) God.  Humanistic law is a plan of salvation for the people....  the means of gaining a "good" society according to the Humanist.  When we neglect God's Law, we are in truth neglecting our liberty;  falling in bondage to the state becomes inevitable.

And here we are today.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_"For the Lord is our JUDGE, the Lord is our LAWGIVER, the Lord is our KING; He will save us."  (Isaiah 33:22)

This remind you of anything?  

Judge - Judicial
Lawgiver - Legislative
King - Executive
_

----------


## sophocles07

> You want to talk about slavery and bondage... Look at the oppression we live under because we have set man up as lawgiver.


That, ladies and gentlemen, is called 'skirting the argument.'

Let me repeat the question: WHAT ABOUT SLAVERY--SLAVERY IS *CONDONED* IN THE BIBLE?

----------


## amy31416

> That, ladies and gentlemen, is called 'skirting the argument.'
> 
> Let me repeat the question: WHAT ABOUT SLAVERY--SLAVERY IS *CONDONED* IN THE BIBLE?


This thread is very, very long and I admittedly didn't read through the entire thing, but I will say this--lots of horrible things are condoned in the bible. It is not something to live your life by. Your moral compass, if you have one, is far better.

----------


## Macon, GA

> Even if the sperm/egg fertilization barrier would prevent in vivo fertilization between us and chimpanzees, it is very likely that if some sick individual injected human sperm into a chimpanzee egg (or vice versa) the resulting embryo would be viable and, if transplanted into a surrogate mother, could develop until birth.


Hey....now I remember.  I read about a little monkey boy in one of Michael Crichton's novels... He was the best tree climber in his class.  I can't remember for sure, but I would be willing to bet that bananas were his favorite fruit. 




> This is a very common misconception. Humans have not evolved from the modern monkey you see today; we share a common ancestor (so we're more like cousins).


And that is evidenced where?  Who observed this incredible phenomenon?

Piltdown Man:  fake, human skull with a few key parts missing, jaw of an ape whose teeth had been filed down and stained

Java Man:  Bones found over fifty feet apart in gravel.  Who knows if bones came from the same individual.    Regular human skulls also evidenced in gravel (which were conveniently forgotten for 30 years).

Nutcracker Man:  Skull ape-like, but buried with evidence of human tools.... must be evidence of an apeman using tools?  Or  perhaps the human tools were used on the ape skulls, not by the apes.  Ape meat may be too tough, so the ape brain is considered the real delicacy.  30 years later Leakey finds bones like modern man buried deeper.  Hmmmmmmm...

We also have other mistakes made....  supposed ape-men's bones turning out to be other things like:  alligator's upper leg bone, dolphin's rib, horse's toe.

Nebraska Man (including his whole family):  based on a single TOOTH....  that is good science.  Remember the Scopes Trial?  An identical tooth was found later with its real skull attached to its real skeleton.....  Pig's tooth.  

Ramapithecus:  first ape to walk upright?????  This based on pieces of jaws and teeth.    Soon after whole jaw is found and as it turns out Rama was just an ape after all.

How come Evolutionist's are so eager to use the tiniest bit of "evidence" to support their Scientific endeavors?  

How about the tooth that wasn't there?  Discover magazine's cover story on a jaw that had the canine teeth missing.  The hole where they should have been was small, so the pointed teeth must have been small, which means they couldn't have been used as weapons, which means the animal must have had its hands free to hold weapons, which PROVES it walked upright....

Evolution is not science.  It is a belief about the past.  A belief made up by men and women who weren't there.  Men and women who are not omniscient, and who  have made some HUGE mistakes about the past already.

----------


## beachmaster

> You want to talk about slavery and bondage...  Look at the oppression we live under because we have set man up as lawgiver.


If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years.  Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom.  If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year.  But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him.  If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master.  But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children.  I would rather not go free.'  If he does this, his master must present him before God.  Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl.  After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.  - Exodus 21:2-6


When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.  If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.  But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.  And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter.  If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.  If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.  - Exodus 21:7-11


When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.  If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.  - Exodus 21:20-21


However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.  - Leviticus 25:44-46

*Maybe the New Testament changed God's laws on this issue as it supposedly did with so many other laws?  Let's see.*


Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.  Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.  - Ephesians 6:5


Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.  If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful.  You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts.  Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.  - 1 Timothy 6:1-2
I don't know about you Macon (or Theocrat), but to me, slavery is immoral.  Assuming you agree, then the bible isn't a very good guide for morality is it?  

How hard would it have been to include amongst the Old Testament commands,  "Thou shall not own a man or woman as property."

How hard would it have been for Jesus to say "You have heard it said that you may purchase male or female slaves, but I say unto you, no man shall own another"?

No, it's definitely not in there.  I've searched.

Let's see how you folks justify the bible's take on slavery.  After that, we can get into the subject of the treatment of women in the bible.

[Edited to add:




> Biblical Law seems oppressive to only those who want freedom to sin, or to those who have set themselves up as their own gods. Because we have excluded God.... we have man and the state playing God. The results are oppressive and tyrannical.


Biblical law probably seems even more oppressive to slaves.  We have man, claiming that he's got the word of a living god telling him it's ok to own and beat slaves (even to their death, so long as they live a day or so after the beating, because they are his property).  Because we have allowed people to think they have the word of an almighty god, the results are oppressive and tyrannical.]

----------


## Macon, GA

> If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. - Exodus 21:2-6


Actually the Hebrew word  (ebed) in v.2 should be translated "servant, or bondsman."  This references someone who either because of debt or poverty entered the service of a man for a six-year period.  The seventh year was the year of Jubilee where he could go out freely.  His presence in the house was a form of welfarism with a work program (unlike what we currently have in the U.S.  where welfare recipients are rewarded for their laziness and often times immoral lifestyles).  Bondservants were even considered part of the family and could inherit.  Before Ishamael and Isaac, Abraham's heir was a man born in his household of such a bondservant.




> When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. - Exodus 21:7-11


These laws are relative to women and bondservants...  If a man were deeply in debt, he could settle his debt by means of his daughter's bondservice.  This depended on the willingness of the man to whom the money was owed to receive the young girl as a POTENTIAL wife for himself, or a son.  She was to be treated as a daughter until such marriage.  If the girl did not please the man, she was to be redeemed.  




> When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (for he is his money) - Exodus 21:20-21


If the angry mistress or master beats such a person to death, then they too MUST DIE.  If the victim doesn't die, but is bedridden for a time, the offender must pay for the loss of his time and for his medical expenses.  




> However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. - Leviticus 25:44-46


There is no denying that this law was abused in Israel both in OT time and NT.  Israelites could CHOOSE to become bondservants, with the understanding that they would be released in the 7th year.  An unconverted foreigner could walk away if conditions were unjust, or convert and become eligible for Sabbath year release.  In the U.S. , in the early colonial era, blacks who converted gained freedom.  

The U.S.  then passed legislation against the Biblical law, which was common law, to establish slavery in America.  

We do see regulations governing the treatment of all kinds of servants.  God's law requires man to be mindful that all men are God's creatures and His servants.  

Kidnapping was punished with DEATH (Ex. 11:16).  
Foreign slaves were encouraged to become proselytes (Ex. 12:44).
He might be set free (Ex. 11:26,27).
Special rules were laid down for the security of his life and limbs (Ex. 11:20,21,26).

Slavery is immoral when a person is stolen and sold.  "Man Stealing" is a capital offense.  When the Africans sold their own people into slavery, and the Europeans bought them.... that was NOT Biblical slavery.  *Had these offenders (both the sellers and the buyers) been punished biblically, I wonder how long American Slavery would have lasted.*

However, if a person willingly agrees to be sold into slavery, then that is his choice.  Surely a good "libertarian-minded" person would agree to that.  I guess you would want to be careful about who you "sold yourself" to....

----------


## Macon, GA

The 'slavery' of the OT was essentially designed to serve the poor!:

"`If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you. 36 Do not take interest of any kind from him, but fear your God, so that your countryman may continue to live among you. 37 You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit. 38 I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God. _39 "`If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. 40 He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. (Lev 25.35-43)

Notice that the sole motive--in the above text-- for allowing 'slavery' is so the poor can continue in the land, and that it is NEVER 'forever' (indeed, other passages indicate that it was 6 years at the most!). 

Many of God's commands to Israel about treatment of 'slaves' are cast in light of Israel's experience of harsh slavery in Egypt. She is told to remember her slavery and to not oppress the slave or the alien in the Land. There are many, many verses relative to this (e.g. Deut 5.6; 6.12, 21; 7.8; 15.15; 16.12; 24.18, 19). Just to cite a couple:

Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor the alien within your gates, *so that your manservant and maidservant may rest, as you do*. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. (Deut 5.13f)

When you harvest the grapes in your vineyard, do not go over the vines again. Leave what remains for the alien, the fatherless and the widow. 22 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt. That is why I command you to do this. (Deut 24.21)

If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free. 13 *And when you release him, do not send him away empty-handed.* 14 *Supply him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you. That is why I give you this command today.*

----------


## beachmaster

> Actually the Hebrew word  (ebed) in v.2 should be translated "servant, or bondsman."  This references someone who either because of debt or poverty entered the service of a man for a six-year period.  The seventh year was the year of Jubilee where he could go out freely.  His presence in the house was a form of welfarism with a work program (unlike what we currently have in the U.S.  where welfare recipients are rewarded for their laziness and often times immoral lifestyles).  Bondservants were even considered part of the family and could inherit.  Before Ishamael and Isaac, Abraham's heir was a man born in his household of such a bondservant.


You conveniently didn't address all of the passage... let me highlight for you:

If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, *only he will go free in the seventh year*. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, *then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master.*
It's not quite as rosy a picture as you paint.  





> These laws are relative to women and bondservants...  If a man were deeply in debt, he could settle his debt by means of his daughter's bondservice.  This depended on the willingness of the man to whom the money was owed to receive the young girl as a POTENTIAL wife for himself, or a son.  She was to be treated as a daughter until such marriage.  If the girl did not please the man, she was to be redeemed.


Again, not quite the rosy picture you paint.

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, *she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are*.
Seems a little sexist doesn't it?  The daughter will not be freed as the men are.  That's pretty cut and dried.

 If *she does not please the man who bought her*, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.
If she does not please the man who bought her?  Please, are you really trying to justify this?  Are you now going to say, "yeah but at least he isn't allowed to sell her to foreigners since he broke the contract with her".  Yeah, that's real sweet of God to command that for her sake. Sure, whatever.

And *if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son,* he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter.
What if she doesn't want to marry her owner's son?

If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. *If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.*
But if he doesn't fail in these things, she is NOT free to leave.  She'll remain a wife/slave, mere property of the man.  






> If the angry mistress or master beats such a person to death, then they too MUST DIE.  If the victim doesn't die, but is bedridden for a time, the offender must pay for the loss of his time and for his medical expenses.


In our country, if you beat someone, morals and law dictate that the man be punished in addition to paying restitution.  *In the bible law, if the slave dies after a day or two, the slave owner is NOT charged with murder, nor punished in any way.*  Do you think this is good?  Seriously?





> There is no denying that this law was abused in Israel both in OT time and NT.  Israelites could CHOOSE to become bondservants, with the understanding that they would be released in the 7th year.  An unconverted foreigner could walk away if conditions were unjust, or convert and become eligible for Sabbath year release.  In the U.S. , in the early colonial era, blacks who converted gained freedom.


So you are saying that if they didn't convert, it's ok to keep them as slaves, or if they are treated in a certain way, they still are to remain as slaves and are not free to leave.  Do you really think this is good?  I doubt Ron Paul would endorse a system like this in America today.



I'm running late and can't address the rest of your post right now.  I don't see the point in it anyway, as I think I've made my case.  I've had this same exact discussion many times with bible believers including my wife.  My wife can't and doesn't justify it.  She is starting to think that some parts of the bible were not of God I think... she sort of avoids the touchy issues if you know what I mean.

Anyway, I may come back to finish... or not as time dictates.

----------


## wv@SC

Well said, Macon.  The facts from the Bible show that God provided slavery for the welfare of the poor (which if the poor was an Israelite, he would go free in the jubilee) and the occupation for conquered POWs.

In the year of jubilee, the master wasn't able to just kick out the person who had been his slave, either.  He was to send him away full.

The point is is that the institution of slavery in the Bible was strictly regulated by God himself.  If you (as a master) struck your slave and knocked out a tooth, you would have to release him/her from bondage.  I don't think people would go around beating and whipping their slaves if that was the penalty, especially if you invested lots of money!

----------


## wv@SC

I have to add that this probably isn't the place to try and teach people about Biblical slavery.  I'm not trying to flame anyone (or get flamed), but if people don't have respect for God's Word (and think they know better than He does), then the result will only be argument because there's no common ground for discussion.

----------


## beachmaster

If there really is a God, the bible blasphemes It (Him/Her, whatever).

----------


## wv@SC

> If there really is a God, the bible blasphemes It (Him/Her, whatever).


You, sir, would be better off if you would not say things against the Bible.

To say that the Bible blasphemes God Himself is to make God at odds with Himself (which is impossible).  The Bible is God's inerrant, infallible Word and everything in it is absolutely true.

If you don't agree with God, say so if you must.  But do not persist in your unwise words, especially because it will neither do you any good, nor any that might read them.

----------


## beachmaster

> You, sir, would be better off if you would not say things against the Bible.
> 
> To say that the Bible blasphemes God Himself is to make God at odds with Himself (which is impossible).  The Bible is God's inerrant, infallible Word and everything in it is absolutely true.
> 
> If you don't agree with God, say so if you must.  But do not persist in your unwise words, especially because it will neither do you any good, nor any that might read them.


Prove the bible came from a god, any god.

Do that and I'll shut up.

----------


## Macon, GA

> If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master.


I guess it would be o.k. to assume that when such a man married, he would know the alternatives.  He could decide whether or not to remain, or to work to redeem his family.  




> When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.


I read in Exodus 21:7:  And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she SHALL NOT GO OUT AS THE MANSERVANTS DO.

My understanding is that she is NOT to be treated as the Manservants like a field hand, nor should she be subjected to hard labor.  She became betrothed to the man (or a son) and a bride price was paid.  Her period of "bondservice" was a time of training within the family circle for marriage.  She was to be treated as a daughter (v.9).  In this way, a poor family's daughter was able marry even though she did not have a dowry.  




> In the bible law, if the slave dies after a day or two, the slave owner is NOT charged with murder, nor punished in any way.


"Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his money."

It doesn't say if he DIES after a day or two....  A slave's death at the hand of his master meant the master's death.  It means if he is "bedridden" or unable to work.  

The beating of slaves would not have been the "norm" in Hebrew culture.  Who would indenture themselves to a man known by his abusive character?  

I have to run too.  I will check back later.

----------


## Kade

> Paaleeeze! This thread title and subject is a joke!!!
> 
> I am a christian who's been in several churches for close to two decades. There is no "hate" among christians for aitheists and all the churches I've been a part of have expressed hate for the sin, but not hate for the sinner.,.........and if you choose to continue in this, you love and make a lie, just like the politicians you despise!
>    there is no inbread hatetred for aitheists.....in fact, it was christians who signed the bill of rights for freedom of religion, which includes the religion of atheism


More craziness. Just read through the thread, Macon missed out on it too, the few Atheists here have been relatively peaceful... I think it is very fair to call certain beliefs insane, for instance, just take a look at our friend Theocrat;




> You're right, WilliamC. I do need God to tell me it's wrong to rape children because of my sinful nature, but guess what. *So do you and all of mankind.* That's why God has given us a conscience to know right from wrong by means of His holy laws being "written on our hearts" (Romans 1:18-23; Romans 2:11-16).


How do you even refute this nonsense? 

The title of this thread was mostly about the article... there is severe distrust and hate in the church towards non-Christians, that as a Christian none of you see this is not surprising... again, speck in the eye... of course Christians are loving people who can't do no wrong... why is there such a strong and open political attack against Secularism?

Even in Romney's speech, all people of faith are free and peaceful, we should beware the people of non-faith, they are the danger to society...

Don't any of you dare sit here and tell me that this country's Christians are liberty loving and peaceful people... I call, without the essence of my very being, bull$#@!.

----------


## beachmaster

> I guess it would be o.k. to assume that when such a man married, he would know the alternatives.  He could decide whether or not to remain, or to work to redeem his family.


There's some family values for you!  Having a choice of whether to buy your wife and kids or leaving them as slaves.  I'll pass on that sort of system thank you.






> I read in Exodus 21:7:  And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she SHALL NOT GO OUT AS THE MANSERVANTS DO.
> 
> My understanding is


That's part of the problem with the bible.  Millions of Christians have different understandings of what it's saying, what is applicable for today, what is metaphorical versus what is literal, which translations are more accurate, etc.  There just is no clear standard.  It boils down to you having to arbitrarily decide what it is saying.  Another Christian does the same, and comes up with something different.  How is that a way to run a nation?




> that she is NOT to be treated as the Manservants like a field hand, nor should she be subjected to hard labor.  She became betrothed to the man (or a son) and a bride price was paid.


Don't you think there is something wrong with someone paying a price for another human being? Isn't that just immoral on the very face of it?  Can you not understand why we do not do these things in America, and why if we did, we would have no rights to claim that we stand for liberty?





> "Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his money."
> 
> It doesn't say if he DIES after a day or two....


It says if he survives a day or two... it says this RIGHT AFTER saying if he dies right away.  If the slave were to just continue living out the rest of his or her natural life, there would be no point in saying "If, however he survives a day or two" now would there?  Clearly this is referring to the slave who dies shortly after his beating.  Here's another translation...

If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished.  If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property. - Exodus 21: 20,21 (New American Standard)
Still, even if it didn't mean that... the slave owner gets no punishment for beating a slave to within an inch of his life.  How exactly is that moral?  The slave is referred to as the "property" of the master.  How exactly can you reconcile this with our modern standards of morality?




> A slave's death at the hand of his master meant the master's death.  It means if he is "bedridden" or unable to work.


Only if the slave dies within a day or two.  See above.  Read the plain meaning of the text and stop trying to make it say something it doesn't.




> The beating of slaves would not have been the "norm" in Hebrew culture.  Who would indenture themselves to a man known by his abusive character?


Are you forgetting about the forcible taking of slaves from other nations?  Even the taking of the virgin young ladies to be made "wives" like the Midianites (which actually by law the Israelites could not marry Midianites... so what exactly were they doing with these young virgin slaves they captured right after slaughtering their families?   Will you seriously continue trying to justify this as moral behavior?  Is your God really that callus?  I mean seriously, we've only just begun here.  There's much more (as I'm sure you are aware).





> I have to run too.  I will check back later.


Any time... (my time is limited as well lately).

----------


## beachmaster

> Who would indenture themselves to a man known by his abusive character?


By the way, in case you still think the Declaration of Independence is based on the bible, it says *We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights
*

Our declaration is in direct conflict with the bible on the point of bond servanthood.




> "Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523.


Under our founding document, you can not sell your rights to life and liberty.  It's also why we don't have debtor prisons.

Our founding documents are more moral to me than the bible.  They certainly are not equivalent in any way.  

If our nation was to be founded on biblical law, the Constitution could have been written to include bible quotes... at least one!  But it doesn't do that (thank god!).

----------


## beachmaster

Speaking of the Declaration of Independence, it directly violates Romans 13.

Romans 13:1,2

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.  Therefore *whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.* 
Our founders resisted the governing authority.  All American Christians should be saying "God Save the Queen", no?

----------


## Elijah

Thanks for the link. Enjoyed.

----------


## Macon, GA

> Don't you think there is something wrong with someone paying a price for another human being? Isn't that just immoral on the very face of it?


Is it payment for a person???  Or, a paying off of their debts?

----------


## beachmaster

> Is it payment for a person???  Or, a paying off of their debts?


Well if the bible calls the person *"property"*, doesn't that pretty much tell you?  Do I really have to spell it out for you?



[edited to add:  

Even in the 10 commandments, we see that a man's wife is mere property, just like his animals and slaves:

Exodus 20:17  Thou shalt not covet  thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, *nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.*

The wife belongs to the man.  There are many portions of the scripture that support this idea that someone can be someone else's property.  This to me is immoral.]

----------


## Dirt Roads Scholar

Some interesting stuff going on here. Some seemingly endless bloviations as well.

Although if I had to, I would choose a Theocracy over a secularist totalitarian State, I don't think America was designed to be either one. But a Representative Republic without the underpinning of a population grounded in Judeo-Christian morals is destined to become the latter. Those who are determined to eradicate Christianity are sawing off the limb that allows them a platform to curse the tree. They are parasites.

Could someone name a few successful secular humanist / atheist nations? Would you like to move to one? Does anyone believe that Mr. Paul is intent on instituting one, any more than a Theocracy?

Someone brought up the question of truth. Absolute truth is either a valid concept, or nothing is valid. There is either a transcendent standard, or the only difference between right and wrong is how you happen to be feeling on a particular day. 

"Something cannot bring itself into existence." This is an absolutely true statement. In order for something to bring itself into existence, it would have to exist in order to be able to perform an action. But if it already existed, then it isn't possible to bring itself into existence since it already exists. Likewise, if it does not exist then it has no ability to perform any creative action since it
doesn't exist in the first place. Therefore, "Something cannot bring itself into existence" is an absolute truth. str.org

In order to have rational dialogue, we must assume that there are absolute truths. We cannot have rational dialogue without presupposing logical absolutes. If there were no such things as logical absolutes, then everything would be relative and no truth could be established. str.org

When morality is reduced to personal tastes, people exchange the moral question, What is good for the pleasure question, What feels good? They assert their desires and then attempt to rationalize their choices with moral language. Relativism, Koukl

Is it always wrong, everywhere, and for everyone, to torture and kill babies for fun? (I had to add the 'for fun' part because I got so many equivocations, believe it or not) If there's ascent to that premise does it follow that even if no one on the planet believed in that truth, would it still be true? If that is true, then would it require that the validity of truth depends on an external source, a transcendent Arbiter, because otherwise 'truth' is nothing more than subjective opinion?

----------


## sophocles07

> I read about a little monkey boy in one of Michael Crichton's novels


Clearly you make both bad theological and aesthetical choices.




> You, sir, would be better off if you would not say things against the Bible.
> 
> To say that the Bible blasphemes God Himself is to make God at odds with Himself (which is impossible). The Bible is God's inerrant, infallible Word and everything in it is absolutely true.
> 
> If you don't agree with God, say so if you must. But do not persist in your unwise words, especially because it will neither do you any good, nor any that might read them.


Jesus Christ I can’t believe this isn’t an attempt at parody.

*General Comment*

_I can’t believe this thread has come to a woman living in America actually arguing for slavery.  It’s $#@!ing insanity._




> And that is evidenced where? Who observed this incredible phenomenon?


I’m not going to get into a long thing about this, because I already consider you crazy (and you would probably just go search Creationist sites for hogwash “arguments”), but here is a link I found with some hominid fossils you can look at:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html




> Could someone name a few successful secular humanist / atheist nations? Would you like to move to one? Does anyone believe that Mr. Paul is intent on instituting one, any more than a Theocracy?


Yeah, but no “atheist” here is arguing for an atheist nation; we’re opposing Theocrat/Macon, GA’s call for “Theocracy,” which is an insane thing to call for.

I want everyone, as I’ve stated, to be free to believe whatever they want.  Just not enforce their lunacy on everyone.

----------


## beachmaster

> Yeah, but no “atheist” here is arguing for an atheist nation; we’re opposing Theocrat/Macon, GA’s call for “Theocracy,” which is an insane thing to call for.
> 
> I want everyone, as I’ve stated, to be free to believe whatever they want.  Just not enforce their lunacy on everyone.


Hear hear!  I'm not even a true atheist and not a theist either.  Yet I'd be happy to live in a world that is free for people to believe or not believe as they will, as long as they don't hurt others and respect the rights of others.  I don't see what's so wrong with that.

----------


## sophocles07

> Hear hear! I'm not even a true atheist and not a theist either. Yet I'd be happy to live in a world that is free for people to believe or not believe as they will, as long as they don't hurt others and respect the rights of others. I don't see what's so wrong with that.


Yeah, I"m also not a "true atheist," I'm agnostic.

BECAUSE we CAN'T know.

----------


## hypnagogue

Kade, speaking as an anti-religious atheist myself, you need to give it a rest. You will never succeed in using reason against those who do not wish to think. It's not like the people who are sitting on the fence are going to be the ones who engage in these topics. It will continue to be the two sides whose minds are already, for the most part, made up. 

I fully understand that yearning to throw reason into the machinery of mythology, and to demand that people see and hear and understand, but that's simply never going to happen. 

Our best strategy is to live our lives nobly and with our philosophies borne openly, while working to create a society where all philosophies may compete fairly. Then we need only sit back and let truth take it's course.

----------


## Theocrat

> Theists are arbitrary.  They pick and choose which scriptures or doctrines apply.  For virtually every major doctrine a Christian may pull out of the bible, another Christian can espouse a contrary doctrine using the very same bible.  A classic case is Calvinism vs. Armenianism.  Trinity vs Oneness another.  And yes of course, each Christian can point to the other and say "They are not real Christians".  You can say that about Christians preaching other doctrines, many of which have to do with salvation and how it obtained.  History teaches us (well maybe not you) that these multiple understanding of the "scripture" lead to tyranny, torture, hatred, accusations of heresy, division, war, in essence a whole litany of negative outcomes.  And you claim you are not "arbitrary".  Bullbutter.


First, let's define what "arbitrary" means for the purposes of this discussion. The _American Heritage Dictionary_ defines "arbitrary" as "*determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle; based on or subject to individual judgment or preference*." This is what I mean when I say that anti-theists are "arbitrary." They have no uniform, eternal, and absolute standard by which they reason or form their opinions or establish truth. They always begin within *themselves* as the arbiters of truth, but since all anti-theists think and act differently, it becomes very difficult for them to come to a consensus of what the truth or falsity of a claim is. For instance, "atheists," agnostics, deists, and pantheists *all have different and opposing presuppositions* by which they begin their reasoning processes in making moral judgments, analyzing scientific claims, etc., so one would expect them all to come up with different conclusions about what truth, morality, beauty, and reality are. That's how anti-theists are arbitrary.

I think you're misunderstanding what it means to be arbitrary when you say that Christians pick and choose which doctrines to believe, beachmaster. You're forgetting that Christians, nonetheless of their doctrinal differences, still start with and assume that the *Bible is the final authority* for the basis of their particular doctrinal beliefs. I will grant that many Christians are wrong in their doctrine, but at least they can usually be corrected by some good exegesis of Scripture and prayer. But suffice it to say, Christians *are not arbitrary* when it comes to having some sort of standard of what reality, truth, beauty, morality, etc. are. Anti-theists, on the other hand, are because they make themselves the arbiter of what these things should be and are without any universal, invariant, and abstract standard outside of themselves.

It's interesting how you mention that history is full of examples where bad theology has lead to all sorts of human atrocities, but you've overlooked two things, beachmaster. One, you seem to forget that those *who've rejected God* in history have committed the most horrid, abominable, and disgusting atrocities mankind has ever witnessed. Tyrannical leaders such as Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, and Mao Zedong were *all "atheists"* who acted out on their own beliefs of what was right and wrong, and look what they did to multitudes of people in their genocidal implentations of law. They even believed that what they were doing was good because they were getting rid of lesser species or those who refused to obey their own command. The two Columbine School shooters, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, were openly "atheistic" in their beliefs, and they carried out what they thought was right by shooting those 15 students and faculty at the school. Klebold was even wearing a shirt that said "Natural Selection" on it when he committed those murders. Here are some letters written by the "atheist" Eric Harris which shows he had his own standard of morality as an "atheist."

Second, and I've mentioned this many times before, *why* should it matter that there's "tyranny, torture, hatred, accusations of heresy, division, war" amongst "evolved animals" in a universe of random chance, matter in motion, abiogenesis, etc.? This, to me, really seems silly that you continually bring up this things as being wrong, but you see, in a materialistic world, what one "animal" does to another "animal" is *ethically irrelevant*. You see, might makes right, if there is no God. Once again, when you appeal to such things as morality, you're just attempting to add *nurture* to *nature*, as Carl Sagan once said. I don't see any anti-theists going out in nature trying to stop lions from killing antelope because antelope have natural rights or something like that. You see, the anti-theist simply cannot be consistent within his own naturalistic assumptions about the world he lives in, and he exposes its fallacies every time he appeals to universal, invariant, and abstract entities such as standards of morality.




> You've still not answered many of my questions, such as is lying wrong? If it is wrong, then why would Yahweh send lying spirits and strong delusion as sayeth the scriptures?


It's wrong to lie when you bear false witness against your neighbor, teach false doctrines, commit perjury, dishonor oaths, etc. I like what the Westminster Larger Catechism says about lying, and you can read it here (Q. 143-145).

Because God is sovereign and controls all of His creatures, including spirits, He often uses them for His own purposes in punishing His enemies or strengthening the faith of His people, as He did in Job's case (Job 1). In the account you've mentioned (1 Kings 22), yes, God sent lying spirits to the four hundred prophets of the pagan deity, Baal, in order to *punish King Ahab for listening to them and not worshiping the true God*. God had already told King Ahab back in 1 Kings 18 that he would die for bringing false worship to the Israelites.




> You still have not answered why your religion has any more credibility than other religions. Do not the theists of Hinduism, Islam and Judaism flavors have just as much a right to have their religion's scriptures be used as the bases of a theocracy? If not, why is that? Who is being arbritrary here Theocrat? I say live and let live, agree to disagree, and let everyone determine their own basis for living in peace and harmony with their fellow man, and let history, reason and common sense dictate what constitutes a crime.


The reason why the other religions (or "superstitions" as I like to call them) are not correct is because they each have wrong premises about Who God is, and philosophically, each one undermines logic, morality, knowledge, truth, science in their own way. Their doctrines do not have the necessity nor ability to establish a true theocracy where rights are adequately protected, property is distributed rightly, life is defined and protected correctly, and a host of other things.

Once again, beachmaster, *why should a society live by your own ethic* of "live and let live, agree to disagree, and let everyone determine their own basis for living in peace and harmony with their fellow man, letting history, reason, and common sense dictate what constitutes a crime?" Who made you the final authority on how we should live, beachmaster?! You're not God! There are plenty of people who would rather live and kill those who don't agree with them (Muslims), so why should they give up their own moral code to live by yours? You continue to beg the most important questions in your own worldview, beachmaster. I don't think you've really thought over the tenets of your faith as an anti-theist. In the end, you are insisting that *your* religion (superstition), *your* understanding of the world, and *your* humanistic doctrines *dictate how we should all live and what the government should use as it's standard in making and enforcing law*. Talk about the "pot calling the kettle black!"




> Under your plan, not only Atheists, Agnostics, and Deists would be subject to your ideals, but so would Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, 7th Day Adventists, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, or any other type of Theist.
> 
> Who is being arbitrary here?


And? I would rather follow the eternal, immutable, and righteous principles of God's law as revealed in the Bible than the humanistic principles of an "atheistic" society. You, too, want Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. to live under your ethic of "live and let live, etc.," beachmaster. Under you plan, I couldn't follow my Bible in having the government capitally punish abortionists and the mothers who have abortions, for instance. In Congress, I couldn't use the Bible as a standard of law when I legislate law, under your plan of humanism. So, you, too, are just as willing to force your beliefs on others as I would implement my own in the public arena. So, who decides, beachmaster, and how am I being arbitrary?

----------


## sophocles07

> First, let's define what "arbitrary" means for the purposes of this discussion. The American Heritage Dictionary defines "arbitrary" as "determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle; based on or subject to individual judgment or preference."


Yes, that means theists are arbitrary.  In all likelihood—this is not the kind of arbitrary beachmaster meant I don’t think—you would have been Hindu had you been born in India.  By your present “thought,” your hypothetical Indian self would be going to Hell after death.

If that’s not arbitrary, I don’t know what is.




> This is what I mean when I say that anti-theists are "arbitrary." They have no uniform, eternal, and absolute standard by which they reason or form their opinions or establish truth.


What about logic, dickbucket?




> They always begin within themselves as the arbiters of truth, but since all anti-theists think and act differently, it becomes very difficult for them to come to a consensus of what the truth or falsity of a claim is.


“All anti-theists think and act differently”?  I’m fairly sure we can locate all human behavior as quite similar; we can, also, locate animal behavior, within their own species, as similar.

I don’t know what else this could mean.




> For instance, "atheists," agnostics, deists, and pantheists all have different and opposing presuppositions by which they begin their reasoning processes in making moral judgments, analyzing scientific claims, etc., so one would expect them all to come up with different conclusions about what truth, morality, beauty, and reality are. That's how anti-theists are arbitrary.


No they don’t.  They may have varying varieties on a very nit-picking basis, but all of these use logic as the foremost tool to define these concepts.  (Possibly excluding “pantheists,” which I’m not sure are “anti-theists”; nor are agnostics necessarily “anti-theist”.)




> I think you're misunderstanding what it means to be arbitrary when you say that Christians pick and choose which doctrines to believe, beachmaster. You're forgetting that Christians, nonetheless of their doctrinal differences, still start with and assume that the Bible is the final authority for the basis of their particular doctrinal beliefs. I will grant that many Christians are wrong in their doctrine, but at least they can usually be corrected by some good exegesis of Scripture and prayer. But suffice it to say, Christians are not arbitrary when it comes to having some sort of standard of what reality, truth, beauty, morality, etc. are. Anti-theists, on the other hand, are because they make themselves the arbiter of what these things should be and are without any universal, invariant, and abstract standard outside of themselves.


It’s absolute garbage to say non-theists have no universal, invariant, “abstract” standards outside of themselves.  This makes absolutely _no sense_.

You can call that not being arbitrary if you’d like.  It seems fairly obvious that most of the time, Christians *pick and choose* what suits them at any given time.




> It's interesting how you mention that history is full of examples where bad theology has lead to all sorts of human atrocities, but you've overlooked two things, beachmaster. One, you seem to forget that those who've rejected God in history have committed the most horrid, abominable, and disgusting atrocities mankind has ever witnessed. Tyrannical leaders such as Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, and Mao Zedong were all "atheists" who acted out on their own beliefs of what was right and wrong, and look what they did to multitudes of people in their genocidal implentations of law. They even believed that what they were doing was good because they were getting rid of lesser species or those who refused to obey their own command. The two Columbine School shooters, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, were openly "atheistic" in their beliefs, and they carried out what they thought was right by shooting those 15 students and faculty at the school. Klebold was even wearing a shirt that said "Natural Selection" on it when he committed those murders. Here are some letters written by the "atheist" Eric Harris which shows he had his own standard of morality as an "atheist."


This doesn’t have anything to do with religious crime, though.

It’s like if I said “Theocrat, you murdered your children, what do you have to say for yourself?” And you responded with, “Well, I heard an atheist shot some kids, so there.”

It’s a ridiculous response, and it is SOPHISTRY.




> Second, and I've mentioned this many times before, why should it matter that there's "tyranny, torture, hatred, accusations of heresy, division, war" amongst "evolved animals" in a universe of random chance, matter in motion, abiogenesis, etc.? This, to me, really seems silly that you continually bring up this things as being wrong, but you see, in a materialistic world, what one "animal" does to another "animal" is ethically irrelevant. You see, might makes right, if there is no God. Once again, when you appeal to such things as morality, you're just attempting to add nurture to nature, as Carl Sagan once said. I don't see any anti-theists going out in nature trying to stop lions from killing antelope because antelope have natural rights or something like that. You see, the anti-theist simply cannot be consistent within his own naturalistic assumptions about the world he lives in, and he exposes its fallacies every time he appeals to universal, invariant, and abstract entities such as standards of morality.


I’ve already answered this; you haven’t responded.  

Morality is not dependent on a Godhead; in fact, your God is a man-made concept and his “laws” are man-made laws.  You are absolutely fooling yourself if you believe otherwise.

Reply to my original response to this "query": how are abstract conceptions possible without their roots in material circumstance, and why is a god-head necessary if these concepts arise in human action and experience?  Just like the abstract concept of 2+2=4; this arose in material circumstance, not because "God" invented abstract categories (YOU ARE A PLATONIST BY THE WAY).

I would assume the only real reply is to say, along with Plato, that material world is a shadow of the original paradisal state of being.

Also, I think we should come to the center of this discussion: you believe in revelation as a means of getting truth; agnostics and atheists do not.  

How can you show revelation to be anything other than an imagined or invented "truth", much like artistic and poetic creation (but on a much larger, collective level)?

----------


## Macon, GA

> Even in the 10 commandments, we see that a man's wife is mere property, just like his animals and slaves:
> 
> Exodus 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.


Beachmaster.....  come on.  Have you never used the phrase "my" wife?  Did you mean that you owned her?  As I have said before, Christianity has done more for women than any other religion.  

Scripture sees both men and women as having "property rights" to one another (I. Cor. 7:3-5).  We are God's property (Psalm 24:1), and we belong to one another.  

I know you are probably familiar with this one:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a more personal note, I just saw that your location is the "Florida Panhandle."  Every summer we go to Cape San Blas.  It is my absolute favorite place....  The Gulf of Mexico has to be one of the most beautiful places on earth.

----------


## WilliamC

> Hear hear!  I'm not even a true atheist and not a theist either.  Yet I'd be happy to live in a world that is free for people to believe or not believe as they will, as long as they don't hurt others and respect the rights of others.  I don't see what's so wrong with that.


Works for me. 

Obviously some folks in here though would want to see such a world destroyed because of people who chose not to believe as they do.

----------


## amy31416

> What about logic, dickbucket?


Honestly, I have no idea what this is about because I couldn't read anything beyond "dickbucket."

How to describe my awe and amazement at that word....I'm speechless.

----------


## WilliamC

> Honestly, I have no idea what this is about because I couldn't read anything beyond "dickbucket."
> 
> How to describe my awe and amazement at that word....I'm speechless.


It is puzzling to me why some people seem compelled to use vulgarity in an attempt to advance their arguments.

I've always seen it as a sign of intellectual weakness myself.

It's one thing to inadvertently have a slip of the tongue and say something inappropriate, but to type it is a very deliberate act.

As wrong as I think Theocrat and those like him are, I'm really not interested in calling him/her names. Like you Amy, I tend to see such language and just stop reading.

----------


## Macon, GA

That is why Sophocles is on my ignore list.  I agree with you WilliamC when you say:

"I've always seen it as a sign of intellectual weakness myself."

I see it as a sign of immaturity as well.

----------


## Dirt Roads Scholar

I wonder how you could have a slip of the tongue while typing. Besides the immaturity and ignorance displayed in foul language, there's the vocabulary deficit. I've asked before and not gotten an answer, do the women these men associate with find that language attractive, do they speak that way as well, and do the men find it attractive?

I'm interested in this notion that truth (including absolute truth) can be found inside the heads of humans. When I follow that train of thought out to it's logical conclusion, I get a playground full of children all hollering, "Is so!", and "Is not!", at each other. And all of them are right (or wrong). Without a transcendent standard there are nothing but subjective opinions.

The defenders of this arbitrary notion of ultimate reality are merely positing their biases as 'truth', as opposed to anyone else's version. The word 'obvious' will appear frequently, from all disparate parties. Whose truth are we to accept? The proponents of autonomous individual truth, will in the end accept Nietzsche's truth of 'the will to power'. The one with the biggest gun will determine what 'truth' is.

Y'all can dispense with the Christian God, and even mock Him, but when your existentialist rubber hits the road, it'll be slippery with blood. Look back down the road you're going, to see where you're headed.

----------


## WilliamC

> I wonder how you could have a slip of the tongue while typing. Besides the immaturity and ignorance displayed in foul language, there's the vocabulary deficit. I've asked before and not gotten an answer, do the women these men associate with find that language attractive, do they speak that way as well, and do the men find it attractive?
> 
> I'm interested in this notion that truth (including absolute truth) can be found inside the heads of humans. When I follow that train of thought out to it's logical conclusion, I get a playground full of children all hollering, "Is so!", and "Is not!", at each other. And all of them are right (or wrong). Without a transcendent standard there are nothing but subjective opinions.
> 
> The defenders of this arbitrary notion of ultimate reality are merely positing their biases as 'truth', as opposed to anyone else's version. The word 'obvious' will appear frequently, from all disparate parties. Whose truth are we to accept? The proponents of autonomous individual truth, will in the end accept Nietzsche's truth of 'the will to power'. The one with the biggest gun will determine what 'truth' is.
> 
> Y'all can dispense with the Christian God, and even mock Him, but when your existentialist rubber hits the road, it'll be slippery with blood. Look back down the road you're going, to see where you're headed.


It just all depends on the premises one starts with.

I start with the premises that are outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (among other places) that it is individuals which have legitimate rights, not groups.

Furthermore I accept the premise that so long as individuals are peaceful (that is they aren't using violence or fraud to get from others what they can't through voluntary cooperation) then the legitimate role of Governments is to protect their rights.

Even if they engage in behaviour I find irrational or repulsive. 

Let all peaceful people live free is how I sum it up, but of course we can nitpick all day long about the definitions of the words.

But in my long years of internet debating it is clear that there are a few people who are actually interested in civil discourse and rapidly either agree with each other or find out where they disagree and keep those disagreements civil. Then there are those who either resort to insults and profanity, or outright threats and ridicule as "debating" tactics when they can't logically defend (or are even unwilling to explicitly state) their premises.

In this thread there are rational posters on both sides of the issue, and there are irrational posters on both  sides too.

Far be it from me to start naming names, but we know who we are.

----------


## Ginobili

Bump for good showing of how atheists and theists will never beat the other person, as one or the other always completely goes off topic. 

P.S., Theocrat... your a sick, sick man, from what I have read.

----------


## beachmaster

Theocrat, I note that you've still failed to answer some of the primary questions about your ideal of a theocratic state.  Who decides which of the biblical laws are applicable to today?  Who decides the proper interpretation of them?  Who decides how they are to be enforced?  

I brought up the sabbath.  You say the sabbath is now on the 1st day of the week.  Many other Christians disagree.  The majority would in fact agree with you that it's the 1st day.  So does your theocratic majority rule over the minority who do not see any law or command to usurp the 7th day sabbath?  Since the sabbath was one of those most basic set of laws, the 10 commandments, if you put no teeth into the enforcement of it, why should anyone believe your theocratic utopia is even marginally credible?  Would your ideal theocratic state stone sabbath breakers as your god told Moses to do?  Would that include stoning 7th day sabbath keepers who do not honor your 1st day sabbath?

Don't you think just on that one topic, the sabbath, that an arbitrary decision must be made since everyone doesn't agree on what the bible says about it?

Do you support replacing the electric chair with the stoning pit for capital crimes?  Who should decide how crimes are punished in accordance with biblical law?  Seems to me that a theocracy would quickly devolve into voting blocs of denominations which would eventually rule by majority (and the majority would arbitrarily decide which laws were valid, which were to be enforced and how they would be enforced, how they would be interpreted, and who would obtain mercy).

You've avoided this subject entirely, and believe me, I can understand why.




> First, let's define what "arbitrary" means for the purposes of this discussion. The _American Heritage Dictionary_ defines "arbitrary" as "*determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle; based on or subject to individual judgment or preference*." This is what I mean when I say that anti-theists are "arbitrary."


Well first off, I'm no "anti-theist".  I'm pro theist.  My wife is a theist and I do not discourage her from being one.  So I really can't answer the charge from a first hand perspective... however, I will note that everyone has standards (excepting the sociopath).  They come from tradition, upbringing, past laws of various cultures (not all of which by any means were Christian), conscience, and yes, religion.

There were laws against murder well before the bible was written, redacted, copied, compiled and voted on as canon.  Don't say that the laws were in man's heart previously because your god wrote them there.  If you do, you'll have to explain why God had to have it put in writing that man shouldn't have sex with beast.  (IOW, shouldn't that most basic premise also be written on our hearts?)





> They have no uniform, eternal, and absolute standard by which they reason or form their opinions or establish truth. They always begin within *themselves* as the arbiters of truth, but since all anti-theists think and act differently, it becomes very difficult for them to come to a consensus of what the truth or falsity of a claim is. For instance, "atheists," agnostics, deists, and pantheists *all have different and opposing presuppositions* by which they begin their reasoning processes in making moral judgments, analyzing scientific claims, etc., so one would expect them all to come up with different conclusions about what truth, morality, beauty, and reality are. That's how anti-theists are arbitrary.


Among theists and even among Christians there is no uniform standard.  You can talk all day about the bible being the standard, but with so many and so diverse interpretations, and lack of consensus and uniformity about the truth of falsity of biblical claims, you end up with a hodge podge of denominations in competition with one another, and bickering amongst each other, not to mention tyrannical domination of one over many (as history shows us).  So in a theocratic world, one denomination, or a coalition of them, will ultimately come to power over the others.  Then you will see arbitrary enforcement of biblical precepts.  It happened in the dark ages, and it would surely happen again if we allowed that evil philosophy to get teeth again.





> I think you're misunderstanding what it means to be arbitrary when you say that Christians pick and choose which doctrines to believe, beachmaster. You're forgetting that Christians, nonetheless of their doctrinal differences, still start with and assume that the *Bible is the final authority* for the basis of their particular doctrinal beliefs.


That's only a half truth.  There are Christians who do not believe the bible is the inerrant word of God.  There are Christians who do not believe all of the "approved canon" belongs in the bible, and there are Christians who believe other extra-biblical sources trump the bible at times.  There are many Christians who believe the Old Testament is totally nullified and only think the New Testament is good for determining Christian "law".  There are Christians who don't believe any of the bible is good for law, that the law is now totally written on the heart.  So once again, you are off base.




> I will grant that many Christians are wrong in their doctrine,


By whose standard?  Yours?




> but at least they can usually be corrected by some good exegesis of Scripture and prayer.


Who is to do this "correcting"? You?




> But suffice it to say, Christians *are not arbitrary* when it comes to having some sort of standard of what reality, truth, beauty, morality, etc. are.


As you so often do, on almost every point you make... you are begging the question.




> Anti-theists, on the other hand, are because they make themselves the arbiter of what these things should be and are without any universal, invariant, and abstract standard outside of themselves.


No, that's not true.  Many places in this thread this has been addressed, including by myself.  If you can't or won't read or acknowledge this, then we're both wasting our time.




> It's interesting how you mention that history is full of examples where bad theology has lead to all sorts of human atrocities, but you've overlooked two things, beachmaster. One, you seem to forget that those *who've rejected God* in history have committed the most horrid, abominable, and disgusting atrocities mankind has ever witnessed. Tyrannical leaders such as Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, and Mao Zedong were *all "atheists"* who acted out on their own beliefs of what was right and wrong, and look what they did to multitudes of people in their genocidal implentations of law. They even believed that what they were doing was good because they were getting rid of lesser species or those who refused to obey their own command.


Again, not true.  First of all, Hitler was certainly not an atheist.  You should polish up on your history.  Second, atrocities by atheist and theist societies alike are equally reprehensible.  The Inquisitions, pograms, and butchery by the likes of the Christian Christopher Columbus are as equally immoral as what Staling and Mao did.  In this modern age, tyrants like Stalin and Mao had a lot more technological abilities to kill more people perhaps than Tomas de Torquemada, but I assure you that had Torquemada had the tools at his disposal, and the large population to work with as Stalin and Mao, his crimes would no doubt match or exceed what those two monsters did.




> The two Columbine School shooters, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, were openly "atheistic" in their beliefs, and they carried out what they thought was right by shooting those 15 students and faculty at the school. Klebold was even wearing a shirt that said "Natural Selection" on it when he committed those murders. Here are some letters written by the "atheist" Eric Harris which shows he had his own standard of morality as an "atheist."


Yeah and Mike Huckabee released a rapist who became a Christian and then he went on to murder and rape again.  Does that mean all Christians will murder and rape?  You are being ridiculous now.  In fact, so much so that I believe I'll just stop it here.  I've pretty much said all there is to say, and you haven't answered my questions about your ideal theocratic state, how it would be implemented.  I doubt you will, and even if you do, I'm sure it will be just as absurd as the rest of the BS you put forth.

----------


## beachmaster

> They always begin within *themselves* as the arbiters of truth


I will concede that with the exception of people who absolutely will not think for themselves and who depend on others to do their thinking for them, everyone starts with themselves as the arbiter of truth.  You do.  You begin with yourself when you decide that the bible will be your standard.  The bible just didn't take over your mind and make you obey it.  You made that decision.  You are the arbiter of truth.

----------


## Theocrat

> Theocrat, I note that you've still failed to answer some of the primary questions about your ideal of a theocratic state.  Who decides which of the biblical laws are applicable to today?  Who decides the proper interpretation of them?  Who decides how they are to be enforced?


It's apparent to me, beachmaster, that you failed to read the title of my first rebuttal to your post. I said it was just "Part 1" of my rebuttals to your questions, which means that most likely there will be a "*Part 2*." Just be patient.




> In fact, so much so that I believe I'll just stop it here.  I've pretty much said all there is to say, and you haven't answered my questions about your ideal theocratic state, how it would be implemented.  I doubt you will, and even if you do, I'm sure it will be just as absurd as the rest of the BS you put forth.


I'm glad you've expressed this because, in some sentiments, I feel the same way. It's almost as if we're talking right past each other, beachmaster. In the end, you will have your presuppositions and beliefs, and I will have mine. However, in the interest of learning and debate, I will still respond to the rest of your post when I have time.




> I will concede that with the exception of people who absolutely will not think for themselves and who depend on others to do their thinking for them, everyone starts with themselves as the arbiter of truth. You do. You begin with yourself when you decide that the bible will be your standard. The bible just didn't take over your mind and make you obey it. You made that decision. You are the arbiter of truth.


You couldn't be more mistaken about this, beachmaster. I do not start with myself as the arbiter of truth; I begin with *God*. It's *His* authority and *His* wisdom that I adhere my own beliefs to because God has the right and power to be the source of all knowledge, wisdom, understanding, and truth as the *supreme, sovereign Creator and Ruler of the universe*. God chose me; I did not choose Him. He is the original Article, the Source of all things. My choice in following Him is effect, not the cause of my willingness to obey and submit to Him. Don't ever forget that.

You, on the other hand, do not submit to God's authority (despite clear evidence of His sovereign power and existence), and that's because you *love yourself* and *your sin* above everything else. Spiritually, you are blind, deaf, and mute. Yet, in spite of all this, you still assume your own human autonomy. I do not, and that's what makes me different from you in deciding *absolute truth*, which you do not possess...yet.

----------


## Theocrat

> It just all depends on the premises one starts with.
> 
> I start with the premises that are outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (among other places) that it is individuals which have legitimate rights, not groups.


Oh, but you see, the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution were *written by men*, so it's obvious that they were wrong. I guess we shouldn't listen to nor obey their premises on individuals rights, if it was even the American Founding Fathers who wrote it in the first place...

----------


## sophocles07

> Honestly, I have no idea what this is about because I couldn't read anything beyond "dickbucket."
> 
> How to describe my awe and amazement at that word....I'm speechless.


haha




> It is puzzling to me why some people seem compelled to use vulgarity in an attempt to advance their arguments.
> 
> I've always seen it as a sign of intellectual weakness myself.
> 
> It's one thing to inadvertently have a slip of the tongue and say something inappropriate, but to type it is a very deliberate act.
> 
> As wrong as I think Theocrat and those like him are, I'm really not interested in calling him/her names. Like you Amy, I tend to see such language and just stop reading.


$#@! off, Wolf Blitzer.




> That is why Sophocles is on my ignore list. I agree with you WilliamC when you say:
> 
> "I've always seen it as a sign of intellectual weakness myself."
> 
> I see it as a sign of immaturity as well.


Do you read James Joyce or Catullus, my lady?  What about Petronius? 

By the way, I don’t “talk like this.”  Theocrat deserves rough language though; I have absolutely no “pity” for his side of the argument nor him as a person (from what I know).

I would posit it as a SIGN OF IMMATURITY to be offended by *a word*.




> I wonder how you could have a slip of the tongue while typing. Besides the immaturity and ignorance displayed in foul language, there's the vocabulary deficit.


1.	There is no such thing as foul language (unless you want to place *arbitrary* moral rules on language).
2.	I probably have a larger vocabulary than anyone on this site, or at least up there with those with the highest vocabulary.





> I'm interested in this notion that truth (including absolute truth) can be found inside the heads of humans. When I follow that train of thought out to it's logical conclusion, I get a playground full of children all hollering, "Is so!", and "Is not!", at each other. And all of them are right (or wrong). Without a transcendent standard there are nothing but subjective opinions.


Yes, but all your “transcendent standard” really is, is a psychological projection, an _illusion_ that there is a transcendent standard.  It DOES NOT mean it is “really there.”




> The defenders of this arbitrary notion of ultimate reality are merely positing their biases as 'truth', as opposed to anyone else's version. The word 'obvious' will appear frequently, from all disparate parties. Whose truth are we to accept? The proponents of autonomous individual truth, will in the end accept Nietzsche's truth of 'the will to power'. The one with the biggest gun will determine what 'truth' is.


I don’t see any reason to have everyone “accept” one truth.  The urge toward a totalitarian Christian society or need for a theocratic “rule of truth” is a very suspect urge.  

And I’m sure you know very little of Nietzsche’s thought.




> Y'all can dispense with the Christian God, and even mock Him, but when your existentialist rubber hits the road, it'll be slippery with blood. Look back down the road you're going, to see where you're headed.


I’ve never said that society does not require some sort of ritual, not necessarily transcendental myth in the way we are talking about, but something to replace the _function_ of myth in society.

----------


## beachmaster

> You couldn't be more mistaken about this, beachmaster. I do not start with myself as the arbiter of truth; I begin with *God*. It's *His* authority and *His* wisdom that I adhere my own beliefs to because God has the right and power to be the source of all knowledge, wisdom, understanding, and truth as the *supreme, sovereign Creator and Ruler of the universe*. God chose me; I did not choose Him. He is the original Article, the Source of all things. My choice in following Him is effect, not the cause of my willingness to obey and submit to Him. Don't ever forget that.


So "choose you this day whom you will serve" means nothing to you huh?  You had no freewill in the matter at all?  You are just a zombie of God?  Ok, fine.  I'd rather have the freewill (be arbitrary in what standards agree with me as to how to live) than be a zombie without freewill.  If you had freewill to decide to follow the bible, then you would be making an arbitrary decision. I apologize for mistaking you as someone who thought for himself.





> You, on the other hand, do not submit to God's authority (despite clear evidence of His sovereign power and existence),


Maybe you have seen clear evidence.  I have not.  I simply do not believe your god exists any more than a Santa Clause who lives on the north pole and brings gifts t o all good children every Christmas.  How can I (voluntarily) submit to something in which I do not hold a belief of?  Wouldn't that be rather foolish on my part?




> and that's because you *love yourself*


How the hell would you know?  A little presumptuous aren't you?  Actually I'm not too happy with myself most of the time.  




> and *your sin* above everything else.


You'd have to define sin.  I define it as disobeying the commands of a deity.  If that's the case, then I don't love sin, because I don't believe in sin.  You on the other hand love your sin against the Great Allah. 





> Spiritually, you are blind, deaf, and mute.


Prove that or shut the hell up.  Anyone can claim someone else is "spiritually blind, deaf and mute".  I can say the same about you... you are BLINDED BY LIES for example.  Though I believe this to be true of you, I try to refrain from telling you so, and even if I did, I would state it as a matter of opinion, not fact.    Seriously though your hatred is starting to show through your little thinly veiled insults Theocrat.  





> Yet, in spite of all this, you still assume your own human autonomy. I do not, and that's what makes me different from you in deciding *absolute truth*, which you do not possess...yet.


Yes, I'm autonomous.  Show me a God that has power over me, to make me a zombie like you seem to be, and I'll concede.  Prove your god exists. Prove your god is the singular Almighty God.  Prove your god wrote the bible.  Until you do that, why don't you just live by faith, and admit that your belief is just that, a belief?



--------------------------------

Edit:  Gosh, I could have just started this out by restating what I had said previously:




> Originally Posted by beachmaster  
> I will concede that *with the exception of people who absolutely will not think for themselves* and who depend on others to do their thinking for them, *everyone starts with themselves as the arbiter of truth*.


 and noting that you actually (apparently) AGREE WITH ME for a change!

But I didn't.

End Edit.

----------


## beachmaster

> Oh, but you see, the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution were *written by men*, so it's obvious that they were wrong. I guess we shouldn't listen to nor obey their premises on individuals rights, if it was even the American Founding Fathers who wrote it in the first place...


According to your bible Theocrat, you should not even be in agreement with our founders at all, nor the Declaration nor the Constitution.  You should be loyal only to the Queen of England.  The founders resisted the authority of the British Crown over the colonies, which directly violates Romans 13.  So perhaps your theocratic movement would be one to take us back under British rule.  I assume in keeping with the spirit of Romans 13, you don't stand for the pledge of allegiance nor the singing of the Star Bangled Banner right?   

What was that everyone kept saying about how Christian the founders were, and how this country was founded on Christian principles?  lol

----------


## WilliamC

> Oh, but you see, the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution were *written by men*, so it's obvious that they were wrong. I guess we shouldn't listen to nor obey their premises on individuals rights, if it was even the American Founding Fathers who wrote it in the first place...


You are of course free to reject the premise that individual rights for all peaceful peoples forms the basis of a just society.

Doesn't surprise me actually, given the vitriol I've read in many of your posts.

----------


## Theocrat

> By the way, I dont talk like this.  Theocrat deserves rough language though; I have absolutely no pity for his side of the argument nor him as a person (from what I know).


Sophocles07, you've just become an example for everyone who visits this forum thread of an "atheist" who hates a theist, by your own comments. Your vulgarity is to be noted, but then again, you believe that you're just an "evolved animal" anyway, so I shouldn't be surprised when you act like one by *your lack of civility in intelligent discourse*.




> Yes, but all your transcendent standard really is, is a psychological projection, an _illusion_ that there is a transcendent standard.  It DOES NOT mean it is really there.


Oh, yeah? How do you know this? Is this true just because *you* say so? Did you *observe this through any scientific process* psychologically? Sounds like your own *personal opinion*, to me... Perhaps your statements that "...all your 'transcendental standard' really is is a psychological projection, an illusion that there is a transcendent standard," and "It does not mean it is 'really there'" are *themselves psychological projections of your own brain which aren't really there*. But, of course, you would never even consider that...

----------


## Macon, GA

Found this on Romans 13:

If the Separatists and Puritans had followed Romans 13 out to the extreme to which you think it dictates, they would not have come to the New World.  Rather, they would have bowed a knee to the ungodly state religion of their day.

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c200..._20070810.html

"Did Moses violate God's principle of submission to authority when he killed the Egyptian taskmaster in defense of his fellow Hebrew? Did Elijah violate God's principle of submission to authority when he openly challenged Ahab and Jezebel? Did David violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to surrender to Saul's troops? Did Daniel violate God's principle of submission to authority when he disobeyed the king's law to not pray audibly to God? Did the three Hebrew children violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to bow to the image of the state? Did John the Baptist violate God's principle of submission to authority when he publicly scolded King Herod for his infidelity? Did Simon Peter and the other Apostles violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to stop preaching on the streets of Jerusalem? Did Paul violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to obey those authorities who demanded that he abandon his missionary work? In fact, Paul spent almost as much time in jail as he did out of jail."

"Remember that every apostle of Christ (except John) was killed by hostile civil authorities opposed to their endeavors. Christians throughout church history were imprisoned, tortured, or killed by civil authorities of all stripes for refusing to submit to their various laws and prohibitions. Did all of these Christian martyrs violate God's principle of submission to authority?"

"So, even the great prophets, apostles, and writers of the Bible (including the writer of Romans Chapter 13) understood that human authority--even civil authority--is limited."

----------


## sophocles07

> Sophocles07, you've just become an example for everyone who visits this forum thread of an "atheist" who hates a theist, by your own comments.


1 Not an atheist.  2 I don’t “hate theists,” I hate people who think they can impose theocracy in 2008, several hundred years after Jefferson put you psychos in your place.




> Your vulgarity is to be noted, but then again, you believe that you're just an "evolved animal" anyway, so I shouldn't be surprised when you act like one by your lack of civility in intelligent discourse.


You call this intelligent discourse?

I call it several individuals giving rational arguments, and repeatedly being replied to with absolute nonsense, for pages and pages and pages.  YOU are a completely devoid of any sentiment of rationality.

So, if I don’t say “$#@!” and talk in complete irrationalisms, I am suddenly participating in “intelligent discourse”?

Right.




> Oh, yeah? How do you know this?


Let’s say it’s likely.  There is no proof that this god inspired these words that created these codes of morality.  There is only the obvious fact that _men_ wrote the Bible.  Just like every other book.




> Is this true just because you say so?


I have to give you that I don’t “know”; but, as I say, it’s likely that I am correct.

Why?  Because you have no evidence that your claims are real/true.




> Did you observe this through any scientific process psychologically?


Well, we have empirical evidence that men wrote the Bible.  That’s what I’m going on.  If you present more evidence that invites a God into the equation, I’ll re-look at my position.




> Sounds like your own personal opinion, to me...


Bolding “personal opinion” does not make you seem any less psychotic.




> Perhaps your statements that "...all your 'transcendental standard' really is is a psychological projection, an illusion that there is a transcendent standard," and "It does not mean it is 'really there'" are themselves psychological projections of your own brain which aren't really there. But, of course, you would never even consider that...


You know, Pee Wee Herman, you’ve $#@!in’ got me!

Jesus Christ, man, this is just tinker-toy level intelligence.


You also haven’t responded to some of my past arguments:




> You cannot say “This is true because it says it’s true.” You see how easily this could be applied to ANYTHING, right? You would have to say “This is true because I’ve verified it is true in some other way.” Like if someone tells me a cat just got run over by a car in the street. The person telling me could be entirely lying. I would have to go to the street and verify whether or not it is true. 
> 
> I don’t know what you mean when you ask “what standards or laws of reasoning” I am using. This is LOGIC 101. Maybe you should read up on it; been up-n-goin since the Greeks, man.





> Quote:
> So, the truth of God is verifiable, sophocles07. Just ask the billions of Christians in the world today who have been touched by God's word, felt God's presence by His Spirit, experienced life-changing miracles in their lives by God's power, and have received answers to their questions in scientific experimentation and analysis by God's wisdom in providence. No, God has made Himself plenty known to multitudes of people since the beginning of time, my friend. 
> This is just as applicable to someone in an insane asylum.
> 
> Tommy says he’s reincarnated Jesus. Go ask him, he’ll tell you he’s “been touched by God’s word.” It’s his time; messiah-time. Do I need to believe him or figure out what part of his brain has gone AWOL? 
> 
> Give some specific examples of “life-changing miracles” specifically accomplished through “God’s power”; some that “have received answers to their questions in scientific experimentation and analysis by God’s wisdom in providence”.
> 
> By the way, this isn’t “verification.” This would amount to a bunch of people claiming they “believed” something in their life was caused by “God”. You’d have to show me some sort of PROOF that that was the actual cause of their life-changing/whatever “Miracle.” As I said above, the person claiming a cat was hit on the street is not the verification; it is SEEING the cat. 
> ...





> Quote:
> But it brings me back to an earlier question. If you believe that God does not give us a conscience to know right and wrong by writing His laws within our "hearts," then what is the original source within humans to know such things? Is it the chemicals inside us, the cells living in us, the synapses firing in our brains, the blood flowing from our hearts that gives us a "moral compass" by which we make rational and ethical choices and respond to them in our environment, given the presuppositions of your materialistic and "atheistic" worldview? 
> Let me ask you a question: how does “emotion” occur? Is it not a product of a biological system? This can just as easily be applied to language, the operations of internal organs, the moral conscience, memory, and so on, all in their respective operations, all coming about through evolution. 
> 
> I think you’ve too far “Platonized” a conception of right and wrong and logic. They are not “FORMS” placed in us or around us by God. They are processes and operations which, like the fact of our liver or emotion doing a job within our body and mental state, do a job with respect to the outside world. We reason and have moral/ethical conscience as a result of evolution; it is entirely MATERIAL based.


And the main points:




> Morality is not dependent on a Godhead; in fact, your God is a man-made concept and his “laws” are man-made laws. You are absolutely fooling yourself if you believe otherwise.
> 
> Reply to my original response to this "query": how are abstract conceptions possible without their roots in material circumstance, and why is a god-head necessary if these concepts arise in human action and experience? Just like the abstract concept of 2+2=4; this arose in material circumstance, not because "God" invented abstract categories (YOU ARE A PLATONIST BY THE WAY).
> 
> I would assume the only real reply is to say, along with Plato, that material world is a shadow of the original paradisal state of being.
> 
> Also, I think we should come to the center of this discussion: you believe in revelation as a means of getting truth; agnostics and atheists do not. 
> 
> How can you show revelation to be anything other than an imagined or invented "truth", much like artistic and poetic creation (but on a much larger, collective level)?


I’d like a full response from you to these points, and not a hopscotch pick-and-choose Sophistry; give rational, passable arguments to the above.

----------


## sophocles07

> Sophocles07, you've just become an example for everyone who visits this forum thread of an "atheist" who hates a theist, by your own comments.


1 Not an atheist.  2 I don’t “hate theists,” I hate people who think they can impose theocracy in 2008, several hundred years after Jefferson put you psychos in their place.




> Your vulgarity is to be noted, but then again, you believe that you're just an "evolved animal" anyway, so I shouldn't be surprised when you act like one by your lack of civility in intelligent discourse.


You call this intelligent discourse?

I call it several individuals giving rational arguments, and repeatedly being replied to with absolute nonsense, for pages and pages and pages.  YOU are a completely devoid of any sentiment of rationality.

So, if I don’t say “$#@!” and talk in complete irrationalisms, I am suddenly participating in “intelligent discourse”?

Right.




> Oh, yeah? How do you know this?


Let’s say it’s likely.  There is no proof that this god inspired these words that created these codes of morality.  There is only the obvious fact that _men_ wrote the Bible.  Just like every other book.




> Is this true just because you say so?


I have to give you that I don’t “know”; but, as I say, it’s likely that I am correct.

Why?  Because you have no evidence that your claims are real/true.




> Did you observe this through any scientific process psychologically?


Well, we have empirical evidence that men wrote the Bible.  That’s what I’m going on.  If you present more evidence that invites a God into the equation, I’ll re-look at my position.




> Sounds like your own personal opinion, to me...


Bolding “personal opinion” does not make you seem any less psychotic.




> Perhaps your statements that "...all your 'transcendental standard' really is is a psychological projection, an illusion that there is a transcendent standard," and "It does not mean it is 'really there'" are themselves psychological projections of your own brain which aren't really there. But, of course, you would never even consider that...


You know, Pee Wee Herman, you’ve $#@!in’ got me!

Jesus Christ, man, this is just tinker-toy level intelligence.


You also haven’t responded to some of my past arguments:




> You cannot say “This is true because it says it’s true.” You see how easily this could be applied to ANYTHING, right? You would have to say “This is true because I’ve verified it is true in some other way.” Like if someone tells me a cat just got run over by a car in the street. The person telling me could be entirely lying. I would have to go to the street and verify whether or not it is true. 
> 
> I don’t know what you mean when you ask “what standards or laws of reasoning” I am using. This is LOGIC 101. Maybe you should read up on it; been up-n-goin since the Greeks, man.





> So, the truth of God is verifiable, sophocles07. Just ask the billions of Christians in the world today who have been touched by God's word, felt God's presence by His Spirit, experienced life-changing miracles in their lives by God's power, and have received answers to their questions in scientific experimentation and analysis by God's wisdom in providence. No, God has made Himself plenty known to multitudes of people since the beginning of time, my friend.
> 			
> 		
> 
> This is just as applicable to someone in an insane asylum.
> 
> Tommy says he’s reincarnated Jesus. Go ask him, he’ll tell you he’s “been touched by God’s word.” It’s his time; messiah-time. Do I need to believe him or figure out what part of his brain has gone AWOL? 
> 
> Give some specific examples of “life-changing miracles” specifically accomplished through “God’s power”; some that “have received answers to their questions in scientific experimentation and analysis by God’s wisdom in providence”.
> ...





> But it brings me back to an earlier question. If you believe that God does not give us a conscience to know right and wrong by writing His laws within our "hearts," then what is the original source within humans to know such things? Is it the chemicals inside us, the cells living in us, the synapses firing in our brains, the blood flowing from our hearts that gives us a "moral compass" by which we make rational and ethical choices and respond to them in our environment, given the presuppositions of your materialistic and "atheistic" worldview?
> 			
> 		
> 
> Let me ask you a question: how does “emotion” occur? Is it not a product of a biological system? This can just as easily be applied to language, the operations of internal organs, the moral conscience, memory, and so on, all in their respective operations, all coming about through evolution. 
> 
> I think you’ve too far “Platonized” a conception of right and wrong and logic. They are not “FORMS” placed in us or around us by God. They are processes and operations which, like the fact of our liver or emotion doing a job within our body and mental state, do a job with respect to the outside world. We reason and have moral/ethical conscience as a result of evolution; it is entirely MATERIAL based.


And the main points:




> Morality is not dependent on a Godhead; in fact, your God is a man-made concept and his “laws” are man-made laws. You are absolutely fooling yourself if you believe otherwise.
> 
> Reply to my original response to this "query": how are abstract conceptions possible without their roots in material circumstance, and why is a god-head necessary if these concepts arise in human action and experience? Just like the abstract concept of 2+2=4; this arose in material circumstance, not because "God" invented abstract categories (YOU ARE A PLATONIST BY THE WAY).
> 
> I would assume the only real reply is to say, along with Plato, that material world is a shadow of the original paradisal state of being.
> 
> Also, I think we should come to the center of this discussion: you believe in revelation as a means of getting truth; agnostics and atheists do not. 
> 
> How can you show revelation to be anything other than an imagined or invented "truth", much like artistic and poetic creation (but on a much larger, collective level)?


I’d like a full response from you to these points, and not a hopscotch pick-and-choose Sophistry; give rational, passable arguments to the above.

----------


## sophocles07

^^^I accidentally double posted that attempting to edit the quotes correctly, sorry.

----------


## Theocrat

> Id like a full response from you to these points, and not a hopscotch pick-and-choose Sophistry; give rational, passable arguments to the above.


Go to the "Civil Liberties" page of this forum, click on the number under the heading "Replies" for this thread, click on my username, and there you can read all of my posts which I believe will answer those questions you have, sophocles07. If those do not suffice, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree because I suspect you really aren't hear to learn from us theists; you'd rather curse and swear and attempt to ridicule our posts just for the sake of your own amusement. Some people have even ignored you (which I won't do) because of your vulgarity and irrationality. So, I leave you with that. Take it, or leave it; it's your choice.

----------


## Theocrat

> Found this on Romans 13:
> 
> If the Separatists and Puritans had followed Romans 13 out to the extreme to which you think it dictates, they would not have come to the New World.  Rather, they would have bowed a knee to the ungodly state religion of their day.
> 
> http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c200..._20070810.html
> 
> "Did Moses violate God's principle of submission to authority when he killed the Egyptian taskmaster in defense of his fellow Hebrew? Did Elijah violate God's principle of submission to authority when he openly challenged Ahab and Jezebel? Did David violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to surrender to Saul's troops? Did Daniel violate God's principle of submission to authority when he disobeyed the king's law to not pray audibly to God? Did the three Hebrew children violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to bow to the image of the state? Did John the Baptist violate God's principle of submission to authority when he publicly scolded King Herod for his infidelity? Did Simon Peter and the other Apostles violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to stop preaching on the streets of Jerusalem? Did Paul violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to obey those authorities who demanded that he abandon his missionary work? In fact, Paul spent almost as much time in jail as he did out of jail."
> 
> "Remember that every apostle of Christ (except John) was killed by hostile civil authorities opposed to their endeavors. Christians throughout church history were imprisoned, tortured, or killed by civil authorities of all stripes for refusing to submit to their various laws and prohibitions. Did all of these Christian martyrs violate God's principle of submission to authority?"
> ...


Hopefully, this will calm down beachmaster over his ranting about Romans 13. Dr. Baldwin says it better than I probably could. Thanks, Macon, GA.

----------


## sophocles07

> Go to the "Civil Liberties" page of this forum, click on the number under the heading "Replies" for this thread, click on my username, and there you can read all of my posts which I believe will answer those questions you have, sophocles07. If those do not suffice, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree because I suspect you really aren't hear to learn from us theists; you'd rather curse and swear and attempt to ridicule our posts just for the sake of your own amusement. Some people have even ignored you (which I won't do) because of your vulgarity and irrationality. So, I leave you with that. Take it, or leave it; it's your choice.


*You have not responded to these points.*

Either you do it, or you are admitting that you have to cede to the fact that you have _no arguments_ that are not paradoxical irrationalisms.

I've given you answers to all of the queries on "atheists" and abstractions/intellectual forms.  You have not responded but by asking me about chemicals reasoning.  That's not an answer.  I've asked you how you establish "truth" without verification, and if you are ready to merely say "I base it on revelation (i.e. irrationality)".  If you do admit this, this "truth" becomes merely subjective impression.  You have not responded to this but by repeating Bible-quotes and "asserting" that you are correct.  You have to get a little philosophical about this, Theocrat, or you're never going to get anywhere.

As Jerome says, "Quam diu fumeus harum urbium carcer includit?  Crede mihi, nescio quid plus lucis aspicio."

----------


## beachmaster

> Found this on Romans 13:
> 
> If the Separatists and Puritans had followed Romans 13 out to the extreme to which you think it dictates, they would not have come to the New World.  Rather, they would have bowed a knee to the ungodly state religion of their day.
> 
> http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c200..._20070810.html
> 
> "Did Moses violate God's principle of submission to authority when he killed the Egyptian taskmaster in defense of his fellow Hebrew? Did Elijah violate God's principle of submission to authority when he openly challenged Ahab and Jezebel? Did David violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to surrender to Saul's troops? Did Daniel violate God's principle of submission to authority when he disobeyed the king's law to not pray audibly to God? Did the three Hebrew children violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to bow to the image of the state? Did John the Baptist violate God's principle of submission to authority when he publicly scolded King Herod for his infidelity? Did Simon Peter and the other Apostles violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to stop preaching on the streets of Jerusalem? Did Paul violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to obey those authorities who demanded that he abandon his missionary work? In fact, Paul spent almost as much time in jail as he did out of jail."
> 
> "Remember that every apostle of Christ (except John) was killed by hostile civil authorities opposed to their endeavors. Christians throughout church history were imprisoned, tortured, or killed by civil authorities of all stripes for refusing to submit to their various laws and prohibitions. Did all of these Christian martyrs violate God's principle of submission to authority?"
> ...


Indeed, the bible is quite a bundle of contradictions isn't it?

(EDIT:  by the way, I always liked Chuck Baldwin... used to listen to his radio show all the time.  Imagine that, me, the so called theist hater!  lol.  and I used to use the same scriptural tug of war logic in defending my positions against the Christians who would tell me it's wrong to rebel against the government.  Just find some contradictory scripture to offset what Romans 13 said.... ok, I better "calm down" now, haha)

----------


## beachmaster

> Hopefully, this will calm down beachmaster over his ranting about Romans 13. Dr. Baldwin says it better than I probably could. Thanks, Macon, GA.


Oh now I rant huh?  You are so sophomoric.

----------


## Theocrat

> *You have not responded to these points.*


I *have* responded to your posts. It's just that *you don't like* my responses, period. Well, there's nothing I can do about that.




> Either you do it, or you are admitting that you have to cede to the fact that you have _no arguments_ that are not paradoxical irrationalisms.


I'm sorry, sophocles07, but your false dichotomies aren't going to persuade me to do it just because you want to provoke me in some way. I've given you provisions on what to do, if you seek any additional rebuttals from me. *I will not play your game*.

The fact of the matter is there are people on this forum thread who understand completely my reasoning and agree with the answers and thoughts I've provided. The truth of the matter is, I can't persuade everybody to believe as I believe, and it's even more difficult to do so when those whom I have opposing views with *have different presuppositions and standards of absolute truth* (or lack thereof) than I do. You are one of those people, sophocles07. I could give you every single *proof* in the existence of the universe, but I still wouldn't be able to *persuade* you because, fundamentally, you hate God. Simply put, you lack the preconditions of intelligibility which are necessary to believe and accept the truth of God's existence, and they don't come by the mere "reasoning" of sinful men. You must change your worldview, and that comes only by God's Spirit.

So, in the beloved words of Dr. Cornelius Van Til, a 20th Century Christian apologist and theologian, I leave you with this:

_I shall not convert you at the end of my argument. I think the argument is sound. I hold that belief in God is not merely as reasonable as other belief, or even a little or infinitely more probably true than other belief; I hold rather that unless you believe in God you can logically believe in nothing else. But since I believe in such a God, a God who has conditioned you as well as me, I know that you can to your own satisfaction, by the help of the biologists, the psychologists, the logicians, and the Bible critics reduce everything I have said this afternoon and evening to the circular meanderings of a hopeless authoritarian. Well, my meanderings have, to be sure, been circular; they have made everything turn on God. So now I shall leave you with Him, and with His mercy._

----------


## sophocles07

> I have responded to your posts. It's just that you don't like my responses, period. Well, there's nothing I can do about that.


I just searched through your posts in this thread.  There’s nothing in the realm of a response, except the aforesaid “do chemicals reason”.

Which isn’t a response.

Will you continue in claiming you have responded, _a blatant act of sophistry_; or will you either reply or SHOW me where you have replied.  Because I CANNOT find it.




> I'm sorry, sophocles07, but your false dichotomies aren't going to persuade me to do it just because you want to provoke me in some way. I've given you provisions on what to do, if you seek any additional rebuttals from me. I will not play your game.


This isn’t a false dichotomy.  I think most Christians would accept this dichotomy:  there is verifiable evidence by empirical test and there is “evidence” of the revelation type.  One is logical, the other is not.  You should at least admit this; it’s what FAITH means.




> The fact of the matter is there are people on this forum thread who understand completely my reasoning and agree with the answers and thoughts I've provided.


Who, Macon, GA, who supports Biblical slavery?




> The truth of the matter is, I can't persuade everybody to believe as I believe, and it's even more difficult to do so when those whom I have opposing views with have different presuppositions and standards of absolute truth (or lack thereof) than I do. You are one of those people, sophocles07. I could give you every single proof in the existence of the universe, but I still wouldn't be able to persuade you because, fundamentally, you hate God.


I find it an enormous arrogance of yours that you make these statements about people you don’t even know.  “You hate God.”  What the $#@! does that even mean?  




> Simply put, you lack the preconditions of intelligibility which are necessary to believe and accept the truth of God's existence, and they don't come by the mere "reasoning" of sinful men. You must change your worldview, and that comes only by God's Spirit.


Right, I can only read the Bible in Greek; I’m a $#@!ing idiot.




> So, in the beloved words of Dr. Cornelius Van Til, a 20th Century Christian apologist and theologian, I leave you with this:
> 
> I shall not convert you at the end of my argument. I think the argument is sound. I hold that belief in God is not merely as reasonable as other belief, or even a little or infinitely more probably true than other belief; I hold rather that unless you believe in God you can logically believe in nothing else. But since I believe in such a God, a God who has conditioned you as well as me, I know that you can to your own satisfaction, by the help of the biologists, the psychologists, the logicians, and the Bible critics reduce everything I have said this afternoon and evening to the circular meanderings of a hopeless authoritarian. Well, my meanderings have, to be sure, been circular; they have made everything turn on God. So now I shall leave you with Him, and with His mercy.


It’s funny that you/Van Til accuse ME of circular reasoning.

Try this on for size, your main argument:

“It is true because it says it is true.   Why do I believe this?  Because it tells me to believe this.”

THAT is the most circular line of “reasoning” I have EVER come across.

----------


## beachmaster

Excuse me Theocrat for butting in, but I just can't resist the urge to rant.  It's amazingly hard for me to remain calm.  So here I go again.




> I could give you every single *proof* in the existence of the universe, but I still wouldn't be able to *persuade* you because, fundamentally, you hate God.


I wonder how you can even begin to reason out that someone could possibly hate something that they do not believe in.  Do you believe in Santa Claus?  Could you ever possibly hate Santa Claus?  It's as difficult for me to hate the god of the bible (or of the koran or any other religious/superstitious book) as it is to hate Santa Claus.  How do you reason otherwise?




> Simply put, you lack the preconditions of intelligibility which are necessary to believe and accept the truth of God's existence, and they don't come by the mere "reasoning" of sinful men. You must change your worldview, and that comes only by God's Spirit.


So now you agree that he doesn't "believe and accept the truth of God's existence".  How in the hell is he supposed to hate that which he denies even exists?  Please answer me that... I'm losing my cool here! 

Ok, so now you also say that we can only believe in and accept the "truth" of God's existence if God's spirit changes our worldview.  So in fact, you must become a Zombie of God to be saved right?  And if God hardens your heart, like Pharoah, you are still responsible.  How is that just and moral?

I've said this many times before... if the God of the bible exists, I could not in good conscience worship such a monster, assuming everything in the bible that was written about it were to be true.  I would hate God if the bible were true.  But it's not true, and I don't hate God.

I actually hold out hope for the existence of a type of "God". You wouldn't understand though... you lack the preconditions of intelligibility.

Sorry to rant so much.  Please forgive me.

----------


## hearitonline

I have interviewed Dr. Ron Paul, and will be rebroadcasting that interview tomorrow. Go to www.hearitonline.com to hear Dr. Paul discuss the infamous Federal Reserve! Click on the large pinkish "Crash! Are You Ready?!" link! Check out articles on www.hearitonline.com for THE TRUTH about Bush's AntiChristian Kosovo policy, which is NOT being reported by the "fair & balanced" gang!

----------


## WilliamC

> Excuse me Theocrat for butting in, but I just can't resist the urge to rant.  It's amazingly hard for me to remain calm.  So here I go again.
> 
> 
> I wonder how you can even begin to reason out that someone could possibly hate something that they do not believe in.  Do you believe in Santa Claus?  Could you ever possibly hate Santa Claus?  It's as difficult for me to hate the god of the bible (or of the koran or any other religious/superstitious book) as it is to hate Santa Claus.  How do you reason otherwise?
> 
> 
> 
> So now you agree that he doesn't "believe and accept the truth of God's existence".  How in the hell is he supposed to hate that which he denies even exists?  Please answer me that... I'm losing my cool here! 
> 
> ...


What with all these accusations of people he disagrees with being "haters", methinks someone here is projecting their feelings onto others 

As for staying calm, just remember that you are not really  responding to the person you are posting in response to.

You have a far larger audience of folks who read the posts you make and never make a post themselves.

But most of them will undoubtedly see who is calm and rational, and who is not.

----------


## Dirt Roads Scholar

> It just all depends on the premises one starts with.
> 
> I start with the premises that are outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (among other places) that it is individuals which have legitimate rights, not groups.



William,

What basic premise do you ascribe to the authors? Are you of the revisionist history persuasion that redacts 99% of their writings to cherry pick some obscure statements that 'prove' they were all deists?

"There is nothing new, of course, in the idea that the framers
did not buy into the notion of human perfectibility. And the document
they drafted and the nation adopted in 1789 is shot through with
provisions that can only be understood against the supposition that
humanity's capacity for evil and tyranny is quite as real and quite as
great as its capacity for reason and altruism.  ...[T]he framers were
convinced, because "angels do not govern"; men do."
        "A Whiter Shade of Pale": Sense and Nonsense The Pursuit of
Perfection in Law and Politics,  Speech of Janice Rogers Brown, 
Associate Justice, California Supreme Court
        The Federalist Society,  University of Chicago Law School,  April
20, 2000

  The universal sinfulness of man is a biblically Christian point of view, in stark contrast to the popular fantasy of men as cherubim victimized by oppressive regimes. It is a concept that is not restricted to politics.

----------


## beachmaster

> What with all these accusations of people he disagrees with being "haters", methinks someone here is projecting their feelings onto others 
> 
> As for staying calm, just remember that you are not really  responding to the person you are posting in response to.
> 
> You have a far larger audience of folks who read the posts you make and never make a post themselves.
> 
> But most of them will undoubtedly see who is calm and rational, and who is not.


True.  Still sometimes it seems worthwhile to point it out, with just a touch of sarcasm and humor.  If only to satisfy my own sin nature.

----------


## amy31416

Just to clarify, I thought the word "dickbucket" was actually so weird as to be funny. 

I still don't know what this thread is about, and I don't care. I just commented because "dickbucket" is a very bizarre term, I have no problem with profanity.

----------


## sophocles07

> The universal sinfulness of man is a biblically Christian point of view, in stark contrast to the popular fantasy of men as cherubim victimized by oppressive regimes. It is a concept that is not restricted to politics.


This is also not a uniquely Christian "point of view."  Look at the Greeks, many authors who wrote in Latin, and other myths of the "fallen man."  They occur and recur in almost every cultural setting.  

And even if it were a Christian "point of view" exclusively, the Founders--especially Jefferson and several others (Kade and I have both provided quotes to show this)--provided that all people would have a place in the political system if they so desired, heathen or Christian, Jew or Gentile.

----------


## sophocles07

> Just to clarify, I thought the word "dickbucket" was actually so weird as to be funny. 
> 
> I still don't know what this thread is about, and I don't care. I just commented because "dickbucket" is a very bizarre term, I have no problem with profanity.


Sophocles07--1
Theocrat/Macon, GA/Dirt Scholar--0

Take it, mufuggas

----------


## Theocrat

> This isnt a false dichotomy.  I think most Christians would accept this dichotomy:  there is verifiable evidence by empirical test and there is evidence of the revelation type.  One is logical, the other is not.  You should at least admit this; its what FAITH means.


Ha! It's funny how you, *who is not a Christian*, think you know whether Christians would accept your false dichotomy or not. You also have no concept of what faith is. Read here for more information on that.




> Who, Macon, GA, who supports Biblical slavery?


How is this pertinent to anything I've mentioned in my last thread response? Do I sense some "guilt by association" going on in your reasoning?




> I find it an enormous arrogance of yours that you make these statements about people you dont even know.  You hate God.  What the $#@! does that even mean?


I can tell you hate God just by how you speak against Him, but also by the way you've spoken to most people on this thread in your vulgar, ridiculing, and demeaning tones. Just in case you don't know what the statement "You hate God" means, let me break it down for you:

Click here for "you." Click here for "hate." Click here for "God." Now put it all together, and what have you got?




> Right, I can only read the Bible in Greek; Im a $#@!ing idiot.


You've said it.




> Its funny that you/Van Til accuse ME of circular reasoning.
> 
> Try this on for size, your main argument:
> 
> It is true because it says it is true.   Why do I believe this?  Because it tells me to believe this.
> 
> THAT is the most circular line of reasoning I have EVER come across.


First of all, Dr. Van Til never accused his listeners of circular reasoning; he was admitting his own circular reasoning from the conclusions reached by his audience, if you were reading it correctly.

Secondly, self-authenticating claims are circular, I'll admit, but that doesn't make them illogical, necessarily. The problem you have is that you miss the point in that God, by His own nature, is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent in His character, which makes Him the *highest standard* of truth, morality, logic, knowledge, etc. This means that there is nothing above God by which God Himself needs to be authenticated or justified in His existence, sovereign authority, nature of revelation, etc.

This is what's often called in philosophy "transcendental truth." Transcendentals are, by necessity, both presupposed as well as evidenced in the beginning of human experience in order to ascertain knowledge and gain truth about the universe. They aren't falsifiable, either, because they transcend the natural realm of the universe, if you will.

One of the problems you have, sophocles07, is that *you will not allow the possibility* that God, in His eternal power, infinite wisdom, and immutable will, would choose to reveal Himself to all of mankind through a book which He Himself can *preserve faithfully* throughout time and history, even through sinful and errant men. If you would let the Bible speak *on its own terms* by removing your own *precommittments* to naturalism, egalitarianism, etc. and test it on its own claims (through the accepting of its promises, adhering to its warnings, following its precepts, etc.), you would see that the Bible truly is the word of the living God.

The problem is sinful men, by their own nature, find this difficult to do. As a matter of fact, Scripture says it's impossible without relying upon God's Holy Spirit. I know that poses a problem for you, but the simple fact is the Bible has to be accepted on its own authority in order for its truths to come alive and regenerate our hearts. You may call this foolishness, but you see, even in doing that you vindicate the truth of God's word because He has announced that would be the case to all those who perish (are spiritually dead) due to that unbelief in 1 Corinthians 1.

I also think you're being overly simplistic in what I've said because not only did God reveal in His word that He is true, but He also provided evidence of it--in nature by the use of scientific observations, inferences, and experimentation and common sense and in the human conscience when making moral judgments, logical assessments, and deductive reasoning, among other things. So, sophocles07, you are without excuse about God's existence, whether you believe that or not because your assent to its truth is *not contingent nor dependent* upon the verity of its claims or the reality of its revelation in the universe.

----------


## WilliamC

> William,
> 
> What basic premise do you ascribe to the authors? Are you of the revisionist history persuasion that redacts 99% of their writings to cherry pick some obscure statements that 'prove' they were all deists?


I think that the authors were as a diverse a bunch of men as there are people in the Ron Paul movement and that we can't make general statements about their religious beliefs or much of anything else. But they all were willing in the end to set in place a system of government that put the rights of the individual ahead of the rights of the any group or even the rights of the leaders, and that is what has made America unique in history.

They didn't come up with their ideas in a vacuum, and I am woefully ignorant of most of who they were and what they knew, but the language of the Constitution is straightforward and, if followed in good faith, would lead to a government that does far more to support and protect liberty than what we have today.

On a personal level I really seem to lack whatever it is that causes some people to seek power over others for the sake of having power. It really doesn't bother me that most people don't know who I am, or think as I do, or enjoy the things I enjoy. So long as they aren't out to harm me and mine I'm more than happy to live and let live. 

Yet Ron Paul has shown me that it is not enough to be idle and let others make the sacrifices necessary to keep me in my aloof, isolated sense of self-importance. So I am now operating in uncharted waters for me, far outside my old comfort zone, in an attempt to get others to recognize how far our Country has been removed from the intent of the founders and the plain language of the Constitution. 

Much to my amazement I find that most people are really quite decent folks who do care about their country and about our Constitution and individual rights, but they haven't taken the time to find out much more than what they see on television or read in the newspapers. So now I find myself in a position of starting to teach others things that are obvious to me, but may come as a huge shock to them.

Most people know things are messed up in our Country, they just don't know exactly what or how badly. I don't know much better than they, but I'm now learning more every day. And I'm taking more action every day. Thank goodness for now I have a relatively "easy" job that gives me so much free time to educate myself, but that won't last forever either. 

As far as people of faith go, I have a great deal of respect for them just so long as they aren't trying to force me to believe as they do. After all, I'm not interested in forcing them to abandon their religion, so why should I accept it if they wish to destroy my beliefs or see them become extinct, as some in this thread have specifically stated to me? That pretty much comes across as a direct threat. 




> "There is nothing new, of course, in the idea that the framers
> did not buy into the notion of human perfectibility. And the document
> they drafted and the nation adopted in 1789 is shot through with
> provisions that can only be understood against the supposition that
> humanity's capacity for evil and tyranny is quite as real and quite as
> great as its capacity for reason and altruism.  ...[T]he framers were
> convinced, because "angels do not govern"; men do."
>         "A Whiter Shade of Pale": Sense and Nonsense The Pursuit of
> Perfection in Law and Politics,  Speech of Janice Rogers Brown, 
> ...


The Constitution started off as an inherently flawed document because it legalized slavery, in direct contradiction to the principles of the Declaration of Independence. But it was amended so that is no longer true. And there is still much room for improvement I'm sure.

I can't find much wrong with the following information, taken from www.freedomforceinternational.org. It would be nice if these words were explicitly stated in our Constitution, yes?




> THE CREED OF FREEDOM
> 
> INTRINSIC NATURE OF RIGHTS
>      I believe that only individuals have rights, not the collective group; that these rights are intrinsic to each individual, not granted by the state; for if the state has the power to grant them, it also has the power to deny them, and that is incompatible with personal liberty.
>      I believe that a just government derives its power solely from the governed. Therefore, the state must never presume to do anything beyond what individual citizens also have the right to do. Otherwise, the state is a power unto itself and becomes the master instead of the servant of society.
> 
> SUPREMACY OF THE INDIVIDUAL
>      I believe that one of the greatest threats to freedom is to allow any group, no matter its numeric superiority, to deny the rights of the minority; and that one of the primary functions of just government is to protect each individual from the greed and passion of the majority.
> 
> ...

----------


## Theocrat

> I can't find much wrong with the following information, taken from www.freedomforceinternational.org. It would be nice if these words were explicitly stated in our Constitution, yes?
> 
> Quote:
> THE CREED OF FREEDOM
> 
> INTRINSIC NATURE OF RIGHTS
> I believe that only individuals have rights, not the collective group; that these rights are intrinsic to each individual, not granted by the state; for if the state has the power to grant them, it also has the power to deny them, and that is incompatible with personal liberty.
> I believe that a just government derives its power solely from the governed. Therefore, the state must never presume to do anything beyond what individual citizens also have the right to do. Otherwise, the state is a power unto itself and becomes the master instead of the servant of society.
> 
> ...


Yes, but that was *written by errant men* who *thought* they understood human rights and freedoms, so I simply can't believe them, WilliamC. Oh, they're so wrong...

----------


## beachmaster

> If you would let the Bible speak *on its own terms*... and test it on its own claims (through the accepting of its promises, adhering to its warnings, following its precepts, etc.), you would see that the Bible truly is the word of the living God.


LOL!!  This is good stuff!  You want him to test the bible on it's own claims THOUGH THE ACCEPTING OF IT'S PROMISES...  now that's just rich!  Test it by accepting it.  Wow, that's bound to produce a slightly biased test result, don'tcha think?

As an apologist FOR the bible I set out to test the spirits so to speak.. to test the bible to be more literal.  With an open mind.  I had numerous questions/issues about the bible that didn't make sense.  I asked several of my "spiritual elders", including my seminary teacher, pastors, etc. and never got solid answers.  They all danced around the subjects, much as you and Macon do here.

So I set out to prove the bible true once and for all, looking at every apologist work I could find, and also looking at the opposing point of view (that of the atheist and agnostic).  I already knew the bible as I have studied it most of my life.   I have lexicons and concordances and theological word dictionaries... all of that stuff I still own to this day.  

Anyway, I went in as a "spirit filled born again believer" and I came out a total non-believer.  I believe the proper term is APOSTATE.  

So I thank the bible for bringing me to my senses.  I know of MANY other former believers who had the same thing happen.  The bible can be it's own worst enemy!

----------


## beachmaster

> Yes, but that was *written by errant men*


So was the bible.

----------


## Macon, GA

> Anyway, I went in as a "spirit filled born again believer" and I came out a total non-believer. I believe the proper term is APOSTATE.


Is it possible that you "went out from us because you were never one of us."

PLEASE know that I am not saying this in an arrogant or haughty way.  I have personal experience with this concerning my father.  He was diagnosed with colon cancer 13 years ago.  Faced with the possibility of death, he went and talked to a pastor,  "prayed the sinner's prayer," was baptized and pronounced a Christian.  Upon his recovery, he had no more need for God.  

Basically, he prayed a prayer so that he could receive his "fire insurance."  There was no true conversion.  Because he never really "felt" any different after his "conversion," he now believes Christianity to be a sham.

----------


## Theocrat

> LOL!!  This is good stuff!  You want him to test the bible on it's own claims THOUGH THE ACCEPTING OF IT'S PROMISES...  now that's just rich!  Test it by accepting it.  Wow, that's bound to produce a slightly biased test result, don'tcha think?
> 
> As an apologist FOR the bible I set out to test the spirits so to speak.. to test the bible to be more literal.  With an open mind.  I had numerous questions/issues about the bible that didn't make sense.  I asked several of my "spiritual elders", including my seminary teacher, pastors, etc. and never got solid answers.  They all danced around the subjects, much as you and Macon do here.
> 
> So I set out to prove the bible true once and for all, looking at every apologist work I could find, and also looking at the opposing point of view (that of the atheist and agnostic).  I already knew the bible as I have studied it most of my life.   I have lexicons and concordances and theological word dictionaries... all of that stuff I still own to this day.  
> 
> Anyway, I went in as a "spirit filled born again believer" and I came out a total non-believer.  I believe the proper term is APOSTATE.  
> 
> So I thank the bible for bringing me to my senses.  I know of MANY other former believers who had the same thing happen.  The bible can be it's own worst enemy!


What would it take to convince you that the Bible is God's word and that He does indeed exist and love His creation? By the way, I am sorry to hear that you lost your faith. I'm trying to help you with your difficult questions, but it almost seems like you're not satisfied with anything I bring to you.

----------


## WilliamC

> Yes, but that was *written by errant men* who *thought* they understood human rights and freedoms, so I simply can't believe them, WilliamC. Oh, they're so wrong...


Again, I am saddened but not surprised that you are unwilling to ascribe to the ideas expressed in the post you are replying to.

And I am sorry that your religious beliefs prohibit you from helping Ron Paul in his quest to restore the Constitution as the supreme law of the United States.

----------


## amy31416

Whatever this is about, youse guys are pretty yappy.

Let's take a look at the title: Theist hatred of atheists. So freakin' what? Atheists hate theists too.

Can we please rise above this crap and try to accept that other people are different and rally around the fact that we all want to be free to believe whatever the hell we want to believe?

And can we all agree that the word "dickbucket" is kinda funny? (This is optional.)

----------


## sophocles07

> Ha! It's funny how you, who is not a Christian, think you know whether Christians would accept your false dichotomy or not. You also have no concept of what faith is. Read here for more information on that.


No.  My statements are not confined to the Christian faith.  ALL religions—that I’m aware of—are based in _revelation_.  I don’t understand how you deny this; the Bible is the REVELATION OF GOD (according to Christians).  The Qu’ran is the REVELATION OF GOD (according to Muslims).  ETC.

This could apply to poetic works to some degree also; see Blake, Shelley, etc. on that.  They don’t participate in organized religion though, it is an individual “revelation.”  It’s unverifiable “truth” (according to the poet).

These two kinds of knowledge—revelatory knowledge and empirical knowledge—are common philosophical categories, including most theological writing.  You are either completely ignorant of this, or you are just putting up an annoying “I KNOW BETT’r n U, HUSH UP” argument.




> How is this pertinent to anything I've mentioned in my last thread response? Do I sense some "guilt by association" going on in your reasoning?


My point is this is the kind of mind that “understands your reasoning.”




> I can tell you hate God just by how you speak against Him, but also by the way you've spoken to most people on this thread in your vulgar, ridiculing, and demeaning tones.



I do dislike those who would put me under theocratic law, yes.

I don’t “speak against Him;”  how could I do this?




> Just in case you don't know what the statement "You hate God" means, let me break it down for you:
> 
> Click here for "you." Click here for "hate." Click here for "God." Now put it all together, and what have you got?


I’m willing to bet you are astoundingly unattractive physically.




> First of all, Dr. Van Til never accused his listeners of circular reasoning; he was admitting his own circular reasoning from the conclusions reached by his audience, if you were reading it correctly.


I suppose I mis-read that.




> Secondly, self-authenticating claims are circular, I'll admit, but that doesn't make them illogical, necessarily. The problem you have is that you miss the point in that God, by His own nature, is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent in His character, which makes Him the highest standard of truth, morality, logic, knowledge, etc. This means that there is nothing above God by which God Himself needs to be authenticated or justified in His existence, sovereign authority, nature of revelation, etc.


But you can’t make these claims (I know you say “God makes them” but that’s along the same line of irrationality) for God without subjugating the claim to the aforementioned self-authenticating claim.  There is no “point” to get because it is stuck together with the circular argument you’ve begun with.




> This is what's often called in philosophy "transcendental truth." Transcendentals are, by necessity, both presupposed as well as evidenced in the beginning of human experience in order to ascertain knowledge and gain truth about the universe. They aren't falsifiable, either, because they transcend the natural realm of the universe, if you will.


I’m not sure how you’re using the word “transcendentals.”  Those who believe in transcendental possibility or the actual transcendent, or the experience thereof?

I don’t know why you say these things are “presupposed as well as evidenced in the beginning of human experience.”  What does this refer to specifically?

By the way, I’m familiar with transcendental philosophy; as I’ve said, I’m well-read, am entirely intellectually competent, and don’t need the “talk down” that you give me.  




> One of the problems you have, sophocles07, is that you will not allow the possibility that God, in His eternal power, infinite wisdom, and immutable will, would choose to reveal Himself to all of mankind through a book which He Himself can preserve faithfully throughout time and history, even through sinful and errant men.


Look: I’ve said it’s _possible_, which is why I say I’m not an atheist, I”m an agnostic.  I don’t know.  But I don’t know a lot of things.  To jump from saying it is possible to “let’s set up a society based in this possibility” is a ridiculous leap to make.

Another question: why does this revelation of God’s (supposed) “eternal power, infinite wisdom, and immutable will” have priority over any of the other religious claims?  Is Christianity not a local flavoring to a common world belief?  Why do you not believe Mohammed was the last prophet or worship Shiva?  

Do you think you would have done so had you been born into areas with these religions, where the family you were born into practiced these religions?  

If not, explain why; if so, would you be visiting hell after death?




> If you would let the Bible speak on its own terms by removing your own precommittments to naturalism, egalitarianism, etc. and test it on its own claims (through the accepting of its promises, adhering to its warnings, following its precepts, etc.), you would see that the Bible truly is the word of the living God.


You could do this with any text; the fact of following its rules and tenets does not make it any more “the word of the living God” than any other text.  It merely provides a structure around which an individual, and a society in some cases, may function.




> The problem is sinful men, by their own nature, find this difficult to do.


Are not we all, by nature, sinful men?




> As a matter of fact, Scripture says it's impossible without relying upon God's Holy Spirit. I know that poses a problem for you, but the simple fact is the Bible has to be accepted on its own authority in order for its truths to come alive and regenerate our hearts. You may call this foolishness, but you see, even in doing that you vindicate the truth of God's word because He has announced that would be the case to all those who perish (are spiritually dead) due to that unbelief in 1 Corinthians 1.


Etc.  This all falls under above mentioned circular reasoning (obviously).  




> I also think you're being overly simplistic in what I've said because not only did God reveal in His word that He is true, but He also provided evidence of it--in nature by the use of scientific observations, inferences, and experimentation and common sense and in the human conscience when making moral judgments, logical assessments, and deductive reasoning, among other things.


Give me some examples how any of these things “come from god.”  These things are just as easily explained as by natural development (which should not by any means demean these things).




> So, sophocles07, you are without excuse about God's existence, whether you believe that or not because your assent to its truth is not contingent nor dependent upon the verity of its claims or the reality of its revelation in the universe.


eh......................




> What would it take to convince you that the Bible is God's word and that He does indeed exist and love His creation?


God needs to show his buttcheeks and cure some famine before I start praying in his ugly Protestant churches any time soon.




> Can we please rise above this crap and try to accept that other people are different and rally around the fact that we all want to be free to believe whatever the hell we want to believe?


Nah, I’m gonna argue for forty more pages.

----------


## Theocrat

> Again, I am saddened but not surprised that you are unwilling to ascribe to the ideas expressed in the post you are replying to.
> 
> And I am sorry that your religious beliefs prohibit you from helping Ron Paul in his quest to restore the Constitution as the supreme law of the United States.


If you didn't notice the little smiley face at the end of my post, I was being sarcastic.

Still, I'm surprised that you even would help Congressman Paul in his "quest" to restore the Constitution as the supreme law of the United States with your religious beliefs of naturalism ("might makes right," random chance, natural selection by means of death and misfits in nature, etc.).

You remind me of the undiscerning humanist who screams passionately against the injustices of human suffering and slaughter in the world as he, in his hypocrisy, proudly stands atop the massive rock from which he believes mankind evolved from. That's you.

----------


## Macon, GA

Hey.... 

I just saw this:




> "Macon, GA, who supports *Biblical* slavery?"


I only catch what Sophocles says when it is quoted.

At least he is catching on:

Biblical Slavery (man agrees to work off his debt as an indentured servant) 

*versus*

Non-Biblical Slavery (brought about by kidnapping which under Biblical Law is punishable by death)

----------


## Theocrat

> No.  My statements are not confined to the Christian faith.  ALL religionsthat Im aware ofare based in _revelation_.  I dont understand how you deny this; the Bible is the REVELATION OF GOD (according to Christians).  The Quran is the REVELATION OF GOD (according to Muslims).  ETC.
> 
> This could apply to poetic works to some degree also; see Blake, Shelley, etc. on that.  They dont participate in organized religion though, it is an individual revelation.  Its unverifiable truth (according to the poet).
> 
> These two kinds of knowledgerevelatory knowledge and empirical knowledgeare common philosophical categories, including most theological writing.  You are either completely ignorant of this, or you are just putting up an annoying I KNOW BETTr n U, HUSH UP argument.
> 
> 
> 
> My point is this is the kind of mind that understands your reasoning.
> ...


You're an agnostic, so realistically speaking, *you don't know anything for sure*. So, please, stop fooling yourself.

----------


## beachmaster

> Is it possible that you "went out from us because you were never one of us."


Sure, I guess so.  But as for me, I honestly believed that I honestly believed.  I was brought up in church, never questioned if there was a God or a Jesus as a young boy.  Later as a teen I read "Late Great Planet Earth" which shook me up and had the result of me getting serious with God.  I had had many bouts of backsliding, but during those times I still thoroughly believed in God, Jesus, the Holy Ghost, and was a literal believer of the "inerrant" bible.  Hardcore in fact.  For a good while I was KJV only.  I went to seminary for a semester.  I assisted my friend who was youth pastor at one of the churches I attended.. went to Sunday and Wednesday services, played in the church band, prayed in tongues, cried out to God on hundreds of occasions for mercy and forgiveness, spending lots of time on my knees, did a little street preaching, studying the bible more and more along the way, eventually ending up in a sacred name group of great people and became a lay preacher/teacher with them, and helped organize a Feast of Tabernacles celebration among many other things.  

I think someone who goes through all of that is a true believer.   But yes, it could be true that I was just kidding myself.  If I was, I didn't know it.  If God/Jesus wouldn't save a guy like me after all the emotion and work and belief I put into it, then it's really hard to get saved!  lol





> he now believes Christianity to be a sham.


I would have to agree now.

----------


## A rope leash

The onus is on the believer to prove the existence of god. It is often said that a negative cannot be proven, so the atheist begins with a disadvantage, presumably.  Atheists have their science books, and religion has its Holy Bibles and Korans. But, something here is missing...


...god. 

God should be totally evident, but it is not. If god was here, there would be no argument. So, show me god or shut up. No, not your book about god written by god, but god itself.  I mean, if it exists, where is it? I'm not talking about the awesome beauty and balance of nature, or of the immense complexity of the universe. I'm talking about god.  Not that thing in your brain that talks to you, but that thing that is outside of the universe that creates and controls everything in the universe.  Where is it?  In heaven?  Where is that?  Can you show me? Or is it just a figment of your pitifully indoctrinated mind?

The only way the god/no god debate can be settled is by god itself.  Reason and logic imply that there is no god, yet faith and tradition insist that there is.  God could settle this easily by making an appearance...a real, "in person" appearance, not a metaphorical or poetic symbolic presentation, but an actual, bona-fide, straight up, solid, undeniable arrival on the scene.

As far as I can tell, this has never happened in my lifetime, or in the lifetimes of my parents or their parents. Until such time as this happens, the debate is fun, but moot. Sure, the value of religion can be assailed or touted, but there's only one "entity" that can end the theist/atheist confrontation, and that is god itself.

So far...nothing. If you have seen god, but cannot show god to others, how can you be certain that what you have seen is actually god, and not some apparition created by your brain?  A dream is not real...reality is the waking world.  If god was here, surely it would want its creations to see it, since it loves them so much.  So what's the deal? Is it hiding?  Waiting for the right time? Prove that...

Atheists don't have to prove anything. The burden of proof lies upon the faithful.

Show me the god.

----------


## beachmaster

> Hey.... 
> 
> I just saw this:
> 
> 
> 
> I only catch what Sophocles says when it is quoted.
> 
> At least he is catching on:
> ...



You're not the only Christian to condone slavery!


"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America. 

"There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral." Rev. Alexander Campbell

"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina

"The hope of civilization itself hangs on the defeat of Negro suffrage." A statement by a prominent 19th-century southern Presbyterian pastor, cited by Rev. Jack Rogers, moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA).

"The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his African descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined."  United States Senator James Henry Hammond. 

Source





> Non-Biblical Slavery (brought about by kidnapping which under Biblical Law is punishable by death)


But purchasing slaves and concubines from the heathen nations is ok, right?

Check out these family values!!!  (I'm going to assume Macon and Theocrat that since this is the bible and is "God's holy word" that you are still both ok with all of this, and would have no trouble living in a world like this today... unless you tell me otherwise.)  

THE *CHILDREN* for crying out loud! 


Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the *children* of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their *families* that are with you, which they begat in your land: and *they shall be your possession*. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; *they shall be your bondmen for ever*. - Leviticus 25:44-46

*No jubilee for you!* (Seinfeld humor)

----------


## Theocrat

> Check out these family values!!!  (I'm going to assume Macon and Theocrat that since this is the bible and is "God's holy word" that you are still both ok with all of this, and would have no trouble living in a world like this today... unless you tell me otherwise.)  
> 
> THE *CHILDREN* for crying out loud! 
> 
> 
> Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the *children* of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their *families* that are with you, which they begat in your land: and *they shall be your possession*. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; *they shall be your bondmen for ever*. - Leviticus 25:44-46
> 
> *No jubilee for you!* (Seinfeld humor)


Read this, beachmaster.

----------


## Macon, GA

O.k. beachmaster.... here it is:




> Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever. - Leviticus 25:44-46


Yes, an Israelite could own slaves and bondmaids from the heathen, and these he may retain as slaves for ever, unless they converted (see previous post).  In this, I am not sure that the Lord was "sanctioning" slavery.  The Lord gives no right to one man over another's person, EXCEPT where there is sin or crime to be punished.  The Lord punished heathen nations, because of their heathenism.  This slavery is different than "modern" slavery because it proceeds on the Lord's permission and command.  It is also the consequence of sin in the enslaved.  

Even in this, regulations were made as to how an Israelite might treat his heathen slaves.

I am NOT condoning slavery in the sense that I think it should be practiced today.  

And I find the following statements reprehensible:




> "The hope of civilization itself hangs on the defeat of Negro suffrage." A statement by a prominent 19th-century southern Presbyterian pastor, cited by Rev. Jack Rogers, moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA).
> 
> "The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his African descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined." United States Senator James Henry Hammond.

----------


## Cinnaboo

I'm posting this here so as to respond publicly without derailing the original thread.




> Cinaboo.....
> 
> How did a point that I make become something you post on every reply?  By posting it that way, you have taken it out of the context from whence it came....
> 
> As a side,  I did go back and clarify that post.  I realized after seeing your appendage that it does look pretty bad when it stands alone, apart from the original discussion.


Out of context, EH? EH!?

I accept your challenge, and I'll try to abridge the relevant posts fairly.

The conversation starts here, with *Theocrat*, my favorite poster and real life water-polo rival:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...66#post1299166

*Theocrat* writes: _God's law is God's law, whether I, you, or anyone else believes it to be so because it is objectively true. I don't just believe it to be so; I know it's the truth.

Let me ask you something. Do you want your beliefs to become the law? If not, then who's beliefs should be the basis of all law?_

*Sophocles* counters: _Rationality and basic human ethical standards.

It’s true I want my beliefs to come into law—as allowing everyone the freedom to believe whatever they want.* NOT to enforce that everyone be an agnostic or atheist._

*Theocrat* rebuts: _Could you be more specific about "basic human ethical standards"?

You would allow everyone the freedom to believe whatever they want?* What about the person who believes that everyone does not have the freedom to believe whatever they want? If you say yes, then that belief overrides your own because you couldn't believe whatever you wanted due to the other person's belief that you don't have the freedom to do so. On the other hand, if you say no, then your belief simply refutes itself._

* = Ahem! Context! Now back to the action.

*Sophocles* parries: _You can believe it; it’s not going to matter though. Unless you can convince enough people to aid in making a psychotic belief law._

*Macon, GA* jousts: _The freedom for everyone to believe what they want...

I guess Dahmer, Hitler and Manson would be productive members of this type of society._

------------------------------------------------------------

So there it is, in context.

Here is your amendment:




> The freedom for everyone to believe what they want... and act upon their impulses with no consequences. Because after all, WE decide right and wrong as individuals.
> 
> I guess Dahmer, Hitler and Manson could be productive members of this type of society.


This correction does nothing but undermine your comedic rhythm.

I really don't know where to start, in regards to what is wrong (still wrong) with that quote. Should I grudgingly ask what purported chain of events could lead to a voting majority of serial murderers? You seem to think that if society at large stopped repressing that nagging urge to kill, laws against injuring others would be literally abolished in short order, following a compelling and very entertaining lobbyist effort by a bunch of sallow-faced nailbiters who invariably keep copies of Gray's Pocket Anatomy nestled with their Pocket Constitutions.

P.S. Dahmer, Manson, and Hitler certainly should be free to profess their beliefs until the neighborhood pets go missing.

----------


## sophocles07

> You remind me of the undiscerning humanist who screams passionately against the injustices of human suffering and slaughter in the world as he, in his hypocrisy, proudly stands atop the massive rock from which he believes mankind evolved from. That's you.


What’s this contempt for rocks?




> At least he is catching on:
> 
> Biblical Slavery (man agrees to work off his debt as an indentured servant) 
> 
> *versus*
> 
> Non-Biblical Slavery (brought about by kidnapping which under Biblical Law is punishable by death)


But you condone slavery; I mean *slavery* in the real style:




> Yes, an Israelite could own slaves and bondmaids from the heathen, and these he may retain as slaves for ever, unless they converted (see previous post). In this, I am not sure that the Lord was "sanctioning" slavery. The Lord gives no right to one man over another's person, EXCEPT where there is sin or crime to be punished. The Lord punished heathen nations, because of their heathenism. This slavery is different than "modern" slavery because it proceeds on the Lord's permission and command. It is also the consequence of sin in the enslaved. 
> 
> Even in this, regulations were made as to how an Israelite might treat his heathen slaves.


That’s condoning slavery; you’re just saying you condone because “God” “commanded it.”

Which is just as stupid and dangerous.

I don’t know what the *$#@!* you’re doing on a Ron Paul message board supporting slavery, but you seem to be extraordinarily confused.

I mean, I’m a heathen from these standpoints.  I’m sinful; I reject God.  Why not enslave me (and beachmaster, et al)?  It’s not really “morally” wrong, just there is no DIRECT written law “okaying” it.  Seems extremely “stinky” to me.




> I am NOT condoning slavery in the sense that I think it should be practiced today.


Why not?  Why not simply apply these tenets to today’s heathens?




> You're an agnostic, so realistically speaking, you don't know anything for sure. So, please, stop fooling yourself.


Good $#@!ing reply.

This is pathetic, “Theocrat.”

Agnosticism says “we don’t know if there’s a god.”  Know “anything” for sure?  What garbage are you using here?

As I’ve said before, your whole line of argument is based in the ancient craft of theft and trickery known as sophistry.  Here’s a definition if you are unaware of the implications of this:

“a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.”

(I would hope you know that already.)

Meaning: you know very well that agnostics don’t say they know “nothing for sure,” but that they admit they don’t know whether a god exists or not.  

Similar to: if I was told that a bomb had been recently dropped in the middle of New Hampshire, and I had heard and seen no evidence of it except through that person, I am “agnostic” in the situation—I am “without (a-) knowledge (-gnostic)” with regard to the said circumstance.  If I had some way of verifying it, I then attain knowledge (gnosis) that the event is factual, truthful.  

With regards to God, and to Christianity in the context of this discussion, there is no proof; the fact remains that I could be miraculously shown some proof.  I would then attain a knowledge of this, and no longer be agnostic.

We have been, though, waiting for this for some 2,000 years or so, and (to my knowledge) there has been nothing but _claims and assertions_ by zealots and “the faithful”.

----------


## sophocles07

Also, to Theocrats, what is the value of "pagan" literature?  Do Aeschylus, Homer, James Joyce, Catullus, Vergil, TS Eliot (maybe just his non-Christian poems, eh?), etc. have any place in a theocratic society?

Would you suppress works of art with moralities not completely in line with "God's word"?

If you apply them to people, why not art?

What kind of art do you propose?  Christian rock?  Because no Dante (and he was half-pagan anyway) is going to emerge in a contemporary theocracy in America.

----------


## Theocrat

> Whats this contempt for rocks?
> 
> 
> 
> But you condone slavery; I mean *slavery* in the real style:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats condoning slavery; youre just saying you condone because God commanded it.
> ...


Dude, she can't read what you post anymore because she *ignored you*, though who could blame her? So, you can stop wasting your time responding back to her comments.






> Good $#@!ing reply.
> 
> This is pathetic, Theocrat.
> 
> Agnosticism says we dont know if theres a god.  Know anything for sure?  What garbage are you using here?
> 
> As Ive said before, your whole line of argument is based in the ancient craft of theft and trickery known as sophistry.  Heres a definition if you are unaware of the implications of this:
> 
> a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
> ...


You are the equivalent of a person who stares at a *building* and doesn't know if there was a *builder*. You want to talk about pathetic, well, there you have it. You look at the creation everyday in its complexity, beauty, and order, and yet, still remained confused about whether there's a Creator or not. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for calling yourself a "rationalist." You make me laugh, sophocles07. You really do.

Since you don't believe in *absolute truth*, then I conclude you don't know and can't know anything with absolute certainty, not even your own existence. Perhaps you're just dreaming you're here. Oh, wait. I forgot. You actually believe you came from animals that evolved for millions of years, which came from inorganic matter, which exploded from *nothing*. (Lol!) You are dreaming, sophocles07. Then again, you don't really know for sure since you didn't exist millions of years ago. And, yes, I know I wasn't there either, even though the universe isn't billions of years old, but I know know Someone Who was. But you already know Who I'm talking about...or do you, Mr. Agnostic?

The fact of the matter is I'm under no obligation to believe anything you tell me because you aren't even sure yourself. Now, who's being a sophist, O sophocles07?

----------


## sophocles07

> Dude, she can't read what you post anymore because she ignored you, though who could blame her? So, you can stop wasting your time responding back to her comments.


Yes, I’m aware of that, DUDE.

That’s her problem; I can obviously still point out these kinds of things though.

WITHOUT EVEN SAYING:

She responded to ME through someone else quoting me.  

She should either un-ignore me or stop responding to me via other posts’ quoting.




> You are the equivalent of a person who stares at a building and doesn't know if there was a builder.


Yeah, that’s an obviously good analogy, _you complete $#@!ing idiot_.




> You want to talk about pathetic, well, there you have it. You look at the creation everyday in its complexity, beauty, and order, and yet, still remained confused about whether there's a Creator or not. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for calling yourself a "rationalist." You make me laugh, sophocles07. You really do.


See A rope leash’s above post.




> Since you don't believe in absolute truth


Really?  I don’t?  When did I say that?  When I questioned why the BIBLE was “absolute truth” and you responded with “because it says it is”?  

Give me a $#@!ing break.




> then I conclude you don't know and can't know anything with absolute certainty, not even your own existence.


Example: I am certain, absolutely, that I am currently typing on a computer.

This is empirical knowledge; it is not “a book told me there is an abstraction living in the heavens who has planned all action out and either lets you come to paradise or go to hell”.  

Your sophistry continues.




> Perhaps you're just dreaming you're here. Oh, wait. I forgot. You actually believe you came from animals that evolved for millions of years, which came from inorganic matter, which exploded from nothing.


blah blah blah 





> (Lol!) You are dreaming, sophocles07. Then again, you don't really know for sure since you didn't exist millions of years ago. And, yes, I know I wasn't there either, even though the universe isn't billions of years old, but I know know Someone Who was. But you already know Who I'm talking about...or do you, Mr. Agnostic?


Seriously, why aren’t you in a cage somewhere?




> The fact of the matter is I'm under no obligation to believe anything you tell me because you aren't even sure yourself. Now, who's being a sophist, O sophocles07?


YOU


Your complete inability to even reply logically to rational arguments makes me wonder why you continue to reply with this $#@!.  WHAT are you accomplishing here but making yourself look like a complete idiot?

----------


## WilliamC

> If you didn't notice the little smiley face at the end of my post, I was being sarcastic.


Would that I could take you at your word, but I don't.

Do you still seek to destroy my ideas and see my point of view of the world become extinct?




> Still, I'm surprised that you even would help Congressman Paul in his "quest" to restore the Constitution as the supreme law of the United States with your religious beliefs of naturalism ("might makes right," random chance, natural selection by means of death and misfits in nature, etc.).


I do not have religious beliefs, as by definition religion is a belief in the supernatural or superhuman powers.

But don't take my word for it.

see www.dictionary.com

re·li·gion      /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-lij-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
noun
1.	a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

or http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

    re·li·gion
1 a: the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural 

or http://dictionary.cambridge.org

religion 

1 [C or U] the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship:

if you don't believe me.

As for "might makes right" well unfortunately all political power, including our ability to have rights, comes from victories won on the battlefield. Without the colonies having won the Revolutionary War we Americans would never have had a Constitution nor had the rights recognized by it granted to us.

While the idea of rights is something that is inherent to all individuals, the actually possession of rights very much depends upon the possession of power.

As for "random chance" methinks you don't distinguish between true random events and stochastic processes. Without that understanding it is not surprising that you have so little understanding of science, especially the science of complex, dynamic systems like biological organisms.

As for "natural selection by means of death and misfits in nature" well in nature every living thing dies, it's just that those living things that manage to leave behind the most offspring before they die win the game of evolution.

Natural selection is as much a tautology as is 1 + 1 = 2.




> You remind me of the undiscerning humanist who screams passionately against the injustices of human suffering and slaughter in the world as he, in his hypocrisy, proudly stands atop the massive rock from which he believes mankind evolved from. That's you.c


You are confusing me with some preconceived idea you have as I have not resorted to screaming in this forum, I have remained quite dispassionate in my discourse with you, and I do not believe there is any rock from which mankind evolved.

----------


## WilliamC

> P.S. Dahmer, Manson, and Hitler certainly should be free to profess their beliefs until the neighborhood pets go missing.


Why am I thinking of pit bulls right now

----------


## sophocles07

To review, here are some of Theocrat’s “real winners” (for those who haven’t read and don’t want to read the whole thread):




> I don't hate "atheists," but I do hate "atheism." In my opinion, it is the most irrational, dangerous, diabolical, contradictory, and foolish theories that mankind has ever formulated as a philosophy and view of the world. Therefore, I, as a Christian theist, will continue to seek its destruction until it is eradicated from the world as a system of thought and lifestyle.





> Muslims are fatally wrong about their conceptions of God because they reject God's true revelation in His holy Scriptures. Therefore, Islam is just superstition.





> You don't even know what it means to be "Christ-like." You don't even like Christ because you refuse to keep His commandments everyday.





> Oh, yeah, but you will submit yourself to those *imaginary forces of random chance* in the universe which is responsible for creating everything we see today out of nothing...





> I reject their superstition because it's not based on *absolute truth* from the Bible. You reject the truth of my beliefs because of your own arbitrary feelings, which are only *subjective* in nature.





> This, to me, bewrays the "atheist" that in their heart of hearts, they really do believe in God because their materialistic worldview cannot *account for* in any objective way universal, invariant, abstract entities such as laws of logic, standards of morality, and the use of induction to make scientific judgments. In other words, "atheists" have to steal these *immaterial, metaphysical* entities from a theistic worldview in order to use them against the theists to make a case for "atheism."





> You still haven't answered my question of whether chemicals can reason and emote in and of themselves, sophocles07. You've said,
> 
> _The reaction to something, such as murder or what have you (not homosexuality or something really only based in prejudice or dogma), will produce itself in an individual as saying “this is wrong.” This feeling can be suppressed in favor of other pleasures—much of the time, as Nietzsche says somewhere, the conscience is suppressed by memory in order to attain a pleasure that is got by immoral ways._
> 
> All I want to know is whether the *chemicals* in your body cause these reactions to our environment, give us the moral ability to say something is right or wrong, and generate memories.
> 
> If rights, liberty, and justice are *not* nonphysical entities (as you've stated), then how do you *tangibly* obtain them in nature and by human experience? In other words, can you reach in your cabinet and take out rights? Can you look under a bed and grab liberty as you would your shoes? If you were to write the equation "2+2=4" on a chalkboard and then erase it, would the equation itself cease to exist just because you've erased it from the board? That's what I mean by these concepts being "nonphysical entities," sophocles07.
> 
> I'm very interested in knowing how mathematics, which deals with *quantitative* analysis and data, "refutes" the transcendental nature of God (without Him, abstract ideals and realities could not exist), which is *qualitative* in nature. What *mathematical formula* did you use to come up with that idea?





> Yes, I know *absolutely* that there *is* a God. He revealed Himself to mankind through the Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments.





> No, I would not fight for your "right" to not believe in God because you have no right to disbelieve Him. Rights come from God, so how can He give anyone a right to deny His existence, especially when those rights are contingent upon our obedience to Him? God has made it clear in His word that all men should believe on Him by means of His gospel. Those who reject His generous offer of salvation will face an eternal penalty. It's just as simple as that, beachmaster.





> You fail to comprehend that God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent in His nature, and therefore, He Himself is the final authority in all matters of knowledge, reality, truth, morality, beauty, etc. Yes, His authority is self-authenticating because*there is no standard nor being higher than He.*
> 
> Consider the alternative. If claims about truth, reality, knowledge, beauty, morality, etc. cannot be authenticated by the person who makes these claims, then there will have to be something or someone else to authenticate them. But then who authenticates that thing or person, and then what person or thing authenticates the person or thing that authenticated the previous thing or person who made the epistemological, aesthetic, metaphysical, and/or ethical claims? You can see this would just be a long chain that would go on for eternity, but then you couldn't authenticate anything on your own.
> 
> God is the "wall" by which all things that are beautiful, true, moral, etc. are standing against in the universe. The "atheist" worldview, as I've said many times, cannot account for *absolutes, standards of morality, laws of logic,* and a host of other universal, invariant, abstract entities because their worldview already assumes that the universe only contains material, finite, impersonal, tangible things which evolve by themselves through random processes (given enough time), and therefore, they only can deal with empirical observations that are tested through their senses (sound, taste, sight, smell, and touch).






> How is a theocracy repulsive to all that Congressman Paul stands for? I think you're mistaken, beachmaster. You see, all of the ideas and philosophies of Dr. Paul's political philosophy assume that there is a God from which these ideas originate. They're definitely *not* "atheistic" ideas, as you and many other antitheists on these forums want to believe.





> You're correct that I am a theonomist, dominionist, and adhere to Reformed theology. That's nothing to be ashamed of, either. I share the same sentiments about this as *Macon, GA* (just read his response, #314 on this forum thread).





> What's your point? Did you know that neither the Declaration of Independence nor the U.S. Constitution state that *America is a secular nation because there is no God that mankind is responsible to, and science is all that matters in knowing how the universe works*?






> I've visited Congressman Paul before in his office in Washington, D.C. last year, and you know what I found out, beachmaster? He's actually read many works from theonomists like R.J. Rushdoony and Gary North, and he told me that he found their writings to be quite interesting, especially in their economic formulations! He didn't consider their works a threat to constitutional republicanism. So, you don't know for sure that Dr. Paul would not change the Constitution to reflect Christian Theonomy/Theocracy. He even believes the Constitution was *divinely inspired*!





> I never said *my beliefs* should be the law. You're looking at it from the wrong angle, sophocles07. I said *God's law* should be the standard of law, by means of His own revelation to mankind, the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.





> God's law is God's law, whether I, you, or anyone else believes it to be so because it is *objectively true*. I don't just *believe* it to be so; I *know* it's the truth.





> On what grounds were my propositions based in "utter irrationality," sophocles07?





> Once again, given the materialistic presuppositions of your "atheistic" worldview, how can chemicals and cells reason in and of themselves? You still have not answered that question, sophocles07, and I don't think you can.


Classic psychotics:




> Absolute truth is an eternal, true, and actual state of something or someone that conforms with reality and facts, and it is verifiable, indisputable, and immutable, not necessarily contingent upon universal human acceptance and emotion. Absolute truth and objective truth are interchangeable.
> 
> Your question assumes that the existence of God is unverifiable, therefore, it's not objectively true, but you couldn't be more wrong about this sophocles07. God reveals Himself *daily* to all of mankind, so that *no man is without excuse*. God does this in three ways: by His *creation* (general revelation), by the *human conscience* (the "heart" of men), and by His own *infallible, inspired, and inerrant Word* (specific revelation). So, it's not that God hasn't given men sufficient knowledge and resources to know Who He is; the problem is men *refuse to acknowledge God*, having these evidences, by *suppressing the truth in unrighteousness due to their love for themselves and sin itself* (the breaking of God's commandments).
> 
> So, the truth of God is verifiable, sophocles07. Just ask the billions of Christians in the world today who have been touched by God's word, felt God's presence by His Spirit, experienced life-changing miracles in their lives by God's power, and have received answers to their questions in scientific experimentation and analysis by God's wisdom in providence. No, God has made Himself plenty known to multitudes of people since the beginning of time, my friend.
> 
> There are some things which aren't immediately verifiable about God due to the immaterial or transcendental nature of God. Because God is a Spirit, you can't just go into a laboratory and run scientific methods on Him personally. I think that's what you mean when you say "God is unverifiable." His existence is in a totally different realm of knowledge and metaphysics than just testing the biological composition of a white rat in a lab.
> 
> But suffice it to say, that you can know absolutely and positively that God exists, and that's one of the reasons why I continue in this discussion on this forum thread. God has changed my life and brought me through so many things that I can't even count them. That's why I get frustrated when antitheists, such as you, ridicule, rail, and repudiate my God (revealing your *hatred for Him*) because He's verified Himself to me and other Christians over and over and over again, and He continues to do so. Rationally speaking, if there were no evidences for the existence of God, I would have relinquished my belief in Him a long time ago! But here I stand today, a theist who has been loved by God, protected by God, and made to live and think more like Him in my life. As Martin Luther once said, "I can do no other, and I will not recant."
> ...





> I'm saying that *without this God*, you wouldn't even know if it were wrong to murder someone!





> You couldn't be more mistaken about this, beachmaster. I do not start with myself as the arbiter of truth; I begin with *God*. It's *His* authority and *His* wisdom that I adhere my own beliefs to because God has the right and power to be the source of all knowledge, wisdom, understanding, and truth as the *supreme, sovereign Creator and Ruler of the universe*. God chose me; I did not choose Him. He is the original Article, the Source of all things. My choice in following Him is effect, not the cause of my willingness to obey and submit to Him. Don't ever forget that.
> 
> You, on the other hand, do not submit to God's authority (despite clear evidence of His sovereign power and existence), and that's because you *love yourself* and *your sin* above everything else. Spiritually, you are blind, deaf, and mute. Yet, in spite of all this, you still assume your own human autonomy. I do not, and that's what makes me different from you in deciding *absolute truth*, which you do not possess...yet.





> Secondly, self-authenticating claims are circular, I'll admit, but that doesn't make them illogical, necessarily. The problem you have is that you miss the point in that God, by His own nature, is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent in His character, which makes Him the *highest standard* of truth, morality, logic, knowledge, etc. This means that there is nothing above God by which God Himself needs to be authenticated or justified in His existence, sovereign authority, nature of revelation, etc.





> You're an agnostic, so realistically speaking, *you don't know anything for sure*. So, please, stop fooling yourself.




Also, I’d like a response to my question, Theocrat:




> Also, to Theocrats, what is the value of "pagan" literature? Do Aeschylus, Homer, James Joyce, Catullus, Vergil, TS Eliot (maybe just his non-Christian poems, eh?), etc. have any place in a theocratic society?
> 
> Would you suppress works of art with moralities not completely in line with "God's word"?
> 
> If you apply them to people, why not art?
> 
> What kind of art do you propose? Christian rock? Because no Dante (and he was half-pagan anyway) is going to emerge in a contemporary theocracy in America.



Anyway: that’s where we stand.

From reading over this again it seems clear to me that no matter what line of argument those who do not desire theocratic government make, it comes back to the same basic, stupid argument, that of the 9 year old born into a Christian family in West Virginia:

“Because the Bible tells me so.”

----------


## Macon, GA

> P.S. Dahmer, Manson, and Hitler certainly should be free to profess their beliefs until the neighborhood pets go missing.


Would you allow them to do this at the local elementary school?  If not, why not?

How about the local university?

----------


## Macon, GA

> I really don't know where to start, in regards to what is wrong (still wrong) with that quote. Should I grudgingly ask what purported chain of events could lead to a voting majority of serial murderers? You seem to think that if society at large stopped repressing that nagging urge to kill, laws against injuring others would be literally abolished in short order, following a compelling and very entertaining lobbyist effort by a bunch of sallow-faced nailbiters who invariably keep copies of Gray's Pocket Anatomy nestled with their Pocket Constitutions.


The point that I was making is that without an absolute truth, or a divine standard each man may decide for himself what is moral or immoral.  We could all do what is "right in our own eyes" and who would *you* be to tell *me* that my actions were immoral.  

Jeffrey had no problem murdering those boys and eating them.  Here it is straight from him:

"If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what's the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That's how I thought anyway. *I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing ..."*

In an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC (29 November 1994)

Hitler carried out his maniacal killings with religious fervor.... *motivated by evolution.*  (See previous posts.)

Charles Manson compared himself to Jesus Christ. He believed that he was Christ, and the world had made him suffer, just as Christ did two thousand years ago. He said in an interview, when, asked how he got his followers to believe that he was Jesus, "I was just being myslf ... *all men is Jesus Christ*."  If he is his own God, he sets his own standards.  Later he had a swastika tattooed on his forehead.  Here is what he said about it:

"It’s not easy to find out what right is – all the wrong keeps it hidden and they teach lies so that even your own thoughts are not always as they once were ... in forever, so back to forever in Swastika."

"I believe it’s a symbol of honor."

"It’s a symbol of the people who have never been beaten. They have lost but never has it ever been beaten because you can’t beat what’s right. Right just goes on, on another level. I guess the sun symbol – the Buddha used it like two Swastikas … two of them as one. Hindus use it, the Indians and it’s been used by just about everyone- people put it on Hitler but Hitler put himself on it –"

Ted Bundy was another serial killer who had not remorse.  His line of reasoning was that because *we all are animals,* why shouldn't we kill.  That is what we see in nature.  He said essentially that there is no difference between a man stalking and killing a woman or a man stalking and killing a deer. (See previous posts.)

----------


## hypnagogue

Macon, I really haven't paid much attention to the content of this thread, but your last argument unfortunately befell my gaze, and I am compelled to respond. 

I think you'll find that murderous individuals of a theistic persuasion find theistic rationalizations for their misdeeds, just as atheistic individuals find atheistic rationalizations for theirs. The common denominator of murderers is neither atheism nor theism, but mental illness.

Do you honestly suggest that we could not find and present quoted rationalizations for myriad atrocities framed from a theistic stance? We'd need only find the writings of the Inquisition, the Crusades, or modernly, militant islamists. 

For a specific example, I am an atheist, and I also understand that we are creatures of this Earth same as any other, and formed by the same natural processes that every other animal has been. Yet I have murdered no one. I do not contrive excuses for brutality. I am in fact the extreme majority of Atheists, same as peaceful Theists are their extreme majority. (though I'd argue a smaller percentage than the Atheist's )

----------


## Macon, GA

Good Morning Hypnagogue.




> The common denominator of murderers is neither atheism nor theism, but mental illness.


Sorry, that is simply not true.  Why is it that we want to excuse miscreant behavior by calling it a disease or illness?  We have rejected God's Law, which exposes our sin.  We have replaced it with our own arbitrary standards.  Any deviations from those we can simply excuse as illness.  The implications are...  we aren't accountable for our behavior.  

You aren't a murderer; you are mentally ill.
You aren't a drunkard; you are an alcoholic.
You aren't an adulterer; you are a sex addict.
You aren't a drug addict; you are just sick.
You aren't a thief; you are a kleptomaniac.

Even our children are affected by this reasoning:

Your behavior isn't due to a lack of self discipline; you have ADD or ADHD.  Let's medicate you.

Where is the hope in that?  Take some pills and relieve the symptoms, but don't deal with the real problem.  

Please review the following:

Murders committed by mentally ill people are not on the increase, despite popular belief, psychiatrists have claimed.  People who have drunk too much or taken drugs are more likely to kill someone, they said.  The finding comes in a study by the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych), which found a steady decline in the proportion of murders committed by people with mental disorders between 1957 and 1995.
*It concludes that people are more likely to win the National Lottery jackpot than to die at the hand of a stranger with a mental illness.
*
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/248841.stm

*Mentally ill patients are six times more likely to be murdered than the general population*, researchers have found. The mentally ill also have higher death rates from suicide and accidental causes.

http://www.namiscc.org/newsletters/D...statistics.htm

Perhaps the drugs and the alcohol allow the people to relax their inhibitions just enough to follow out their "natural" impulses.

----------


## beachmaster

> Sorry, that is simply not true.


It is in some cases... are you denying that mental illness exists?  My brother knows a fundamentalist Christian who is always preaching to him about the "absolute truth" of God, hell, etc.  The guy is a diagnosed schizophrenic.  He is on meds for it.  When he's off his meds, he sees demons everywhere.  He has told my brother things like "there is a demon right next to you".  When he's on his meds, no demon.  So maybe pills do work??

But the main reason for murder is simply passion.  Christian or non-Christian, it doesn't matter.  You catch your wife in bed with another man, you blow your top and kill 'em both.  Or other crimes of passion.  As to serial killers, the reason is that they are simply sociopaths.  They can believe or not believe in God... wouldn't make a difference.  God won't stop them from doing their evil, no matter how much they believe or disbelieve in him.  

Other motives for murder is greed or simply hatred of someone. 

When I lived in Orlando, there was a very well known preacher, George Crossley, who also had a talk radio show on the local conservative talk station.  I met him at a rally of some sort.  I had also been to his office to discuss local politics or something, I forget.  He made national news when he got busted trying to hire a hit man to off his wife.  This really freaked me out.  He was a die hard Christian, a man I had met and a man who the whole local community respected as a conservative Baptist evangelist.  The video of him trying to hire the "hit man" (really an undercover cop) was shown on a feature show by MSNBC I think... a Dateline type show.

His belief in God didn't stop him, and it doesn't stop others.

Your premise is a red herring pure and simple.  Murders are murderers, regardless of religious affiliation.

----------


## Theocrat

> Yes, Im aware of that, DUDE.
> 
> Thats her problem; I can obviously still point out these kinds of things though.
> 
> WITHOUT EVEN SAYING:
> 
> She responded to ME through someone else quoting me.  
> 
> She should either un-ignore me or stop responding to me via other posts quoting.
> ...


I have given you logical answers to rational arguments, sophocles07. You just don't understand them, choose to ridicule them, or belligerently disagree with them, and that's fine. I'm now convinced that no matter what I tell you, you simply will not be persuaded of the existence of God, the truth of His word, nor anything else pertaining to God's nature and character until or unless God converts you by His Spirit through His gospel.

When I explain anything to you from a Christian theistic perspective, I have to hear remarks such as "you're a $#@!ing idiot," or "you're a sophist," or "you're a psycho who needs to be caged" or any combinations of these in expletives. Rather than admitting your disagreement with my answers, you'd rather be *immature* and *ignorant* by engaging me in illogical _ad hominem_ attacks. That's not rational, and it's not in the good spirit of intelligent debate.

I don't know what your problem is, sophocles07, but from what I've read of your posts in the particular thread, I have concluded that *you really do hate God*, and, yes, you do acknowledge His existence. In your heart of hearts, you know there's a God because you *reason*, *use morality*, *assume the uniformity of nature when making scientific measurements*, etc. All of these things prove that you don't just believe things happen randomly in nature, that life evolves from non-life, that there are universals in nature and not just particulars, and a host of other things. Otherwise, you would live in utter paranoia about everything, if you were really true and consistent with your naturalistic assumptions about the universe. You suppress the truth in unrighteousness, and the sad fact is, you don't even realize you're doing it.

Just like me, you use circular reasoning. For instance, you argue for the use of logic in reasoning, *all the while assuming the existence of logic*. You assume there's moral standards by which mankind should live by; otherwise, you would conclude that Hitler was right for annihilating the Jews, for example. But you don't because you realize what he did was horrible, and that's a correct assessment. All I'm saying is that your actions speak louder than your words. Although you say there is no God, you can't reason nor act that way. Presuppositionally speaking, your worldview contradicts how you interact within the world you live in. That's all I've been trying to prove to you in this forum thread.

When you grow up and learn how to argue and disagree in a civil fashion, then maybe I'll take your arguments more seriously under consideration. But until then, I leave you yet again with these words from Dr. Cornelius Van Til:

*I shall not convert you at the end of my argument. I think the argument is sound. I hold that belief in God is not merely as reasonable as other belief, or even a little or infinitely more probably true than other belief; I hold rather that unless you believe in God you can logically believe in nothing else. But since I believe in such a God, a God who has conditioned you as well as me, I know that you can to your own satisfaction, by the help of the biologists, the psychologists, the logicians, and the Bible critics reduce everything I have said this afternoon and evening to the circular meanderings of a hopeless authoritarian. Well, my meanderings have, to be sure, been circular; they have made everything turn on God. So now I shall leave you with Him, and with His mercy.*

----------


## Dr.3D

So far, this thread reminds me of the old saying: "When you argue with a fool, chances are, he is doing the same."

Combine this with Psalms 14:1 and Psalms 53:1 and you will understand there is no point in arguing either way.

----------


## WilliamC

> P.S. Dahmer, Manson, and Hitler certainly should be free to profess their beliefs until the neighborhood pets go missing.





> Would you allow them to do this at the local elementary school?  If not, why not?
> 
> How about the local university?


Come on now Macon, GA.

Obviously the idea is that anyone with psychopathic tendencies will be far more likely to start with animals before they harm humans. By stopping them as soon as they show a propensity for harming animals we will greatly lessen the possibility of harm to any human.

I honestly don't believe your implication that this quote means you believe the person making the statement values pets more than elementary or university students.

Many authors write horrifically gruesome fiction, it is legal for them to do so. I'm even aware that there are graphically detailed motion pictures dealing with similarly gruesome topics. Personally I have no interest in such literature or film, my "tastes" in horror are more along the science-fiction type. But that doesn't mean I think they should be illegal on the Federal level.

In a more Federalist system of government State and local communities would have more authority to regulate morality than they do now, so long as they maintained the Constitutionally required republican form of governance over their population. 

Article IV Section 4 

 The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Aside from that the States _should_ have much greater leeway than they currently do in regulating morality, including free-speech issues like whether or not movies depicting human torture are allowed to be shown as entertainment. 

One of the main problems today is that our Country has shifted from a dual Federalism form of government (where the States are co-equal with the National government) to a cooperative Federalism form of government (where the National government is supreme and controls what powers the States have).

So if California wants to have different laws regulating the types of movies that can be played in public theaters than say, Mississippi, I don't see where that is unconstitutional. 

For a more detailed explanation of Federalism please see here.

----------


## Theocrat

> Would that I could take you at your word, but I don't.
> 
> Do you still seek to destroy my ideas and see my point of view of the world become extinct?


Yes, absolutely.




> I do not have religious beliefs, as by definition religion is a belief in the supernatural or superhuman powers.
> 
> But don't take my word for it.
> 
> see www.dictionary.com
> 
> re·li·gion      /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-lij-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
> noun
> 1.	a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
> ...


Well, by those definitions you've used, I would still say that you are "religious" in the sense that you believe that *man is God*. You begin with his reasoning, his ability to make moral choices, his own capacity to rightly understand science without relying on something else bigger than himself outside of the natural world,  etc. You also have faith in things which cannot be seen by *empirical observation*, such as logic, truth, justice, and love (universal, abstract, invariant entities, as I've called them). You worship the human psyche and condition, his technology, his so-called autonomy, etc. These all reveal, at least to me, that you are indeed "religious." So am I, and that's because we're all made in the image of God and created to worship something or someone. It's inherent in our very being as humans.




> As for "might makes right" well unfortunately all political power, including our ability to have rights, comes from victories won on the battlefield. Without the colonies having won the Revolutionary War we Americans would never have had a Constitution nor had the rights recognized by it granted to us.


That doesn't mean the victor is necessarily righteous, either. One can immediately think of Hitler's use of "might makes right" upon the Jews.




> While the idea of rights is something that is inherent to all individuals, the actually possession of rights very much depends upon the possession of power.


Refresh my memory because I don't understand how rights, which are immaterial in nature, are inherent in something that is material in nature, such as humans, in your worldview.




> As for "random chance" methinks you don't distinguish between true random events and stochastic processes. Without that understanding it is not surprising that you have so little understanding of science, especially the science of complex, dynamic systems like biological organisms.


How can *random events* or *stochastic processes* form *complex, dynamic systems* like biological organisms, WilliamC?! This is just preposterous that you would even suggest that, I must admit. Where did these systems *originate* from?




> Natural selection is as much a tautology as is 1 + 1 = 2.


"Natural selection" is only a tautology if your definition of it comes down to "survival of the fittest." My understanding of natural selection is much more involved than that.




> You are confusing me with some preconceived idea you have as I have not resorted to screaming in this forum, I have remained quite dispassionate in my discourse with you, and I do not believe there is any rock from which mankind evolved.


If I'm wrong, then I stand corrected. Where did we evolve from, then? In other words, what was the first cause of the universe, given your own scientific assumptions of biogenesis?

----------


## sophocles07

> I have given you logical answers to rational arguments, sophocles07. You just don't understand them, choose to ridicule them, or belligerently disagree with them, and that's fine. I'm now convinced that no matter what I tell you, you simply will not be persuaded of the existence of God, the truth of His word, nor anything else pertaining to God's nature and character until or unless God converts you by His Spirit through His gospel.
> 
> When I explain anything to you from a Christian theistic perspective, I have to hear remarks such as "you're a $#@!ing idiot," or "you're a sophist," or "you're a psycho who needs to be caged" or any combinations of these in expletives. Rather than admitting your disagreement with my answers, you'd rather be immature and ignorant by engaging me in illogical ad hominem attacks. That's not rational, and it's not in the good spirit of intelligent debate.


You do realize that this is usually the response when you have been either 1. telling me “I hate God,” 2. I’m going to hell, 3. I hate Jesus, 4. I “just can’t understand,” 5. Maybe “someday I’ll understand,” 6. telling me you want a theocratic nation that destroys the constitution, etc., right?




> I don't know what your problem is, sophocles07,


YOU




> but from what I've read of your posts in the particular thread, I have concluded that you really do hate God,


bleh...........

Fine, man, whatever.




> and, yes, you do acknowledge His existence. In your heart of hearts, you know there's a God because you reason, use morality, assume the uniformity of nature when making scientific measurements, etc.


O, Theocrat, so smart, so smart; “heart of hearts,” what a wonderful phrase; you just “know” these things, don’t you, how wonderful; so smart, so blessed.




> Just like me, you use circular reasoning. For instance, you argue for the use of logic in reasoning, all the while assuming the existence of logic. You assume there's moral standards by which mankind should live by; otherwise, you would conclude that Hitler was right for annihilating the Jews, for example. But you don't because you realize what he did was horrible, and that's a correct assessment. All I'm saying is that your actions speak louder than your words. Although you say there is no God, you can't reason nor act that way. Presuppositionally speaking, your worldview contradicts how you interact within the world you live in. That's all I've been trying to prove to you in this forum thread.


I don’t see any examples of “circular reasoning” here.

I have assumed the existence of logic because it *obviously*exists.  What is 1+1?  Is the answer the same as 5-4?  The abstract connection hear requires the appellation “logic.”  

I have assumed the existence of morality because it *obviously* exists.  This is no different than saying I realize language exists, because it exists.  

Now, is the leap from that basic fact to the idea of a divinity necessary or even desirable?  I’d say no; and, just as language is not a “God-placed” trait of the human race, neither is morality—it is a developed trait.




> When you grow up and learn how to argue and disagree in a civil fashion, then maybe I'll take your arguments more seriously under consideration. But until then, I leave you yet again with these words from Dr. Cornelius Van Til:
> 
> I shall not convert you at the end of my argument. I think the argument is sound. I hold that belief in God is not merely as reasonable as other belief, or even a little or infinitely more probably true than other belief; I hold rather that unless you believe in God you can logically believe in nothing else. But since I believe in such a God, a God who has conditioned you as well as me, I know that you can to your own satisfaction, by the help of the biologists, the psychologists, the logicians, and the Bible critics reduce everything I have said this afternoon and evening to the circular meanderings of a hopeless authoritarian. Well, my meanderings have, to be sure, been circular; they have made everything turn on God. So now I shall leave you with Him, and with His mercy.


It’s abundantly clear at this point that this argument is getting nowhere.  This is not the result of my, beachmaster’s, WilliamC, or Kade’s inability to argue rationally, or give you adequate counterarguments to your theistic stances.  IT IS the result of the intrinsic nature of your belief, one that cannot and should not be defended rationally, because it is by nature indefensible in a logical, rational way beyond a certain point (“He may exist”).  In light of that fact, you proceed to conjure up every type of sophistry you can manage, from not responding to posts and claiming you have to calling posters “immature” for using “curse words” (when, added, you are calling for a destruction of the constitution in language a half-pig could have written with his hooves).  SO: I’m probably going to stop posting to your replies at this point—the actual point of my above summary of your views—as we are _getting nowhere_.  

Hopefully anyone reading over this thread will realize what a extraordinarily marginalized, delusional few people (Theocrat, Dirt Roads Scholar, Macon GA) you are that believe in a “theocracy”.  Also, I would hope they notice the unsurprisingly deficient logic and, high-toned, self-righteous tone that you employ to skirt issues and trick others in argument.  

ETC.

----------


## WilliamC

> Good Morning Hypnagogue.
> 
> Sorry, that is simply not true.  Why is it that we want to excuse miscreant behavior by calling it a disease or illness?  We have rejected God's Law, which exposes our sin.  We have replaced it with our own arbitrary standards.  Any deviations from those we can simply excuse as illness.  The implications are...  we aren't accountable for our behavior.  
> 
> You aren't a murderer; you are mentally ill.
> You aren't a drunkard; you are an alcoholic.
> You aren't an adulterer; you are a sex addict.
> You aren't a drug addict; you are just sick.
> You aren't a thief; you are a kleptomaniac.
> ...


Now I actually tend to agree with you here Macon, GA. Personally I don't think that the entire mental illness defense in criminal matters is Constitutional, since it creates a special class of individuals that is treated differently under the law.

If a rabid dog attacks and kills a child it should be summarily executed, no trial needed.

If a "mentally ill" human attacks and kills a child they should be tried in a court of law and, if found guilty of the crime, subject to the harshest penalty available (and I am not an opponent of the death penalty for some crimes either). 

I could care less if the human was "mentally ill" at the time of the attack, or if they were under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or any other extenuating circumstance _except possibly if they were being coerced by another human against their will,_ i.e. if it was shown that the person committing the crime had had their child kidnapped and threatened with harm or death unless they followed out the orders of the kidnapper.

That would not remove the fact that the person committed the crime and should be punished, but it may mitigate the sentencing they would receive.

But hearing voices, being insane, being drugged (assuming again they took the drugs of their own free-will and were not tricked or coerced  into doing so) or whatever just doesn't matter to me. If they commit the crime of their own decision then they should face the consenquences.

----------


## WilliamC

> So far, this thread reminds me of the old saying: "When you argue with a fool, chances are, he is doing the same."
> 
> Combine this with Psalms 14:1 and Psalms 53:1 and you will understand there is no point in arguing either way.


heh heh.

----------


## Macon, GA

> She should either un-ignore me or stop responding to me via other posts’ quoting.


This will be the last time I quote you, Sophocles07.  I refuse to "un-ignore" you because, to be quite honest, you disgust me....*NOT* because of your "theological" stance, but because of your attitude.  You are one of the rudest individuals that I have encountered on this forum.  

I have found dialoguing with WilliamC and Beachmaster to be quite enjoyable.  While we don't agree, I feel like I would genuinely like these people were I to ever meet them in person.  

Throughout this discussion I have found it interesting that you support Ron Paul (perhaps you think the same of me)....  Ron Paul  seems (I don't know him personally) to be a kind individual, capable of expressing his disagreements with others passionately, but never coarsely.  He is a gentleman extraordinaire.  

You, Sophocles, are not.  Nobody will ever hear what you are trying to say, because of the manner in which you say it.  

So Adieu, Sophocles.  I will purpose never to respond to any of your quoted posts again......................

I pray that one day you will meet the _Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi.
_

----------


## WilliamC

> Yes, absolutely.


And how do you plan on doing that without causing me harm?

I do not wish to destroy your religious beliefs, even though I do not share them

It is sad to see such intolerance from someone who professes to support Ron Paul.




> Well, by those definitions you've used, I would still say that you are "religious" in the sense that you believe that *man is God*.


Then you would be incorrect as I do not ascribe any sort of supernatural abilities to man.

We are bound by the physics of the Universe. If you wish to believe that God created the Universe with all its inherent physical laws then I can't refute that. I simply don't share that belief.

And for that you would see me be destroyed 




> You begin with his reasoning, his ability to make moral choices, his own capacity to rightly understand science without relying on something else bigger than himself outside of the natural world,  etc. You also have faith in things which cannot be seen by *empirical observation*, such as logic, truth, justice, and love (universal, abstract, invariant entities, as I've called them).


I  do not have faith in them as you have in god. Should I discover new information I retain the ability to change my mind.

But ideas such as logic, truth, justice, and love are pretty much universal constants among humans, so the evidence that would have to be presented to make me disbelieve in them would be, well, I wouldn't know it until it happened I guess.

But if supernatural creatures suddenly started materializing  out of nothing here on Earth and zapping people with holy powers that would sure go a long way.




> You worship the human psyche and condition, his technology, his so-called autonomy, etc.


No, not at all. You still must have me confused with someone else, as you did in your previous post. 

Although I do confess to having adoring feelings of reverence for my wife and for other women I have had the privlidge to love, I do not see them as gods or goddesses, so I can't even really say I worship them.

Keep trying though Theocrat, to claim you know what I feel or think. If you guess long enough you may actually get it right. 





> These all reveal, at least to me, that you are indeed "religious."


No, that's just your projection of your emotions onto me. Of course you are free to call me a liar, and that wouldn't surprise me since you seek to destroy my beliefs. 




> So am I, and that's because we're all made in the image of God and created to worship something or someone.


See what I mean? That's projection, claiming that I must feel as you do because you already feel that way. 

What a poor understanding of the human condition you display for all of us to see. Not everyone thinks, feels, or believes as you do about religion, Theocrat. No matter how much you insist we do. 





> It's inherent in our very being as humans.


Show me a definition of human from a neutral dictionary (not a biblical one) that says humans are an image of god.

That's your basic flaw in your reasoning, you start with the premise that you already know the answers. As someone else in this thread has suggested, I am just a fool for arguing with you because I know this. 






> That doesn't mean the victor is necessarily righteous, either. One can immediately think of Hitler's use of "might makes right" upon the Jews.


Correct, might does not make one righteous. However, righteous people with no power will have no rights and, in a bad situation, no life. You make the point in your statement. 





> Refresh my memory because I don't understand how rights, which are immaterial in nature, are inherent in something that is material in nature, such as humans, in your worldview.


Rights only come from the mind of an individual capable of recognizing the humanity in another. Our history is one long struggle to get all humans to recognize that all individuals should have equal rights, under the law.

The reason I wish to take away rights from those who would commit violence and fraud to get their way is purely selfish, I don't want to have them harm me and mine. Hopefully I will be able to cooperate with enough like minded people to overcome folks such as yourself who see nothing wrong with destroying those they disagree with, even when those aren't out to harm you.  






> How can *random events* or *stochastic processes* form *complex, dynamic systems* like biological organisms, WilliamC?! This is just preposterous that you would even suggest that, I must admit. Where did these systems *originate* from?


I never pretended that science can answer the epistemological questions, because it can't. That is the realm of philosophy and, yes, religion.

Science just deals with the details of how things happen once the Universe has been created, and it has done a pretty fair job of it going all the way back to a small fraction of a second right after the miracle of the big bang. 

It's not up to me to teach you science, it's your choice to remain ignorant of it.

I just happen not to have much use for religion, I learned enough about it early on to realize it didn't make any sense for me personally. That's all. 





> "Natural selection" is only a tautology if your definition of it comes down to "survival of the fittest." My understanding of natural selection is much more involved than that.


No, it isn't. Natural selection is quite simply the tautology that those individuals which are more "fit" in a given generation will have more offspring and thereby contribute more of their genetic information to succeeding generations than less "fit" individuals.

But natural selection is only a very tiny part of evolution, that is true. 





> If I'm wrong, then I stand corrected. Where did we evolve from, then? In other words, what was the first cause of the universe, given your own scientific assumptions of biogenesis?


The "first cause of the universe" is not a scientific question, as I said above. If people wish to believe god started everything that is not a falsefiable premise.

But you've got to go through a few billion years of cosmology, astrophysics, chemistry, and geology before you even get to the biological question of the origin of life.

That's a bit too much knowledge for me to wish to present to you in the context of a post on RonPaulForums, but you obviously have internet access, and there are no secrets involved, so feel free to do your own research and draw your own conclusions.

After all, that is part of the scientific method.

----------


## WilliamC

> Its abundantly clear at this point that this argument is getting nowhere.  This is not the result of my, beachmasters, WilliamC, or Kades inability to argue rationally, or give you adequate counterarguments to your theistic stances.  IT IS the result of the intrinsic nature of your belief, one that cannot and should not be defended rationally, because it is by nature indefensible in a logical, rational way beyond a certain point (He may exist).  In light of that fact, you proceed to conjure up every type of sophistry you can manage, from not responding to posts and claiming you have to calling posters immature for using curse words (when, added, you are calling for a destruction of the constitution in language a half-pig could have written with his hooves).  SO: Im probably going to stop posting to your replies at this pointthe actual point of my above summary of your viewsas we are _getting nowhere_.


Yes, I think I too have wasted enough time "debating" Theocrat. Hopefully the readers of this thread, now and in the future, will be able to make their own decisions as to who is a champion of peace and individual rights and who isn't. 

Of course what you should always keep in mind sophocles is that what you say really isn't directed to the person you are responding too so much as to the broader audience that is following the debate without participating. That is why a judicious use of language is always called for in a public forum such as this.

----------


## Kade

> Kade, speaking as an anti-religious atheist myself, you need to give it a rest. You will never succeed in using reason against those who do not wish to think. It's not like the people who are sitting on the fence are going to be the ones who engage in these topics. It will continue to be the two sides whose minds are already, for the most part, made up. 
> 
> I fully understand that yearning to throw reason into the machinery of mythology, and to demand that people see and hear and understand, but that's simply never going to happen. 
> 
> Our best strategy is to live our lives nobly and with our philosophies borne openly, while working to create a society where all philosophies may compete fairly. Then we need only sit back and let truth take it's course.


I will do so, but promise me you and the others on this board won't be sitting back if this country ever goes too far to the dark side... We are vastly outnumbered, and I am genuinely concerned that our moderate minded friends are buying into the Flavo-Aid





> Its abundantly clear at this point that this argument is getting nowhere.  This is not the result of my, beachmasters, WilliamC, or Kades inability to argue rationally, or give you adequate counterarguments to your theistic stances.  IT IS the result of the intrinsic nature of your belief, one that cannot and should not be defended rationally, because it is by nature indefensible in a logical, rational way beyond a certain point (He may exist).  In light of that fact, you proceed to conjure up every type of sophistry you can manage, from not responding to posts and claiming you have to calling posters immature for using curse words (when, added, you are calling for a destruction of the constitution in language a half-pig could have written with his hooves).  SO: Im probably going to stop posting to your replies at this pointthe actual point of my above summary of your viewsas we are _getting nowhere_.  
> 
> Hopefully anyone reading over this thread will realize what a extraordinarily marginalized, delusional few people (Theocrat, Dirt Roads Scholar, Macon GA) you are that believe in a theocracy.  Also, I would hope they notice the unsurprisingly deficient logic and, high-toned, self-righteous tone that you employ to skirt issues and trick others in argument.  
> 
> ETC.


Agreed. I have never said that I am 100% certain of my position on anything... I do not hold to dogma, nor do I pretend to know everything... what scares me most are the people who refuse to allow themselves to be wrong...

I am, as I'm sure you and the others like us are, always willing to be wrong, if someone can just prove it, just provide a suitable amount of evidence... for any position. 

This board has convinced me of different positions on policies I have once supported, or never supported before... This debate has not moved, and as stubborn as I may be, it should be openly admitted here in the name of truth, that nothing but irrational nonsense has been offered to us by the likes of Theocrat. 

The original article was about Theists versus Atheists, I think a point has been proven here... not all Christians and Atheists hate each other, but there are definately factions of the religious branch that are certifiably mentally deranged and a potential danger to the well being of other humans.

----------


## beachmaster

> But if supernatural creatures suddenly started materializing  out of nothing here on Earth and zapping people with holy powers that would sure go a long way.


I wouldn't believe in God or Jesus if they appeared together in my bedroom.  It could be a trick of the mind, some kind of psy-op deception with drugs, holograms or whatever.  A whole city could be possibly sprayed with hallucinogens and everyone is running around seeing demons and angels... If that happened, yes it might be terrifying, but if I had any semblance of reason left in me, I would suspect it could be anything... yes it could even be God, Jesus, Satan, demons, or whatever.  In fact, if demons are real, and they can impersonate others, a demon (or the master demon himself, Satan) could appear as an angel of light, or Jesus (another Jesus as the bible indicates may be possible). 

I could ask for some form of ID, but even the ID would be suspect.  How would you know it was really something supernatural, or just a trick of the mind?  Or if we live in a simulated world, the programmer could just be screwing with you.

I've learned to believe nothing, not even if I see it with my own eyes pertaining to extraordinary events... and 911 immediately comes to mind here.


Now I suspect if Theo saw a God or a Jesus, he would instantly bow down to the apparition without even so much as asking for solid ID or proof of who it said it was. 

_"Hey, you must be God.  You just said so!... And who can dispute the Word of the living God? God wouldn't lie after all."_

----------


## WilliamC

> I wouldn't believe in God or Jesus if they appeared together in my bedroom.  It could be a trick of the mind, some kind of psy-op deception with drugs, holograms or whatever.  A whole city could be possibly sprayed with hallucinogens and everyone is running around seeing demons and angels... If that happened, yes it might be terrifying, but if I had any semblance of reason left in me, I would suspect it could be anything... yes it could even be God, Jesus, Satan, demons, or whatever.  In fact, if demons are real, and they can impersonate others, a demon (or the master demon himself, Satan) could appear as an angel of light, or Jesus (another Jesus as the bible indicates may be possible).


Well if it happened on a global scale it would be pretty solid evidence that something was very awry with the scientific world view.




> I could ask for some form of ID, but even the ID would be suspect.


I never thought of that. What if Jesus came back but was incarcerated as an illegal alien because he didn't have the proper green card 





> How would you know it was really something supernatural, or just a trick of the mind?  Or if we live in a simulated world, the programmer could just be screwing with you.


Well I would take the stance that a simulated world would be supernatural insomuch as it certainly would not be explainable by scientific methodology.

You can never get around the Descarte argument of the deceitful demon that tricks your every thought into being wrong eh?




> I've learned to believe nothing, not even if I see it with my own eyes pertaining to extraordinary events... and 911 immediately comes to mind here.


I think, therefore I am.

Or is it I think I am therefore I am?

Or I think I need to stop it with the meaningless philosophy and get back to the practical tasks involved in making a difference in this world 





> Now I suspect if Theo saw a God or a Jesus, he would instantly bow down to the apparition without even so much as asking for solid ID or proof of who it said it was. 
> 
> _"Hey, you must be God.  You just said so!... And who can dispute the Word of the living God? God wouldn't lie after all."_


What I can't figure is why someone who wants gods laws to rule the USA isn't part of Huckabee's army.

----------


## beachmaster

*"It was like someone flying up to heaven.''*

by Rayelan Allan

The above sentence is the way a farmer in China described an unidentified light that was seen in various provinces of China on December 11th. The following comes from an AP story:

"In Pusalu, a patch of struggling corn and bean farms 30 miles from Beijing, villagers believe cosmic forces were at play on Dec. 11. As they tell it, an object the size of a person shimmering with golden light moved slowly up into the sky from the surrounding arid mountains.

``It was so beautiful, sort of yellow,'' villager Wang Cunqiao said. ``It was like someone flying up to heaven.''

In my book, "Diana,Queen of Heaven", Chapter Four is about "Project Blue Beam". This is a NASA project. According to the late Canadian researcher, Serge Monast, Project Blue Beam had four parts. The second part of the project deals with tri dimensional optical holograms and sounds. Laser projections of multiple holographic images would be projected around the world. Each area of the world would receive a projection that was geared to its religious belief system. In other words, the Christian world will see Jesus, the Moslem world will see Mohammed and the Chinese will see Buddha.

Is the New World Order testing Operation Blue Beam in China? Will the Chinese people, who have spent the last 50 years under an atheistic communist regime, suddenly have a religious awakening brought about by golden apparitions in the sky? Will these apparitions take on form and names?

The next time the golden lights are seen over China, will villagers claim to have seen the Buddha or Kwan Lin? Or maybe Confucius or Lao-tze? Or will Chinese bureaucrats try to explain it, as they have this time, by adding more questions than answers, and making people more curious and more interested in the unusual incidents.

More:
http://www.rumormillnews.com/ufo.htm


Now I don't know how much of this is true. I do know that our state of technology is getting more advanced every day.  I strongly suspect that governments hold a lot more technology than does the common man, and fail to disclose all of what they know to us (in the name of national security of course).  Would I be surprised that they may have the technology to impersonate Buddha, God, aliens, demons, 2nd coming of Christ, etc.?  Wouldn't surprise me one bit.  

Project Blue Beam is of course pure conjecture.

The Paranormal State billboard isn't... really simplistic stuff:

http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Scienc...p?NewsNum=1351

* "Paranormal State' Ad Billboard Makes You Hear Voices"*

The outdoor billboard that displays an ad for Paranormal State, a ghost-themed series premiering on A&E this week, uses special technology to transmit sound so close to you that you think its inside your head.

As you walk by, the sound of a woman's voice whispers "Who's that? Who's there?... It's not your imagination." Advertisers describe it as a "chilling message."

The technology is created by Holosonic; the device is effectively an "audio spotlight" that can project sound literally right into your ears.

Previously, this technology had been used in places like museums or libraries; it creates an isolated experience while not disturbing those in the general area.

I'm guessing some readers might be disturbed by the idea of an ad that is beamed right at them as they walk down the sidewalk. However, cheerful Joe Pompei, president and founder of Holosonics, knows you'll come to love the technology:

    "If you really want to annoy a lot of people, a loudspeaker is the best way to do it," he said. "If you set up a loudspeaker on the top of a building, everybody's going to hear that noise. But if you're only directing that sound to a specific viewer, you're never going to hear a neighbor complaint from street vendors or pedestrians. The whole idea is to spare other people."

    "There's going to be a certain population sensitive to it. But once people see what it does and hear for themselves, they'll see it's effective for getting attention," Mr. Pompei said.
I find myself wondering if perhaps there will be an increase in the number of people who check themselves into mental health services for a quick schizophrenia check-up. 


==============
If this is what is being done in the open, what is being done in secret??


The art (and science) of deception is making huge headway in our society.  Always question!

----------


## beachmaster

> You can never get around the Descarte argument of the deceitful demon that tricks your every thought into being wrong eh?


Ultimately, no.




> I think, therefore I am.
> 
> Or is it I think I am therefore I am?


True on both counts.  Because I think, I AM (God is quoted as saying I AM also).

But what am I?  It appears that I am a human, so I'll just take that part "on faith".




> Or I think I need to stop it with the meaningless philosophy and get back to the practical tasks involved in making a difference in this world


Yeah, me too.  But I like the meaningless philosophy.. I also like to play the harmonica in my spare time.

And since it seems that I just might die one day, I like to make attempts to contact other realms and states of mind, just in case.  For practice perhaps.  Just in case there really is an afterlife (I tend toward believing there is). So as another of my leisure activities, I like to play around with lucid dreaming and OBE experiments.  What the hell can it hurt right?

----------


## WilliamC

> Ultimately, no.
> 
> 
> True on both counts.  Because I think, I AM (God is quoted as saying I AM also).
> 
> But what am I?  It appears that I am a human, so I'll just take that part "on faith".
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You might find these recent articles interesting.

here.

The Experimental Induction of Out-of-Body Experiences
H. Henrik Ehrsson

I report an illusion in which individuals experience that they are located outside their physical bodies and looking at their bodies from this perspective. This demonstrates that the experience of being localized within the physical body can be determined by the visual perspective in conjunction with correlated multisensory information from the body.

and here.

Video Ergo Sum: Manipulating Bodily Self-Consciousness
Bigna Lenggenhager,1 Tej Tadi,1 Thomas Metzinger,2,3 Olaf Blanke1,4*

Humans normally experience the conscious self as localized within their bodily borders. This spatial unity may break down in certain neurological conditions such as out-of-body experiences, leading to a striking disturbance of bodily self-consciousness. On the basis of these clinical data, we designed an experiment that uses conflicting visual-somatosensory input in virtual reality to disrupt the spatial unity between the self and the body. We found that during multisensory conflict, participants felt as if a virtual body seen in front of them was their own body and mislocalized themselves toward the virtual body, to a position outside their bodily borders. Our results indicate that spatial unity and bodily self-consciousness can be studied experimentally and are based on multisensory and cognitive processing of bodily information.



What will be interesting to see is the reaction of some folks when religious experiences can be induced at will in anybody through brain stimulation.

Oh wait, that's already happening...

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...d-in-the-brain

----------


## beachmaster

> You might find these recent articles interesting.
> 
> here.
> 
> The Experimental Induction of Out-of-Body Experiences
> H. Henrik Ehrsson
> 
> I report an illusion in which individuals experience that they are located outside their physical bodies and looking at their bodies from this perspective. This demonstrates that the experience of being localized within the physical body can be determined by the visual perspective in conjunction with correlated multisensory information from the body.
> 
> ...



As skeptical as I am and have stated previously in this thread (I only claim to know one thing to be absolutely sure... I AM), you don't suppose that I've read about all aspects, and viewpoints on OBE, Astral Travel and Lucid Dreams?

I first saw Michael Persinger's God Machine on a TV show about 3 or 4 years ago.  Amazing stuff.  I have studied about the temporal lobes, epilepsy, etc. (just lay studies).  I've considered that OBE's could be all in the mind.  But I also believe they MAY be otherwise.  Just maybe.

I tend to think that Astral Travel/OBE is truly the mind being outside of the physical body, while a Lucid Dream has the mind in an inner state, but still closely attached to the brain/body somehow.  In one of my lucid dreams I was awestruck at just how real (and yet so obviously a fantasy world) it seemed.  I was looking at myself in a mirror (not really myself, as there really was no mirror, and I really wasn't looking with real eyes).  I projected these weird cartoonish characters back, and made the faces change around.  Then I heard the sound of some new age music playing softly in the background.  I just smiled and nodded to myself in a complete state of awareness that my real ears were hearing this music coming from my cd player next to my bed, while my mind was in a fantasy world, fully cognizant that it was a dream.

It's fun... it's radical, it's "out of this world".  It's worthy of my time.

And just maybe, it could be practice for an afterlife. Then again, maybe not.  

Check out the movie "What Dreams May Come" with Robin Williams some time.  Lucid dreams are very similar to what is portrayed in the movie as Williams first enters Summerland/Heaven.

What I find distressing about theists (especially those who are very close to me) who claim to know the truth, and disclaim that they could ever be deceived, is that I believe they could really be taken in someday by technology and drugs, and never see it coming because they fail to QUESTION EVERYTHING.


Watch this video on how the Holosonic speakers work... it's very funny.  The guy is talking one on one to people in a public library and the reactions are interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veDk2Vd-9oQ

I can just see this technology kicked up a few notches, and someone sends a sonic mind message to Theocrat saying "This is the Lord your God, bow down before me"... I just cringe to think he would just do it, and not question the "Voice of God".  He doesn't even question the bible, something developed hundreds and hundreds of years ago.. why should he question the actual Voice of God?  His reasoning might truly be "God said it, I believe it, that settles it.  I know it's God's voice because He said it was!".  

It's sad for sure... I'm more concerned with my loved ones who could be taken in than Theocrat however from the human caring standpoint.  My loved ones do not advocate the elimination of free thought.  I am concerned about a Theocrat because this sort of technology could create the ultimate Manchurian Candidate.

----------


## Theocrat

> You do realize that this is usually the response when you have been either 1. telling me I hate God, 2. Im going to hell, 3. I hate Jesus, 4. I just cant understand, 5. Maybe someday Ill understand, 6. telling me you want a theocratic nation that destroys the constitution, etc., right?


You obviously do not understand what a theocracy is if your think it destroys a constitution. It does not. A theocracy recognizes that since there are jurisdictional limits amongst *family government*, *church government*, and *civil government*, the powers granted to each by God are limited. Therefore, a constitution does just that for a civil government. It limits its jurisdiction over the family and the church in its enumerated powers.

I do not, nor have I advocated in these forums the destruction of the U.S. Constitution. You're just mistaken or lying when you say that, sophocles07. So, please get your facts straight about my notions of a theocracy in relation to constitutional government.




> I dont see any examples of circular reasoning here.
> 
> I have assumed the existence of logic because it *obviously*exists.  What is 1+1?  Is the answer the same as 5-4?  The abstract connection hear requires the appellation logic.  
> 
> I have assumed the existence of morality because it *obviously* exists.  This is no different than saying I realize language exists, because it exists.  
> 
> Now, is the leap from that basic fact to the idea of a divinity necessary or even desirable?  Id say no; and, just as language is not a God-placed trait of the human race, neither is moralityit is a developed trait.


I had to laugh when I read this because I can't believe you actually thought you got away with this. You said "you assume logic and morality because they *obviously* exist," but when I say I assume God's existence because He's revealed Himself to me in the Bible, you say I'm wrong? Listen to yourself! "Logic exists because it exists. Morality exists because it exists." You hypocrite. You are now just being prejudicially arbitrary, sophocles07. And what, pray tell, is so obvious about logic and morality in their existence they exist which does not equally apply to God?

Here, let me be more clear about what I say earlier about logic so you so you can understand the point I was driving at. I'll just ask you a question. *Can you prove the existence of logic without using logic itself*? Come on. I dare you.




> Its abundantly clear at this point that this argument is getting nowhere.  This is not the result of my, beachmasters, WilliamC, or Kades inability to argue rationally, or give you adequate counterarguments to your theistic stances.  IT IS the result of the intrinsic nature of your belief, one that cannot and should not be defended rationally, because it is by nature indefensible in a logical, rational way beyond a certain point (He may exist).  In light of that fact, you proceed to conjure up every type of sophistry you can manage, from not responding to posts and claiming you have to calling posters immature for using curse words (when, added, you are calling for a destruction of the constitution in language a half-pig could have written with his hooves).  SO: Im probably going to stop posting to your replies at this pointthe actual point of my above summary of your viewsas we are _getting nowhere_.


I've expressed those same sentiments towards you a few posts back, sophocles07. Just know that I don't hate you as a person, but your philosophy of  man and the world is what I take issue with. As I've said to WilliamC before, we're in a battle of worldviews here, and these worldviews have significant ramifications on politics, law, morality, even truth itself. That's where I choose to fight--*in the realm of ideas* because people's souls are at stake here. So, in answering the original theme of this post, I'll just conclude that *I, as a Christian theist, hate "atheism."* It's as simple as that.




> Hopefully anyone reading over this thread will realize what a extraordinarily marginalized, delusional few people (Theocrat, Dirt Roads Scholar, Macon GA) you are that believe in a theocracy.


Oh, now I see you're trying to appeal to the masses in order to get them to agree with *your own point of view* that us theocrats are "marginalized and delusional" people. I tell you, your "logic" is impeccable, sophocles07. 




> Also, I would hope they notice the unsurprisingly deficient logic and, high-toned, self-righteous tone that you employ to skirt issues and trick others in argument.


Likewise, on your side of the argument, too, sophist-cles07.

----------


## Theocrat

> Agreed. I have never said that I am 100% certain of my position on anything... I do not hold to dogma, nor do I pretend to know everything... what scares me most are the people who refuse to allow themselves to be wrong...


Oh, so you think just because you and others like you who *aren't 100% certain of your position on anything* that others like me who hold 100% to our positions absolutely are somehow in the wrong? I see how it is. You can't be sure about your beliefs, but neither can I. How arrogant is that?

I don't pretend to know everything, because I don't. However, I believe in absolute truth and a sovereign God which that truth originates, so I rely on Him to teach and correct me when I'm wrong about my "dogma." But I will not allow people who believe such things as non-living materials produced living organisms to be the final standard of how I should think or what I should believe.




> I am, as I'm sure you and the others like us are, always willing to be wrong, if someone can just prove it, just provide a suitable amount of evidence... for any position.


Do you see your assumption in your statement?! You're already assuming your position is correct, just as the theist does. The fact of the matter is theists can give innumerable examples of why "atheists" are wrong in their assumptions and beliefs, but you still won't except it if it goes against your already accepted presuppositions. You need to understand that there's a difference between "proof" and "persuasion." I, as a theist, can give you many *proofs* for my theistic beliefs, but those proofs still have to *persuade* you, as an "atheist." It works the other way, too. The problem is, once again, theists and "atheists" have *very different presuppositions* about nature, reality, origins, etc. that they both bring to the table when they engage in debate. Ultimately, the only way the "atheist" can be *persuaded* of the *proofs* of God is by an internal change of his nature, which only comes by God's power through His revelation. 




> The original article was about Theists versus Atheists, I think a point has been proven here... not all Christians and Atheists hate each other, but there are definately factions of the religious branch that are certifiably mentally deranged and a potential danger to the well being of other humans.


Agreed. "Atheism" is one of those "factions of the religious branch" of humanism, which is a potential danger to the well-being of other humans. Just ask Hitler. Oh, wait. He's in hell right now. I'm sorry.

----------


## Theocrat

> You might find these recent articles interesting.
> 
> here.
> 
> The Experimental Induction of Out-of-Body Experiences
> H. Henrik Ehrsson
> 
> I report an illusion in which individuals experience that they are located outside their physical bodies and looking at their bodies from this perspective. This demonstrates that the experience of being localized within the physical body can be determined by the visual perspective in conjunction with correlated multisensory information from the body.
> 
> ...


Wow! That was some great science fiction there. I think I'll watch Star Wars next.

----------


## MalcolmGandi

Theists and atheists are both wrong.  Nobody knows, just admit it!

----------


## WilliamC

> Wow! That was some great science fiction there. I think I'll watch Star Wars next.


Yes, the journal Science and the magazine Scientific American are great sources for science fiction instead of science fact.

By all means, keep "enlightening" us with your wisdom.

heh heh.

----------


## Kade

> Oh, so you think just because you and others like you who *aren't 100% certain of your position on anything* that others like me who hold 100% to our positions absolutely are somehow in the wrong? I see how it is. You can't be sure about your beliefs, but neither can I. How arrogant is that?


A study showed that people who were more certain about information were often more likely to commit errors in recollection and memory tests. It also showed that the information they were certain about was more often then not, false. Those that were genuinely confident, made up the "most correct". 




> I don't pretend to know everything, because I don't. However, I believe in absolute truth and a sovereign God which that truth originates, so I rely on Him to teach and correct me when I'm wrong about my "dogma." But I will not allow people who believe such things as non-living materials produced living organisms to be the final standard of how I should think or what I should believe.


You explain everything with something that is unknowable. 





> Do you see your assumption in your statement?! You're already assuming your position is correct, just as the theist does. The fact of the matter is theists can give innumerable examples of why "atheists" are wrong in their assumptions and beliefs, but you still won't except it if it goes against your already accepted presuppositions. You need to understand that there's a difference between "proof" and "persuasion." I, as a theist, can give you many *proofs* for my theistic beliefs, but those proofs still have to *persuade* you, as an "atheist." It works the other way, too. The problem is, once again, theists and "atheists" have *very different presuppositions* about nature, reality, origins, etc. that they both bring to the table when they engage in debate. Ultimately, the only way the "atheist" can be *persuaded* of the *proofs* of God is by an internal change of his nature, which only comes by God's power through His revelation.


I was raised and baptized Catholic, became born again at New Salem Baptist Church in Marietta, Georgia. I spent effort and time extolling theological philosophy, becoming well read on all subjects of the faith, including the great fathers of the religion. I spent time organizing youth groups and camps, and going door to door to preach and evangelize. I was good at it...

To this day I can never forgive myself... I created at least four ministers, and hundreds of devout believers... 

No Theocrat, you are wrong. I don't assume I am right, but the evidence is overwhelming, anyone with any respect for reason and rational inquiry would see that... it took awhile, but I came out clean in the end. I survived it. I will spend the rest of my life undoing the damage I've caused in other people's lives... I believe with every bone in my body that Extremist Christianity is a dangerous, dangerous religion. That is harms people. That is creates intolerant people, and dangerous people. You are no exception. Your clarity and pure ignorance is the likes of which I have no seen in a long time, but I have seen it before. You are mentally sick, and I would encourage you to consider that before continuing on the road you appear to be marching down.

----------


## Kade

> Theists and atheists are both wrong.  Nobody knows, just admit it!


You can be agnostic atheist, btw... I don't believe in any god, but I don't claim to know with 100% certainty. I'm fairly certain the the Christian God has been thoroughly explained to my satisfaction... 

So, I suppose when it comes to a personal god, I am about as certain as one could get, there isn't one.

----------


## beachmaster

> Oh, so you think just because you and others like you who *aren't 100% certain of your position on anything* that others like me who hold 100% to our positions absolutely are somehow in the wrong?


No chance you are being deceived huh?




> I see how it is. You can't be sure about your beliefs, but neither can I. How arrogant is that?


How can you possibly know that you are right?  



> I don't pretend to know everything, because I don't. However, I believe in absolute truth and a sovereign God which that truth originates, so I rely on Him to teach and correct me when I'm wrong about my "dogma."


Oh, now you say you BELIEVE in absolute truth and a sovereign God...  I thought you KNEW it.  Flip flopper, lol.









> Agreed. "Atheism" is one of those "factions of the religious branch" of humanism, which is a potential danger to the well-being of other humans. Just ask Hitler. Oh, wait. He's in hell right now. I'm sorry.


Hitler wasn't an atheist.  And how do you KNOW he is in hell?  Are you sure he didn't have a deathbed conversion?  Or for some other reason your merciful God didn't spare him from hell?  You seem to know everything about everyone... except when you flip to saying you merely BELIEVE.  Which is it man?  You are cornfusing me!

----------


## beachmaster

> Theists and atheists are both wrong.  Nobody knows, just admit it!


I did... for the past 5 years.  Most people are too damned arrogant to admit that.

----------


## Cinnaboo

> The point that I was making is that without an absolute truth, or a divine standard each man may decide for himself what is moral or immoral.  We could all do what is "right in our own eyes" and who would *you* be to tell *me* that my actions were immoral.  
> 
> Jeffrey had no problem murdering those boys and eating them.  Here it is straight from him:
> 
> "If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what's the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That's how I thought anyway. *I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing ..."*
> 
> In an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC (29 November 1994)
> 
> Hitler carried out his maniacal killings with religious fervor.... *motivated by evolution.*  (See previous posts.)
> ...


People should indeed be encouraged to develop their own perspective of the world, including matters of morality and philosophy, and I find the spectrum of conclusions resulting from independent human quandary to be a beautiful thing. Being an atheist doesn't make me morally superior to you, nor does it really give much away in regards to my character/hobbies. An atheist can be a racist, a philanthropist, a swindler, an athlete, a farmer, a pederast, an entrepreneur, a doting father and/or serial killer. The only thing you know about me is that I take water polo very seriously (earlier post..).

*Dahmer*

"If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what's the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That's how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing ..."

In regards to Dahmer's worldview, lack of belief in the afterlife might very well have played a role in whatever theorem concluded that murder rape, in that order, was the answer. However, I think we can agree -- or maybe not, considering your beliefs about mental illness -- that he would likely have arrived at this conclusion eventually. Perhaps a customer service girl would be a little too snooty when Jeffrey presented his shrunken reindeer sweater -- the cacophony of the embroidered jingle bells in his rattling, furious hands providing musical accompaniment to his brain.

"Sir," she says, smacking her gum while teasing her pink hair "for the hundredth time, you cut the tag off."
"I don't even need the money, just look at the God damned tag. Ma-chine Wash-a-ble!"
She raises a pierced eyebrow. "Smack.."
"Just look at the GOD DAMNED tag! Machine Washable 30° so THAT's what I did, and LOOK what happened."
"Smack.."
"Just ACKNOWLEDGE that it's not my fault."
"Smack. Smack..."
He tries to return her stare and in the process realizes the futility of all things.
"You'll be sorry!" he snaps, turning theatrically to the checkout lines. "Remember the name Jeffrey Dahmer!"

So which came first: the desire to kill for an embarrassingly stupid reason (perhaps too embarrassing to reveal in an interview), or the philosophy to justify it? I doubt even Dahmer would know.

As a tangent, atheists don't consider lack of afterlife to necessarily make life meaningless. Some want to live the best life possible for that very reason. Either outlook is a reasonable one. For me personally, those opposing perspectives have reached a delicate counter-balance in my beautiful brain, resulting in absinthe regulated bliss.

Mmm... did you wake me?

*Hitler*

Hitler was a man ahead of his time.

*Manson*

Manson was the rapture and it was halted by jury. Omnipotent indeed.




> Would you allow them to do this at the local elementary school? If not, why not?
> 
> How about the local university?


In general, K-12 schools are aware enough to enforce their 'no trespassing' policies, however, I recognize the need for absolute security. After all, the children are our future *cough* workforce. So please vote me into local office (Fayetteville, GA) and I'll erect rifle towers outside every elementary school, volunteer manned, stocked with hopefully nonlethal doses of shark tranquilizer. Anyone carrying pamphlets, Chinese take-out slips, or fewer than five conflicting holy books toward the school will be felled.

As for the university, we are in a marketplace of ideas.

----------


## sophocles07

..................




> This will be the last time I quote you, Sophocles07. I refuse to "un-ignore" you because, to be quite honest, you disgust me....NOT because of your "theological" stance, but because of your attitude. You are one of the rudest individuals that I have encountered on this forum.


At least I don’t think the Bible should be the $#@!ing law, bitch.




> Throughout this discussion I have found it interesting that you support Ron Paul (perhaps you think the same of me).... Ron Paul seems (I don't know him personally) to be a kind individual, capable of expressing his disagreements with others passionately, but never coarsely. He is a gentleman extraordinaire.


Ron Paul is in a public format, running for president, and 72 yrs old.  Would you suggest he expressed his views in an aggressive manner?

Neither would I; was I running for president.  But I’m not; I’m talking to a few psychopaths about theocracy.




> You obviously do not understand what a theocracy is if your think it destroys a constitution. It does not. A theocracy recognizes that since there are jurisdictional limits amongst family government, church government, and civil government, the powers granted to each by God are limited. Therefore, a constitution does just that for a civil government. It limits its jurisdiction over the family and the church in its enumerated powers.
> 
> I do not, nor have I advocated in these forums the destruction of the U.S. Constitution. You're just mistaken or lying when you say that, sophocles07. So, please get your facts straight about my notions of a theocracy in relation to constitutional government.


Bleh...more crap from the monstar.

I suppose I’ll let the theocratic government come to power and then see how well they respect these “limited government” restrictions.

I don’t even understand how you could operate a theocratic society with Ron Paul’s views (i.e. constitutionalist views).  How would you handle “immoral” art?  Would a large government bureaucracy enforce all of the laws in the Bible within the society?  

How else could you work this out?  The court system would be completely absorbed with various “blasphemies,” “immoralities,” etc etc.  You’d spend yourself to death attempting to “follow God’s words literally.”  

Also, I don’t know what text you’re working from that says theocratic governments recognize these limitations, as they quite blatantly do not in many societies that have “theocratic” governments.  




> I had to laugh when I read this because I can't believe you actually thought you got away with this. You said "you assume logic and morality because they obviously exist," but when I say I assume God's existence because He's revealed Himself to me in the Bible, you say I'm wrong? Listen to yourself! "Logic exists because it exists. Morality exists because it exists." You hypocrite. You are now just being prejudicially arbitrary, sophocles07. And what, pray tell, is so obvious about logic and morality in their existence they exist which does not equally apply to God?


God damn, man, this is just ridiculous.




> Here, let me be more clear about what I say earlier about logic so you so you can understand the point I was driving at. I'll just ask you a question. Can you prove the existence of logic without using logic itself? Come on. I dare you.


No, because the concept of proof is implicit in the process of logic.

Logic is not a choice.  IT HAPPENS.  The nomenclature we’ve attached to it in philosophy is just a descriptive term.

What you’re asking is like saying “Can you walk without legs, sophocles?”

It’s absurd.

----------


## Macon, GA

Kade said:




> I was raised and baptized Catholic, became born again at New Salem Baptist Church in Marietta, Georgia. I spent effort and time extolling theological philosophy, becoming well read on all subjects of the faith, including the great fathers of the religion. I spent time organizing youth groups and camps, and going door to door to preach and evangelize. I was good at it...


How did you become "born again?"  Did you recite the sinner's prayer? Walk an aisle? Ask Jesus into your heart?  I see a lot of "good works" listed, but nothing about what you believed...or how the Lord changed your heart.  Was there ever a "heart change?"




> To this day I can never forgive myself... I created at least four ministers, and hundreds of devout believers...


Rest assured Kade, *you* did not create four ministers and hundreds of devout believers.

----------


## hypnagogue

Let this thread die.

----------


## beachmaster

> Let this thread die.


It sure is a lot of pages, all proving nothing and changing nothing in the end.  But it's been fun.

----------


## Dirt Roads Scholar

sohistry07

You are living proof that Darwinian survival of the fittest is a crock. The gene pool is obviously stained. I pray you don't breed.

----------


## sophocles07

> sohistry07
> 
> You are living proof that Darwinian survival of the fittest is a crock. The gene pool is obviously stained. I pray you don't breed.


Hmm, well.  Good thing prayer don't work, bubba.

----------


## Theocrat

> No chance you are being deceived huh?





> How can you possibly know that you are right?


No, not at all, because I believe in God's word, and His word is *truth*. God declares,

_Jesus saith unto him, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man cometh unto the Father but by Me._ (John 14:6)

_Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on Him, If ye continue in My word, then are ye My disciples indeed, and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free._ (John 8:31, 32)

_And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter that He may abide with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive because it seeth Him not, neither knoweth Him; but ye know Him, for He dwelleth with you and shall be in you._ (John 14:16, 17)

_Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth, for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak, and He will show you things to come._ (John 16:13)

_Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness; in hope of eternal life, which God, Who cannot lie, promised before the world began, but hath in due times manifested His word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour_ (Titus 1:1-3)

_I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father; he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also._ (1 John 2:21-23)

_Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God. And this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come, and even now already is it in the world. We are of God; he that knoweth God heareth us. He that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth and the spirit of error._ (1 John 4:1-6)

How can I be deceived when I'm abiding in God's truth?




> Oh, now you say you BELIEVE in absolute truth and a sovereign God...  I thought you KNEW it.  Flip flopper, lol.


Yes, I *know* God's truth by loving Him first and loving my neighbor as myself. These are the products of living by *faith* (or belief) in God's promises, and when a person does these things, God reveals Himself to that person, indeed. Here's what God has to say about this:

_He that hath My commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth Me, and he that loveth Me shall be loved of My Father, and I will love him and will manifest Myself to him...Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love Me, he will keep My words, and My Father will love him, and We will come unto him and make Our abode with him. He that loveth Me not keepeth not My sayings, and the word which ye hear is not Mine, but the Father's which sent Me._ (John 14:21, 23, 24)

_Owe no man anything but to love one another, for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law._ (Romans 13:8-10)

As a Christian continues to walk by faith, God continues to reveal Himself to that Christian so that he or she knows surely that God is true. This may sound unusual to the unbeliever, but that's one of the wonders and mysteries of God. God's existence becomes more real to the believer as he or she obeys God's commandments as revealed in His word through love.




> Hitler wasn't an atheist.  And how do you KNOW he is in hell?  Are you sure he didn't have a deathbed conversion?  Or for some other reason your merciful God didn't spare him from hell?  You seem to know everything about everyone... except when you flip to saying you merely BELIEVE.  Which is it man?  You are cornfusing me!


Hitler's reasoning and philosophy for what he did to the Jews was based in *naturalistic principles of "atheism,"* for sure. Just read this excerpt here from his book _Mein Kampf_, and judge for yourself.

Hitler never had a deathbed conversion because *he committed suicide* in the Führerbunker in Berlin, Germany in 1945. By the way, I think I've already explained my comparison of "know" and "belief" in a previous response.

----------


## Theocrat

> A study showed that people who were more certain about information were often more likely to commit errors in recollection and memory tests. It also showed that the information they were certain about was more often then not, false. Those that were genuinely confident, made up the "most correct".


And that proves I have to be uncertain about my claims of absolute surety for God's existence? Try harder, Kade, because I think that's just silly as a proof against my total certainty of God. "A study says so, therefore, it means I'm in error." Yeah, right. You act as if researchers don't have their own biases by which they exclude contrary evidence that doesn't fit their own personal presuppositions of what the facts should be. Your problem is you believe in the *myth of neutrality* too much. You also underestimate the nature of man.




> You explain everything with something that is unknowable.


Now, who's making an absolute claim here? Do you *know absolutely* that God is *unknowable*, Kade? You refute yourself each time you make universal claims like this. You should know better.

By the way, just because you claim God is unknowable *to you* doesn't make it true (That's what your implicit assumption is.). There are billions of Christians worldwide who have a genuine relationship with God that would simply prove you wrong that God is unknowable. What audacity you have in your arrogance to make such a claim.




> Your clarity and pure ignorance is the likes of which I have no seen in a long time, but I have seen it before. You are mentally sick, and I would encourage you to consider that before continuing on the road you appear to be marching down.


Insults and personal attacks against me still do not prove your case for "atheism," Kade. Once again, we have an "atheist" on this forum thread who cannot respectfully and intelligently engage in civil debate and disagreement about this issue without indulging himself in attempts of degrading his opponent. You are a classic example of one who chooses to attack the messenger rather than the message itself. You and sophocles07 should start a club.

----------


## Theocrat

I thought I'd post what "Mr. Agnostic Rationalist" (oxymoron) sophocles07 has responded to you from your last post. Don't be offended, though. He can't help what those "electrochemical processes" in his brain tell him to type because he's just the evolutionary product of random chemicals and biological stuff in his body which cause him to act that way. His "Mother Earth" must be ashamed of him right now...




> ..................
> 
> Quote:
> This will be the last time I quote you, Sophocles07. I refuse to "un-ignore" you because, to be quite honest, you disgust me....NOT because of your "theological" stance, but because of your attitude. You are one of the rudest individuals that I have encountered on this forum.
> 
> At least I don’t think the Bible should be the $#@!ing law, bitch.
> 
> Quote:
> Throughout this discussion I have found it interesting that you support Ron Paul (perhaps you think the same of me).... Ron Paul seems (I don't know him personally) to be a kind individual, capable of expressing his disagreements with others passionately, but never coarsely. He is a gentleman extraordinaire.
> ...





> No, because the concept of proof is implicit in the process of logic.
> 
> Logic is not a choice.  IT HAPPENS.  The nomenclature we’ve attached to it in philosophy is just a descriptive term.
> 
> What you’re asking is like saying “Can you walk without legs, sophocles?”
> 
> It’s absurd.


Right, because *logic* and *legs* are the same kinds of things, sophocles07...  You must be a monist. And where do the laws of logic come from again?

----------


## sophocles07

> Right, because logic and legs are the same kinds of things, sophocles07...  You must be a monist. And where do the laws of logic come from again?


Yes, logic and legs (and any other function of the human anatomy) are "the same kinds of things."  As I've said, language, organ functions, the way in which blood circulates in the body, the way in which vision operates, the way hearing occurs, the nature of the human sense of smell, and, yes, the faculties which allow for logical deduction, abstract thought, and moral judgment, can all be thought of in the same sense of being wholly material.  They, of course, just have different ways of working.  No one disputes the fact that organs, language, and the senses are materially explainable (I mean how they work and how they formed to work that way); why question the function of logic?  I don't really understand the argument here; you would be physically, literally unable to respond and type if logic did not exist.  You are thinking your way through concepts and ideas in order to respond, that's abstract thought; you are deducing and inferring, which is logic; what's the argument here?  This is why I said I know logic exists because it is evident implicitly in the act of typing, doing math, or writing a sentence; in the same way, morality can be said to exist implicitly in repulsion at murder or disgust at theivery of public funds or whatever basic human action.  Really, I fail to see what we're actually talking about here when you question logic and morality.  You've said that your religion, beliefs, and god are all true and rational, but then you ask me why logic is "obvious"; I don't comprehend the dilemma here.  I also fail to see how you cannot agree that logic is a) a function of the human brain, and that it b) relates by analogy to the fact that the legs are implicitly "obvious" in the fact of walking (that they are the "same kinds of things").  

The above is about as mild-mannered as I can be, and as clear as I can be.  I would request you give something that explains your positions to each of these points without evading questions or merely quoting scripture.  If there are points you cannot argue, admit this and say it comes down to "having faith," which I don't have.  You can then tell me I am lost; but at least admit that you are working on faith here, which is indefensible on the grounds we are speaking in (logic, rationality, etc.).

----------


## Macon, GA

Man....  I am sure that I have been called much worse than that, especially during my pre-conversion days.....  It has been a while though.  

"Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake.  Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

Sophocles is no agnostic.  He is a full fledged "God-hater."  

_Do you not know this of old, since man was placed on earth, that the triumphing of the wicked is short, and the joy of the hypocrite is but for a moment?  Though his haughtiness mounts up to the heavens, and his head reaches to the clouds, yet he will perish forever like his own refuse;  those who have seen him will say, 'Where is he?'  He will fly away like a dream and not be found; yes, he will be chased away like a vision of the night.  The eye that saw him will see him no more, nor will his place behold him anymore... The heavens will reveal his iniquity, and the earth will rise up against him.  The increase of his house will depart, and his goods will flow away in the day of His wrath.  This is the portion from God for a wicked man, the heritage appointed to him by God._



Quum se putarent sapientes, stulti facti sunt.

----------


## A rope leash

...it's his fan club that worries me!"  - Micheal Rivero.



That sophocles07, he is a full fledged "God-hater." 

Yeah, and I'm a full fledged tank-paratrooper.

Given that the religious side of this argument has yet to actually produce a god, or any empirical evidence a god or a kingdom of god, if sophocles hates god he hates nothing tangible. He hates a fantasy other people have.  William F. Buckley called us "god killers".  Well, you can't kill what isn't, you can only kill the idea.

The religious on this thread have fallen back on preaching from the traditional sources, ancient lore describing impossible scenarios. That's one of the reasons I've said that denying god to the faithful is such an awful pursuit...heartbreaking is not a bad word for it. It's a sad thing to watch as the religious flock to the same old testaments as proof of something actual, and how they insist that what is in their hearts and minds exists in the real world. Apparently, only a god has the power to show itself to the world.  That must be really frustrating for the believer.

Of course, we atheists have all sorts of plot lines demonstrating the impossibility of a god, which always gives us victory in these debates, but never a win. An argument not based on reason cannot be fought with reason, though we do try. It is exceptionally easy to pick a fun point with this subject...and all so easy for the atheist to poke directly on the religious...

...like this...

Jesus is dead.  He died on the cross for our sins, remember? Everyone alive during that period of time in which he existed is dead. Everyone dies. He's dead.

What's that? Too rude?  You say Jesus his up in heaven with his god-father? I thought that god so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son.  Gave him to who?  Himself? Jesus is up there in heaven with Dad after absorbing our sins? He is "sacrificed" to live in paradise? 

No, Jesus died. If we gave him our sins, he might be in Hell. But more likely, he's just dead. 

Way more likely.

Out of line? Perhaps, but as long as I'm making some sort of sense, it's hard to shut me up, right? It's exactly the same with religion...you have to take much of it on faith, but it makes sense on its own terms in its own world.

Only a god could ever end this argument. So far, it hasn't shown.

----------


## Kade

> Kade said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did you become "born again?"  Did you recite the sinner's prayer? Walk an aisle? Ask Jesus into your heart?  I see a lot of "good works" listed, but nothing about what you believed...or how the Lord changed your heart.  Was there ever a "heart change?"
> 
> 
> 
> Rest assured Kade, *you* did not create four ministers and hundreds of devout believers.


I'm ashamed of what I believed... and yes, growing up in such a vivid environment as the youth leader gave me an opportunity to bring leaders to your faith...

If you want their names personally, PM me.

----------


## beachmaster

> What's that? Too rude?  You say Jesus his up in heaven with his god-father? I thought that god so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son.  Gave him to who?  Himself? Jesus is up there in heaven with Dad after absorbing our sins? He is "sacrificed" to live in paradise? 
> 
> No, Jesus died. If we gave him our sins, he might be in Hell. But more likely, he's just dead. 
> 
> Way more likely.


Yes I agree, way more likely that IF there even was a real man named Jesus, a man basically described as a religious/political revolutionary in the first century CE, he is now dead.

As to Jesus paying the price for sin, assuming the price for sin is an eternity in hell, then logically, Jesus would be in hell for eternity.  If not, then he really isn't taking the full penalty for sin upon himself is he?

Besides, why should anyone with a conscience want an innocent party to pay the penalty for his/her own crimes or sins?  That's not very responsible is it?




> Out of line? Perhaps, but as long as I'm making some sort of sense, it's hard to shut me up, right? It's exactly the same with religion...you have to take much of it on faith, but it makes sense on its own terms in its own world.
> 
> Only a god could ever end this argument. So far, it hasn't shown.


Not to me anyway.  I even asked "him" to show me.  "His" own supposed "word" said to *"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good"* (1 Thessalonians 5:21).  I tried to prove the bible and it's version of the god idea to be true.  It didn't work for me.  The bible's god apparently rejected me out of hand.  He doesn't want me I guess, and that's fine with me.  So be it.  I'll find me another god.  My higher self works fine for me at this time, for it is the true Holy Spirit which comforts me.

----------


## Theocrat

> Yes, logic and legs (and any other function of the human anatomy) are "the same kinds of things."


Logic and legs are *not* the same kind of things. Logic is conceptual in nature, and therefore, it's not *tangible*. You can't see logic physically, nor can you taste it or smell it. Logic is not a material entity. Legs, on the other hand, are material or physical in nature. You can see them, touch them, and I will just stop there, but you get the point. They take up space in the natural world. So, I would disagree with you that logic and legs are the same kinds of things.




> As I've said, language, organ functions, the way in which blood circulates in the body, the way in which vision operates, the way hearing occurs, the nature of the human sense of smell, and, yes, the faculties which allow for logical deduction, abstract thought, and moral judgment, can all be thought of in the same sense of being wholly material.


I think you've made the same mistake as you have in your previous statement in assuming that immaterial entities, such as language and the mind, and material entities, such as organs and blood, are the same kind of things. Once again, language is a *concept* to describe a system of communication between two or more communicants. You can't buy language at a supermarket, nor can you eat it on a dinner plate. It just doesn't have tangible properties.




> They, of course, just have different ways of working.


I agree with this, and I would say it's because, metaphysically, they are different in their own natures; one is immaterial, while the other is material. Organs aren't mere abstractions in nature; they are made of organic matter and take up space. The way organs operate in nature is limited compared to logic because the latter is a universal standard used to make sound judgments and choices, while the former is particular to a specific function within an organism.




> No one disputes the fact that organs, language, and the senses are materially explainable (I mean how they work and how they formed to work that way); why question the function of logic?


Uh, excuse me, but *I do dispute the claim that organs, language, and the senses are materially explainable*. As I've postulated previously, language is conceptual in nature (not taking up space, nor composed of matter), so it cannot be explained "materially." I would say it's in a different realm of knowledge and experience than organs, the senses, etc., similar to the laws of logic, *being immaterial entities*.




> I don't really understand the argument here; you would be physically, literally unable to respond and type if logic did not exist.  You are thinking your way through concepts and ideas in order to respond, that's abstract thought; you are deducing and inferring, which is logic; what's the argument here?


I actually agree with you on the points you've made here, for the most part. There's no argument on these points.




> This is why I said I know logic exists because it is evident implicitly in the act of typing, doing math, or writing a sentence; in the same way, morality can be said to exist implicitly in repulsion at murder or disgust at theivery of public funds or whatever basic human action.  Really, I fail to see what we're actually talking about here when you question logic and morality.


Do you believe that immaterial or supernatural entities exist, such as logic and morality? I know that you use logic in the act of typing, doing math, or writing a sentence, but I just want to know *how do you account for them* in your naturalistic worldview (Where did they come from? Did they evolve before humans developed their minds or afterwards? Etc., etc.), and *why should anyone be obligated* to use logic in your worldview?

By the way, I would say that the reason you get repulsed by murder and disgusted at thievery is because you have a soul which tells you that these things are wrong. One of the facilities in your soul is the conscience, and this is where God has preprogrammed you to know right from wrong. I also do not question logic and morality because I believe these are real, immaterial entities (like the soul) created by God, and they reflect His character. As transcendentals, they are to be inculcated by all of His creatures in their thinking and behavior in order to bring glory to God and bring blessings to their neighbor. They are also necessary in knowing who God is, how His world operates, and how to live in peace (as much as lies in us) with both Him and other human beings, through love.




> You've said that your religion, beliefs, and god are all true and rational, but then you ask me why logic is "obvious"; I don't comprehend the dilemma here.  I also fail to see how you cannot agree that logic is a) a function of the human brain, and that it b) relates by analogy to the fact that the legs are implicitly "obvious" in the fact of walking (that they are the "same kinds of things").


I do believe logic is "obvious," in some sense, but it does not *justify itself*. There needs to be a system in place by which logic can be used and applied properly, a realm preconditioned for intelligibility, if you will. After all, it takes information to create information. I don't believe there was ever a time when logic was just "floating around in space." That's why God is necessary as the first Cause for everything in the universe, for I believe He is that "original Information" or "Totality of reason, logic, morality, science, and truth" in order to explain the *true purpose* of life and our existence in the natural world.

I don't believe that logic is a function of the human brain because I see the human brain and logic as being two separate things in nature. The human brain is composed of chemicals, biological matter, and electrical impulses, but each of these are incapable of forming logic or even knowing what logic is because they inherently don't function in that way according to their separate, inorganic properties. In other words, chemicals, *on their own*, do not make rational decisions. Electrical forces do not, of themselves, write poetic verses. How could they? Just think about what is necessary for any organism to formulate a constitution, or compose an orchestral concerto, or create a cathedral. Electricity and chemicals simply cannot do these things by their own nature as nonliving entities. You can put a cake mix in a bowl and stir it, but no matter how long you do it, you will never get the cake mix to cry, or come up with a mathematical formula, or write a Pulitzer Prize-winning novel. Why? Because the things composed of in a cake mix aren't necessary for crying, mathematical formulations, or award-winning novels. Yet, you seem to apply this understanding when you conclude that logic comes from our brains. If this is the case, then what do we conclude of those who may not be well-versed in logic as you and I are? Do we say that their brains are inferior to ours or less evolved than ours because they lack logical knowledge or the ability to apply it fully?




> The above is about as mild-mannered as I can be, and as clear as I can be.  I would request you give something that explains your positions to each of these points without evading questions or merely quoting scripture.  If there are points you cannot argue, admit this and say it comes down to "having faith," which I don't have.  You can then tell me I am lost; but at least admit that you are working on faith here, which is indefensible on the grounds we are speaking in (logic, rationality, etc.).


I really appreciate the spirit of debate and respectfulness you've maintained in this post, sophocles07. It helps aid in the free and cogent expression of ideas and disagreements we share towards each other. Your mild-manneredness is to be applauded. Thanks.

----------


## adara7537

So since Beachmaster brought it up and I already asked this question, yet apparently no one could, can anyone provide me with anywhere to look for archaeological or historical evidence of Jesus *WHILE*  he was alive?  Without of course referring me to the scriptures, cause that doesn't count. And if you can't does anyone know why there is no evidence?

----------


## Theocrat

> _Do you not know this of old, since man was placed on earth, that the triumphing of the wicked is short, and the joy of the hypocrite is but for a moment?  Though his haughtiness mounts up to the heavens, and his head reaches to the clouds, yet he will perish forever like his own refuse;  those who have seen him will say, 'Where is he?'  He will fly away like a dream and not be found; yes, he will be chased away like a vision of the night.  The eye that saw him will see him no more, nor will his place behold him anymore... The heavens will reveal his iniquity, and the earth will rise up against him.  The increase of his house will depart, and his goods will flow away in the day of His wrath.  This is the portion from God for a wicked man, the heritage appointed to him by God._


Do you know what I found interesting about that verse, Macon, GA? It seems to parallel with this one:

_Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming; it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth. It hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations. All they shall speak and say unto thee, "Art thou also become weak as we? Art thou become like unto us?" Thy pomp is brought down to the grave and the noise of thy viols; the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee. How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, "I will ascend into heaven. I will exalt my throne above the stars of God. I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation in the sides of the north. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds. I will be like the Most High." Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee and consider thee, saying, "Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms, that made the world as a wilderness and destroyed the cities thereof, that opened not the house of his prisoners?"_ (Isaiah 14:9-17)

Then compare that with this passage:

_Why do ye not understand My speech? Even because ye cannot hear My word. Ye are of your father the devil [Lucifer], and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning and abode not in the truth because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own, for he is a liar and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe Me not._ (John 8:43-45)

Kind of interesting, don't you think? *Like father, like son, perhaps?*

----------


## Theocrat

> So since Beachmaster brought it up and I already asked this question, yet apparently no one could, can anyone provide me with anywhere to look for archaeological or historical evidence of Jesus *WHILE*  he was alive?  Without of course referring me to the scriptures, cause that doesn't count. And if you can't does anyone know why there is no evidence?


You might want to get one of these, adara7537.

----------


## sophocles07

> Sophocles is no agnostic. He is a full fledged "God-hater."


Why does this person continue to respond to me after she has ignored me (preventing me from replying directly)?




> Logic and legs are not the same kind of things. Logic is conceptual in nature, and therefore, it's not tangible. You can't see logic physically, nor can you taste it or smell it. Logic is not a material entity. Legs, on the other hand, are material or physical in nature. You can see them, touch them, and I will just stop there, but you get the point. They take up space in the natural world. So, I would disagree with you that logic and legs are the same kinds of things.


Would you say that math does not exist because there are conceptual equations representing the material operations?  

Logic is only conceptual insofar as we are making it conceptual.  That is, if we were to never talk about it again and destroy the philosophical texts that describe it, it would still exist, but it would not be a concept.  

Would you also say that language is not comparable to legs/organs/etc. because it is “conceptual”?  (It is monolithically agreed that language is comparable to organs or other bodily functions, by the way, if you look into it.)




> I think you've made the same mistake as you have in your previous statement in assuming that immaterial entities, such as language and the mind, and material entities, such as organs and blood, are the same kind of things. Once again, language is a concept to describe a system of communication between two or more communicants. You can't buy language at a supermarket, nor can you eat it on a dinner plate. It just doesn't have tangible properties.


Again, language is not a concept unless we philosophize it.  Most animals have their own way of communicating;  this does not pre-suppose that that ability is conceptual, nor does it mean that it has anything to do with rationality or logic in the sense that humans understand these things.  Humans, though, have a faculty for language much more developed that animals (obviously) in the sense that we have the capability to express abstract thought, imagine things, reason complexly, etc.  Because you can’t “buy” language at a store doesn’t have anything to do with its existence in comparison with organs.  One could, if desired, destroy part of the brain carefully causing the inability of  the person to speak, express anything, communicate.  That’s a material, brain function.  It’s not immaterial unless you get very conceptual about it—which can be done about anything.  




> logic because the latter is a universal standard used to make sound judgments and choices


I think we’re thinking about logic and rationality in different ways.  I think of logic as “there,” but only apparent when described.  Greeks before Plato and Aristotle used logic, for example, they just didn’t go into depth in descriptions of it.  




> Uh, excuse me, but I do dispute the claim that organs, language, and the senses are materially explainable. As I've postulated previously, language is conceptual in nature (not taking up space, nor composed of matter), so it cannot be explained "materially." I would say it's in a different realm of knowledge and experience than organs, the senses, etc., similar to the laws of logic, being immaterial entities.


I meant no one with any semblance of a capacity for science, mind you.  




> Do you believe that immaterial or supernatural entities exist, such as logic and morality?


I do believe these things exist (obviously), but I don’t know why you jump to include the word “supernatural” as these things occur _naturally_ in the world.




> I know that you use logic in the act of typing, doing math, or writing a sentence, but I just want to know how do you account for them in your naturalistic worldview (Where did they come from? Did they evolve before humans developed their minds or afterwards? Etc., etc.), and why should anyone be obligated to use logic in your worldview?


Yes, it is an evolved trait.

You don’t have to be obliged, it’s a natural thing.  




> By the way, I would say that the reason you get repulsed by murder and disgusted at thievery is because you have a soul which tells you that these things are wrong. One of the facilities in your soul is the conscience, and this is where God has preprogrammed you to know right from wrong. I also do not question logic and morality because I believe these are real, immaterial entities (like the soul) created by God, and they reflect His character. As transcendentals, they are to be inculcated by all of His creatures in their thinking and behavior in order to bring glory to God and bring blessings to their neighbor. They are also necessary in knowing who God is, how His world operates, and how to live in peace (as much as lies in us) with both Him and other human beings, through love.


I understand you believe this.  You should know that by now.




> I do believe logic is "obvious," in some sense, but it does not justify itself. There needs to be a system in place by which logic can be used and applied properly, a realm preconditioned for intelligibility, if you will. After all, it takes information to create information. I don't believe there was ever a time when logic was just "floating around in space." That's why God is necessary as the first Cause for everything in the universe, for I believe He is that "original Information" or "Totality of reason, logic, morality, science, and truth" in order to explain the true purpose of life and our existence in the natural world.


Nor do I believe that logic was ever ‘floating around in space.’  But I believe it could develop in the human brain.  I don’t find it necessary to say that it existed from all time, but that it developed as a result of the need to communicate, cooperate (or exploit, either way you see it), and survive.  New things occur all the time, new metamorphoses of matter, energy, etc.  I don’t know why you need a preconditioned realm for intelligibility.




> I don't believe that logic is a function of the human brain because I see the human brain and logic as being two separate things in nature. The human brain is composed of chemicals, biological matter, and electrical impulses, but each of these are incapable of forming logic or even knowing what logic is because they inherently don't function in that way according to their separate, inorganic properties. In other words, chemicals, on their own, do not make rational decisions. Electrical forces do not, of themselves, write poetic verses. How could they? Just think about what is necessary for any organism to formulate a constitution, or compose an orchestral concerto, or create a cathedral. Electricity and chemicals simply cannot do these things by their own nature as nonliving entities. You can put a cake mix in a bowl and stir it, but no matter how long you do it, you will never get the cake mix to cry, or come up with a mathematical formula, or write a Pulitzer Prize-winning novel. Why? Because the things composed of in a cake mix aren't necessary for crying, mathematical formulations, or award-winning novels. Yet, you seem to apply this understanding when you conclude that logic comes from our brains. If this is the case, then what do we conclude of those who may not be well-versed in logic as you and I are? Do we say that their brains are inferior to ours or less evolved than ours because they lack logical knowledge or the ability to apply it fully?


The point is that these things in combination, functioning a certain way allows for all of these things.  Whether or not electricity can write a novel is not really relevant.  Obviously it can’t.  Humans are special in that they have managed to be provided with faculties which allow for almost anything in terms of imagination, production of art-works, rational ability to compose constitutions, and so on.  I mean, look at it this way: are you unable to walk because one cell of a muscle cannot walk of itself?

----------


## beachmaster

> I'm ashamed of what I believed... and yes, growing up in such a vivid environment as the youth leader gave me an opportunity to bring leaders to your faith...


I think she means that "God did it, not you".   But you and I know that you (and myself too, regretfully) brought people into the faith.  Fortunately, I've been able to redeem myself somewhat, as I'm sure you have.  Back when I was searching for answers to bible quandaries, I was with an online group of believers who occasionally met up in person (we all met at a big passover event once in Tennessee and lot's of questions were brought up at that time).  We collectively, over the span of many months, studied and analyzed, sought evidences for and against things found in the bible.  I was sort of the vanguard as I became increasingly convinced that I had duped myself all of these years, and when I finally arrived at a conclusion about the bible, I helped many others find their way out as well.  Most of us at first longed for the days of ignorant bliss, but it was too late.  It's like a kid who finds out Santa isn't real.  Once that happens, there is no turning back.  I was sad for a while.  My invisible helper was no longer there.  Yes, I would be mad at them (Yahweh and Yeshua/Jesus) and would say things as I looked up into the sky like "Why have you let me down so?" as tears would pour down my cheek.... then I would just have to laugh at myself and say "Who are you talking to?" and realize the absurdity of being mad at something you no longer even believed exists.  It was emotionally difficult but I worked my way out of it, as did most of the others.  I did talk with one of them a few weeks back, and he still sort of wished that he had taken the blue pill, but he acknowledged it was too late for that.

----------


## adara7537

> You might want to get one of these, adara7537.


Thanks, I'll check it out.

----------


## Dirt Roads Scholar

Atheism is not the absence of faith. It merely transfers the worship of an external deity to the religious worship of one's self. It's presuppositions, regardless of of the equivocations of its novitiates and priests, remains by far and away the most lethal religious philosophy the planet has ever suffered. It can exist in any more than minuscule numbers only where Christian precepts have provided a safe host for the parasite, or where reason has departed.

The Jesus of the Bible certainly seems to have left an unequaled and massive footprint all over history for a non-existent, or at best marginal personage. 
'Pay no attention to those silly myths! Why, we just appeared here, for no reason, and are now busy contemplating our magnificent selves with many large words, high admiration, and vivid imagination.'  


        "There comes an hour in the afternoon when the child is tired of
`pretending'; when he is weary of being a robber or a Red Indian. It is
then that he torments the cat. There comes a time in the routine of an
ordered civilization when the man is tired of playing at mythology and
pretending that a tree is a maiden or that the moon made love to a man.
The effect of this staleness is the same everywhere; it is seen in all
drug-taking and dram-drinking and every form of the tendency to increase
the dose. Men seek stranger sins or more startling obscenities as
stimulants to their jaded sense. They seek after mad oriental religions
for the same reason. They try to stab their nerves to life, as if it were
with the knives of the priests of Baal. They are walking in their sleep
and try to wake themselves up with nightmares." G.K. Chesterton

The perennial adolescents who compose in feces and are adored by their
peers when they proclaim it "art",  also tend (along with their peers) to
be enamored of murderous Eastern religions or even more lethal Western godlessness, all the while disdaining the love of Christ. DRS

ps - sophistry07... put a sock in it.

----------


## beachmaster

> How art thou fallen from heaven, *O Lucifer*, son of the morning! *How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, "I will ascend into heaven. I will exalt my throne above the stars of God. I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation in the sides of the north. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds. I will be like the Most High." Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.*


Hey being Old Testament and all, that sounds like a Jesus prophecy!  Jesus was the Morning Star after all.  Supposedly came from (fell from?) heaven, later supposedly ascended to heaven (he claimed to be of the Father, from heaven and would return to heaven... his followers followed up on that with myth that he ascended later), said he would be enthroned in heaven at the right hand of God, claimed to be like the most high, was the "light of the world" (Lucifer means light, or enlighted), died and went to hell to pay the price for sin (supposedly).  

Just amazing!

----------


## beachmaster

> Atheism is not the absence of faith. It merely transfers the worship of an external deity to the religious worship of one's self.


I'm not an atheist, but I am the closest thing to a god that I know.  And after all, I AM.  

Works for me!

I shall now bow down... to Me!

----------


## sophocles07

> The Jesus of the Bible certainly seems to have left an unequaled and massive footprint all over history for a non-existent, or at best marginal personage.


So did “Zeus” for thousand-plus years.  This is a prime example of the sophistry of argument an extremist Christian uses.  "Damn, that idea influenced a lot of $#@!, the contents of the idea MUST be true."  Nice one, BRAIN.




> Atheism is not the absence of faith. It merely transfers the worship of an external deity to the religious worship of one's self. It's presuppositions, regardless of of the equivocations of its novitiates and priests, remains by far and away the most lethal religious philosophy the planet has ever suffered. It can exist in any more than minuscule numbers only where Christian precepts have provided a safe host for the parasite, or where reason has departed.


If I had to choose, I’d go for “faith in self” over “faith in ‘God’”; but, seeing I am not an atheist, I don’t know why you’re coming in on page 51 to repeat a view we already know the Christians here espouse.




> sophistry07


Is this all you can come up with?

----------


## Theocrat

> Would you say that math does not exist because there are conceptual equations representing the material operations?


No. I would say math exists because it is a conceptual system of quantitative analysis and data which is useful, though limited, in understanding certain aspects of nature, statistical and probability formulations in social sciences, financial theory and application, etc. But math, itself, is not a material entity (It doesn't have a physical body or anatomy, in the biological/empirical sense.).




> Logic is only conceptual insofar as we are making it conceptual.  That is, if we were to never talk about it again and destroy the philosophical texts that describe it, it would still exist, but it would not be a concept.
> 
> I think were thinking about logic and rationality in different ways.  I think of logic as there, but only apparent when described.  Greeks before Plato and Aristotle used logic, for example, they just didnt go into depth in descriptions of it.


Logic is not conceptual just because "we make it conceptual." It exists that way on its own by its created nature. By the way, I just want to bring to your attention how you've contradicted yourself here on the existence of logic. You've said before that logic would still exist even if we never talked about it or wrote about it, but then later on you state that logic is "only apparent when described." Which is it?

I disagree with you when you say that Aristotle didn't go in-depth about logic. He was considered the creator of what's known as *modal logic* (syllogisms with modalities). He wrote extensively on the subject and dealt heavily with its forms. Read more about that here.




> Would you also say that language is not comparable to legs/organs/etc. because it is conceptual?  (It is monolithically agreed that language is comparable to organs or other bodily functions, by the way, if you look into it.)


Yes, I would say that language is not comparable to legs and organs because of the same reasons why logic isn't comparable to them--they are two different types of entities. Once again, language and logic aren't physical in and of themselves because they are invisible (or abstract) in reality. Legs and organs, on the other hand, are physical and they can be empirically experienced by our five senses in nature. Metaphysically, the two are different, but they are still meaningful and knowable in nature and human understanding.




> One could, if desired, destroy part of the brain carefully causing the inability of  the person to speak, express anything, communicate.  Thats a material, brain function.  Its not immaterial unless you get very conceptual about itwhich can be done about anything.


I agree with you that destroying parts of the brain can have an effect on speech and communications in humans. I would say this is because the body and soul of man are inexorably, yet uniquely connected to one another. Language, which originates and operates in the soul, can be affected by certain things that are done to the brain, which functions in the body, but this does not mean that brain and language are equal as the same types of entities, as I've repeatedly mentioned.




> I do believe these things exist (obviously), but I dont know why you jump to include the word supernatural as these things occur _naturally_ in the world.


Simply put, what I mean by things being "supernatural" is that they exist outside of the material, natural realm in some sort of metaphysical sense (non-tangible). You can substitute the word "immaterial" there, if you like.




> Yes, it is an evolved trait.
> 
> You dont have to be obliged, its a natural thing.


Though I disagree with you that logic is an "evolved trait," I must ask if you believe that the laws of logic are universal in all living creatures or are they just conventional in nature.




> I mean, look at it this way: are you unable to walk because one cell of a muscle cannot walk of itself?


No, but using logic and the ability to walk are still *two separate things*. You can't compare a human or animal's ability to walk with their ability to both use logical reasoning through deduction in induction; this is simply comparing apples to oranges.

----------


## beachmaster

Are we done here yet?

----------


## familydog

> What is the point of this thread, other than to divide, stir up emotions and rile up animosity?


Best post of the thread, and you don't even have to go past the first page.

----------


## Theocrat

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by wildflower
> What is the point of this thread, other than to divide, stir up emotions and rile up animosity?
> 
> Best post of the thread, and you don't even have to go past the first page.


While it may be true that we have strayed very far away from the original subject of this thread (I bear a huge portion of blame for that, I freely admit.), the main point is that different philosophical and political ideas have been exchanged and evaluated, you know, because, as Ron Paul supporters, we believe in the freedom to express, debate, and disagree with each other's opinions in a civil manner.

If any division, stirring up, or riling up of animosity has occurred, then it has been provoked by those who have chosen to express on this forum thread that they don't believe or like it when others engage in civil debate and discussion on controversial topics. But then they themselves become guilty of what they profess to have an issue with, namely, disagreement with someone else's views and the willingness to share it on this forum thread.

----------


## WilliamC

> While it may be true that we have strayed very far away from the original subject of this thread (I bear a huge portion of blame for that, I freely admit.), the main point is that different philosophical and political ideas have been exchanged and evaluated, you know, because, as Ron Paul supporters, we believe in the freedom to express, debate, and disagree with each other's opinions in a civil manner.
> 
> If any division, stirring up, or riling up of animosity has occurred, then it has been provoked by those who have chosen to express on this forum thread that they don't believe or like it when others engage in civil debate and discussion on controversial topics. But then they themselves become guilty of what they profess to have an issue with, namely, disagreement with someone else's views and the willingness to share it on this forum thread.


Unfortunately you have repeatedly shown that, if you had power, you would not be willing to allow others the freedom to express or even keep opinions that differ from your own.


Originally posted by WilliamC
Do you still seek to destroy my ideas and see my point of view of the world become extinct?




> Yes, absolutely.





> These are questions I'm just eagerly waiting for you to answer, WilliamC. But don't be surprised if the "electrical-chemical processes" in my brain force me to disagree with you and conclude that you are simply a fool and need to be extinct...


I consider you to be a dangerous person Theocrat, because you are intolerant of those whose religious beliefs differ from your own precisely in the same way that extremist muslims are. They too wish to see non-muslims destroyed and become extinct.

But maybe I'm wrong. 

Are you willing to swear that you would never use violence, coercion, or fraud to get peaceful others to agree with your beliefs?

If you had any power to impose your will on others, would you be willing to let agnostics, atheists, and those who don't accept your beliefs about god live in peace?

Or do you still wish for my agnostic/atheistic opinions to be destroyed and for people who believe as I do that god most likely doesn't even exist to become extinct?

----------


## Theocrat

> Unfortunately you have repeatedly shown that, if you had power, you would not be willing to allow others the freedom to express or even keep opinions that differ from your own.


No, I believe that people are within their own intellectual rights to hold to their beliefs, including the ones that differ from my own, but I still believe they're wrong if their ideas do not agree with the word of God. I think it's more profitable to discuss and debate opposing views than to just pull out a gun and shoot somebody when they disagree with me. By the way, that would be murder if I were to do so. But do not expect me to accept the authority of or simply agree with fools who won't use the common sense that God gave them, especially when ideas have consequences within a society and souls are at stake in eternity. What you believe determines how you behave. If you believe men are animals, then men will act like animals, for example, and that has serious ramifications in a society's moral code, justice system, orientation of law and science, respect for property rights, and the list goes on and on. That's one of the philosophies that I take issue with, and I find great pleasure in showing the fallacies of it.




> I consider you to be a dangerous person Theocrat, because you are intolerant of those whose religious beliefs differ from your own precisely in the same way that extremist muslims are. They too wish to see non-muslims destroyed and become extinct.


Comparing my wanting to *destroy your beliefs* (not your *body*) with Islam is naive, at best, and repulsive, at worst. I don't know which one of my threads you're referring to where I said I wanted to strap some bombs to myself and blow up anybody who disagrees with me, but you need to just quit with your hasty generalizations, WilliamC. I've explained to you over and over again that I do not wish to murder you or any non-theist, but you're still not hearing me.

By the way, your *intolerance* of my being intolerant of other's differing beliefs is noted.




> But maybe I'm wrong.


You are, but ignorance can be fixed. Stupidity lasts forever. By the way, I don't think you're stupid, WilliamC, and you've done a lot for the Ron Paul campaign, so I know you possess great intelligence and wisdom in some things.




> Are you willing to swear that you would never use violence, coercion, or fraud to get peaceful others to agree with your beliefs?


Yes.




> If you had any power to impose your will on others, would you be willing to let agnostics, atheists, and those who don't accept your beliefs about god live in peace?


Yes.




> Or do you still wish for my agnostic/atheistic opinions to be destroyed and for people who believe as I do that god most likely doesn't even exist to become extinct?


Yes.

----------


## sophocles07

> No. I would say math exists because it is a conceptual system of quantitative analysis and data which is useful, though limited, in understanding certain aspects of nature, statistical and probability formulations in social sciences, financial theory and application, etc. But math, itself, is not a material entity (It doesn't have a physical body or anatomy, in the biological/empirical sense.).


So it exists?  That’s what I’m saying in regards to logic, what you just said, but applied to logic (in its proper applications, obviously).




> Logic is not conceptual just because "we make it conceptual." It exists that way on its own by its created nature. By the way, I just want to bring to your attention how you've contradicted yourself here on the existence of logic. You've said before that logic would still exist even if we never talked about it or wrote about it, but then later on you state that logic is "only apparent when described." Which is it?


I mean that we become aware of it only when it is isolated through abstraction.  Similar to math.  We instinctively use math (a baby can use math but he doesn’t know the concept), but if we allow cognition to go into philosophy, it becomes apparent (i.e., through philosophical description).




> I disagree with you when you say that Aristotle didn't go in-depth about logic. He was considered the creator of what's known as modal logic (syllogisms with modalities). He wrote extensively on the subject and dealt heavily with its forms. Read more about that here.


No, I mean philosophers (as far as I know) before these two did not go in-depth about logic.  I know that Plato and Aristotle did.




> I agree with you that destroying parts of the brain can have an effect on speech and communications in humans. I would say this is because the body and soul of man are inexorably, yet uniquely connected to one another. Language, which originates and operates in the soul, can be affected by certain things that are done to the brain, which functions in the body, but this does not mean that brain and language are equal as the same types of entities, as I've repeatedly mentioned.


Do you see how there is no real way I can argue against this as your argument starts off with the pre-assumption of something that has no material or logical basis?

It seems like you’re just making something metaphysical without any real reason to do so.




> Though I disagree with you that logic is an "evolved trait," I must ask if you believe that the laws of logic are universal in all living creatures or are they just conventional in nature.


Do you  mean “do plants and other animals think abstractly” or do you mean “does nature operate ‘logically’”?




> No, but using logic and the ability to walk are still two separate things. You can't compare a human or animal's ability to walk with their ability to both use logical reasoning through deduction in induction; this is simply comparing apples to oranges.


They’re both fruits.  Which is what I’m doing: analogy by way of how something functions; a lightbulb without a socket and electricity will not shine, put together they will.  Any mechanism can be used as an analogy; the human anatomy is best though, because it keeps it within the body.

Also, have you read my questions about how things like art, ideas would be handled in a hypothetical theocratic nation?  Would art which implicitly or explicitly involved morality that is contrary to the Christian God’s Law be allowed to be published, distributed, etc.?  I’m wondering exactly how a theocratic government could actually exist and operate without destroying most of the freedoms of mind that people enjoy under the republican ideals of Jefferson and Adams.  And what about classic authors, like Theognis or Aeschylus, whose works are pagan?

----------


## Ginobili

> Atheism is not the absence of faith. It merely transfers the worship of an external deity to the religious worship of one's self. It's presuppositions, regardless of of the equivocations of its novitiates and priests, remains by far and away the most lethal religious philosophy the planet has ever suffered. It can exist in any more than minuscule numbers only where Christian precepts have provided a safe host for the parasite, or where reason has departed.


Riggggght.... 
     I am willing to wager $10,000 that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sun Worshipers, Pastafarians, etc. have commited MANY more henious and lethal acts then Atheists. Hell, I'll wager that religion in the last 40 years has done more harm to the world then atheism in all of history, and that is saving you from the crusades, inquisitions, etc. .

      Look up the statics of Atheists in prision for violent crimes. Then look up religious numbers. Whyi s this? I think its because these people no longer really fear death, because they can just go "HEY! God, like, forgive me! I just commited manslaughter, but hey, you love me, so its all good!", where as (most) atheists value life, as we know its a one time deal.

     If you look at...eh...75% of wars in history, you will notice the rich justified alot of them by religion. If you look at, say, 70+% of genocides, its been of religious causes. Now, can you honestly tell me that Atheists can hold a candle to the attrocities of religion apon human lives? 

    And trust me, you dont want me to get into the scientific and economic screw-overs the religion have done to mankind.

    Now, would you be kind enough to retract your insult? Thank you.

Edit: Dont forget to look up the religious cults that lead to mass killings while you are trying to find something to use against me, and please, find something good, I like to have debates that force you to think.

----------


## A rope leash

...believe me, I know!

----------


## Ginobili

> ...believe me, I know!


But that is a political position, not a religious position, therefor, that is a bit moot. Ethier they were killing because they were communists opossing a different faction, or they were atheists killing a dif. faction... the atheism might of helped fuel the fire of hate, but it was the communism that pushed them over.

----------


## sophocles07

> But that is a political position, not a religious position, therefor, that is a bit moot. Ethier they were killing because they were communists opossing a different faction, or they were atheists killing a dif. faction... the atheism might of helped fuel the fire of hate, but it was the communism that pushed them over.


As far as communists being proof of atheistic violence, I think this is a false argument.  They suffered from a misconceived economic ideology.  

The only possibly legitimate argument is that atheistic communists persecuted and killed the religious in Russia (and China, and elsewhere).  You also have to look at the particulars of this kind of case, though.  Much of what is called "atheistic persecution or killing of the religious" is really an effort by socialistic governments to uproot what amounted to hierarchal domination of peasantry by religious bodies (priests, who have a "direct line" to God, etc., give money for religious icons or "forgiveness"--basic exploitation; Dostoyevsky has a good description of this, though not entirely hateful towards it, in The Brothers Karamazov).  These "men of God" basically had a theocratic strangehold on the poor and uneducated, who accepted their authority under fear of hell, god, etc etc.  So this "atheistic" violence really comes to an attempt to get religion out of its near-statehood control of certain parts of Russia (in particular), and not, unlike religious-based crimes, "for the sake of establishing monolithic atheism."

So I think the argument is a bit tenuous.

THEN AGAIN, I don't agree that atheists necessarily have a lower propensity for criminal or violent behavior.  This I think is a ridiculous assumption, and is probably not borne out by the facts (if it is even possible to "check" such a hypothesis).  

The religious merely have more DOCTRINAL, DOGMATIC reason and support and motivation to commit violent crimes.  And they have definitely COMMITTED MORE CRIMES from a singular source than any other "sect" or group.

----------


## Dirt Roads Scholar

It's only logical that if you are an atheist, it's troubling when anyone points out the lethality of your own religion - especially when you've been trying to make the same case for Christianity. In the end you have to join the ranks of the religious because you can only believe your case by faith. More faith than I've got. We all choose to believe what we think is right. You can't prove atheism, and I can't prove the Creator God. You refuse to accept my evidence (about body counts, etc.), and I see no reason to give any credence to your protestations. Our realities are at considerable variance.

Our worldviews effect nearly every decision we make. Christians believe that men are innately sinful - and atheists believe they are innately 'good' (in some incomprehensible relativistic manner). We believe that men are created in God's image, and of infinite worth - you believe that men are mystically animate pre-compost. And so on. These views are, if not totally incompatible, then nearly so.

Did it ever occur to y'all that a religious A-theocracy might cause Christians as much concern as you seem to have for a mythical boogey-man of Theocracy? I don't believe Dr. Paul has either one in mind. This little tempest here has illustrated the venomous hatred, and intolerance self-worshipers have for believers. I don't know how we can overcome this immense chasm, even if we wanted to. God's arm is not short.

Lastly, it's disgraceful and cowardly to anonymously curse a lady, where her husband can't get at you to instill a long overdue sense of manners and decorum. Got to be a yankee.

Adios

ps - if it weren't for God, y'all would just be "A''s.

----------


## sophocles07

> It's only logical that if you are an atheist, it's troubling when anyone points out the lethality of your own religion - especially when you've been trying to make the same case for Christianity. In the end you have to join the ranks of the religious because you can only believe your case by faith. More faith than I've got. We all choose to believe what we think is right. You can't prove atheism, and I can't prove the Creator God. You refuse to accept my evidence (about body counts, etc.), and I see no reason to give any credence to your protestations. Our realities are at considerable variance.


Is this pointed to me?

*I am not an atheist*, as I’ve stated 800 times in this thread.




> and atheists believe they are innately 'good' (in some incomprehensible relativistic manner).


This isn’t the case whatsoever.  Atheists range from one end of the spectrum to the other on these questions.  You obviously know very little about this subject.




> Lastly, it's disgraceful and cowardly to anonymously curse a lady, where her husband can't get at you to instill a long overdue sense of manners and decorum. Got to be a yankee.


NC, boy.

You are a fool.

(So is she.)

----------


## WilliamC

> No, I believe that people are within their own intellectual rights to hold to their beliefs, including the ones that differ from my own, but I still believe they're wrong if their ideas do not agree with the word of God. I think it's more profitable to discuss and debate opposing views than to just pull out a gun and shoot somebody when they disagree with me. By the way, that would be murder if I were to do so. But do not expect me to accept the authority of or simply agree with fools who won't use the common sense that God gave them, especially when ideas have consequences within a society and souls are at stake in eternity.


I have no soul, I am not immortal. That's why religion is not very important in my life. And I note you resort to insults as well.




> What you believe determines how you behave. If you believe men are animals, then men will act like animals, for example, and that has serious ramifications in a society's moral code, justice system, orientation of law and science, respect for property rights, and the list goes on and on. That's one of the philosophies that I take issue with, and I find great pleasure in showing the fallacies of it.


You do a poor job of logically discussing your beliefs, since you make continuous use of appeal to authority whenever you are challenged to explain them.

I suppose if all your beliefs come from the bible though it's to be expected. 

Any cursory examination of vertebrate anatomy will show that humans are animals that happen to have evolved large brains which allow us to imagine further into the future and understand the world around us to a much greater degree than all other animals we share the planet with.

If you want to introduce the inherently untestable hypothesis that god had something to do with it you certainly can. 





> Comparing my wanting to *destroy your beliefs* (not your *body*) with Islam is naive, at best, and repulsive, at worst. I don't know which one of my threads you're referring to where I said I wanted to strap some bombs to myself and blow up anybody who disagrees with me, but you need to just quit with your hasty generalizations, WilliamC. I've explained to you over and over again that I do not wish to murder you or any non-theist, but you're still not hearing me.
> 
> By the way, your *intolerance* of my being intolerant of other's differing beliefs is noted.


How else to you propose to destroy my beliefs without destroying me, since I am the one who chooses to believe the way I do?

Peaceful persuasion is not the same thing as calling for destruction and extinction as you do. 

As for my intolerance, well I certainly haven't stated I wish to see your worldview destroyed, so I'll let those reading this thread come to their own conclusions about that.

All I am intolerant of is those who would use violence, threats, or fraud to get from others what they cannot through voluntary exchange. So long as you don't take that small step from wanting to see my beliefs and thoughts destroyed to actually wanting to help speed the process up via your direct intervention, then keep spreading your hate and bigotry for all the world to see.





> You are, but ignorance can be fixed. Stupidity lasts forever. By the way, I don't think you're stupid, WilliamC, and you've done a lot for the Ron Paul campaign, so I know you possess great intelligence and wisdom in some things.


And again you resort to insults as if threats were not enough. 

How is any amount of education going to change my beliefs if I don't share your faith?

You certainly don't seem to be interested in following the example of how even Ron Paul deals with people, much less Jesus Christ

----------


## Theocrat

> So it exists?  Thats what Im saying in regards to logic, what you just said, but applied to logic (in its proper applications, obviously).


Yes, math exists, but math and logic are still two different things. Logic is the basis for math and not the other way around.




> Do you see how there is no real way I can argue against this as your argument starts off with the pre-assumption of something that has no material or logical basis?


You can't argue it, sophocles07, because you refuse to accept that there are immaterial entities in and outside of nature. You have faulty presuppositions based only in materialism.




> It seems like youre just making something metaphysical without any real reason to do so.


I do have a reason for the soul being metaphysical, and it's God's revelation that He created man with a soul.




> Do you  mean do plants and other animals think abstractly or do you mean does nature operate logically?


No, I'm asking whether you believe the laws of logic exist independent of human experience (universal) or are they dependent on what humans think and understand about them and how they use them (conventional).




> Would art which implicitly or explicitly involved morality that is contrary to the Christian Gods Law be allowed to be published, distributed, etc.?


In a Biblical theocratic society, I would say these things would not be allowed because they contradict or blaspheme God's law-word, thus, promoting idolatry and immorality within that society, which would bring about the inevitable infringement of other's God-given rights of life, liberty, property, etc.




> Im wondering exactly how a theocratic government could actually exist and operate without destroying most of the freedoms of mind that people enjoy under the republican ideals of Jefferson and Adams.  And what about classic authors, like Theognis or Aeschylus, whose works are pagan?


First, I hope you see the implicit prejudice in your first statement. You're implying that a theocratic government would necessarily destroy "freedom of mind" in a society, but you're just begging the question. I would say men would have freedoms to think, reason, and debate about their worldviews, but, ideally, those which contradict the Bible would not be inculcated in the legislation of laws and governmental science in a theocratic government.

----------


## sophocles07

> Yes, math exists, but math and logic are still two different things. Logic is the basis for math and not the other way around.


Well, they’re not exactly two different things; if one is based on the other.  But I’m not sure why it matters which is based on which in this context.



> You can't argue it, sophocles07, because you refuse to accept that there are immaterial entities in and outside of nature. You have faulty presuppositions based only in materialism.


No, I can’t argue because the opponent’s entire case is based on something that is, as WilliamC says above, _inherently untestable_.  (1) There is no use in placing any value on what you’ve said, as it has no way of verification; (2) my presuppositions are what is in front of me; I don’t have suppositions that are entirely unreasonable.  If that’s “faulty,” ...



> I do have a reason for the soul being metaphysical, and it's God's revelation that He created man with a soul.


That’s not a reason; that’s faith.  A reason would be some logical extension that points toward a soul; there is not any except a material book written by men two thousand years ago.  Again, if you don’t understand that, I cannot argue against you, because your assumptions are based in faith and not reason.



> No, I'm asking whether you believe the laws of logic exist independent of human experience (universal) or are they dependent on what humans think and understand about them and how they use them (conventional).


The former.  But the question is obviously very complex.  That is, nature works “logically” in the sense that you can observe it and see it has patterns that are “logical”; but, animals and non-humans (with the exception of a few species which have been proven to have the ability for abstract thought) do not comprehend the logic of nature.



> In a Biblical theocratic society, I would say these things would not be allowed because they contradict or blaspheme God's law-word, thus, promoting idolatry and immorality within that society, which would bring about the inevitable infringement of other's God-given rights of life, liberty, property, etc.


If you absolutely proved God’s existence, this alone (above comment) would force me to oppose his rule.  This is the concrete end of your aim for social order; this is why you are dangerous, it extends to many, many areas...all of which are despicably anti-Ron Paul.



> First, I hope you see the implicit prejudice in your first statement. You're implying that a theocratic government would necessarily destroy "freedom of mind" in a society, but you're just begging the question. I would say men would have freedoms to think, reason, and debate about their worldviews, but, ideally, those which contradict the Bible would not be inculcated in the legislation of laws and governmental science in a theocratic government.


That’s not freedom though; that’s jerking me off.  And I don’t trust people who call tinkering, to use Ron Paul’s word, freedom.

----------


## yongrel



----------


## Dieseler

My fellow man.
I feel I have an important message to give to you.
A message to Christians and Atheists alike.
Make no mistake, I am a Christian but I belong to no church.
I fear that we are fighting one another here and creating bitterness to our own detriment.
The true enemy is yet to reveal itself.
Christians believe in this enemy while Atheist do not.
Just the same both groups will be targeted by this enemy.
Keep this in mind while you argue and make war with one another here.
I apologize for my bitter post in this thread and others I have made on this board.
I have heard it said and I have agreed that our movement is a Chimera of sorts but I now feel it might be a divine conglomeration of the Believer and Unbeliever alike.
Ron Paul's campaign was not an accident.
There must be a reason we are all here.
Remember...
We are not the enemy friends.
United we stand...
Truce and Peace to all.

One last thought. It does not so much matter what you believe. It is more important to understand what the enemy believes. This is what will be imposed upon us all.

----------


## Kade

> First, I hope you see the implicit prejudice in your first statement. You're implying that a theocratic government would necessarily destroy "freedom of mind" in a society, but you're just begging the question. I would say men would have freedoms to think, reason, and debate about their worldviews, but, ideally, those which contradict the Bible would not be inculcated in the legislation of laws and governmental science in a theocratic government.


Theocrat, I need to figure this out... for my own sake here... you are advocating a government that is not secular, that will impose a God-centered view and be completely resilient to any future change that might question that view? A bible centered view of how to be governed, even to people who are strongly against that?

People believe in the Constitution, because of the fact it gives us rights and protects us from our own Government...

I don't understand this... You want a biblical government, one which would not protect a non-believer or non-Christian... 

You think this is acceptable?

----------


## Kade

Theocrat and his version of government policy, law, and science:



Rational view:

----------


## sophocles07

Here's an example of what I mean when I say that these "abstract, immaterial entities" (good/bad, beauty, truth, etc.) have NO MEANING apart from their material source/application (and also why its good to get to the source of the original language to understand anything).

In Jane Harrison's "Themis" she writes:




> When Elohim beheld the world he had created he 'saw that it was very good.'  The Hebrew word for 'good' [untypable Hebrew word] seems primarily to have been applied to ripe fruits; it means 'luscious, succulent, good to eat.' The same odd bit of human history comes out in the Mexican word gualli, which though it means 'good' in general is undoubtedly formed from gua 'to eat'--the form gualoni, 'eatable,' keeps its original limited sense.  'Evil' in Mexican is am ogualli or a gualli, i.e. 'not good to eat';  gua gualli, 'good, good,' 'extremely good,' is really 'superlatively eatable.'  The word ocochil means 'flower'; the word for 'fruit' is 'good, i.e. eatable flower,' ocochigualli.  Most instructive of all, the act of making a meal is 'I do myself good,' Nigualtia."


Meaning: until philosophized and conceptualized and abstracted from an original meaning, the MORAL term/word attached to a situation hinged upon its material relation--whether one is hungry or one is starving, and good is having a supply of food.  

These abstractions are useless; to be good is to do a certain thing, certain actions, etc.; to be bad is to do certain actions, etc.; it is not based in non-material etc things; to perceive the beautiful is to perceive something material; to experience or observe truth is to perceive something material happening.  Etc.  God has nothing to do with it except by exaggeration; it's hyperbole of those with imagination.

----------


## Theocrat

> Theocrat, I need to figure this out... for my own sake here... you are advocating a government that is not secular, that will impose a God-centered view and be completely resilient to any future change that might question that view?


Yes. Here's why.




> A bible centered view of how to be governed, even to people who are strongly against that?


Yes. Click here and here.




> People believe in the Constitution, because of the fact it gives us rights and protects us from our own Government...


That's wrong. The Constitution doesn't give us our rights; it gives the government *its rights*.




> I don't understand this... You want a biblical government, one which would not protect a non-believer or non-Christian...


Because all men are made in the image of God in that they are the descendants of Adam (the first man), and God gives man his rights as the supreme Creator and Lawgiver, a Biblical government would still protect the non-believer or non-Christian for that reason. Those rights that God gives to us, nonetheless, are conditioned upon our obedience to Him, and they can be taken from us only by His judgment. This is crucial for any non-believer or non-Christian in understanding the blessings and curses that come from keeping or breaking God's law because their *God-given rights* are at stake. This is equally true for the Christian as well.




> You think this is acceptable?


Yes. Here's why.

----------


## Theocrat

> Theocrat and his version of government policy, law, and science:


I think you're misrepresenting what a theocratic understanding of government policy, law, and science, as well, are by your crude and deceiving chart, Kade. I think you need to read more about what a theocracy entails before you post naive models which have nothing to do with the tenets of a theocratic faith. I believe the following excerpt from R.J. Rushdoony's work, _The Institutes of Biblical Law_, will give you a good foundational understanding and introduction to what the nature of law is as revelation and treaty in society, from a theocrat's perspective:

Law is in every culture *religious in origin*. Because law governs man and society, because it establishes and declares the meaning of justice and righteousness, law is inescapably religious, in that it establishes in practical fashion the ultimate concerns of a culture. Accordingly, a fundamental and necessary premise in any and every study of law must be, first, a recognition of this religious nature of law.

Second, it must be recognized that in any culture *the source of law is the god of that society*. If law has its source in man's reason, then reason is the god of that society. If the source is an ogliarchy, or in a court, senate, or ruler, then that source is the god of that system. Thus, in Greek culture, law was essentially a religiously humanistic concept... Because for the Greeks, mind was one being with the ultimate order of things, man's mind was thus able to discover ultimate law (_nomos_) out of its own resources, by penetrating through the maze of accident and matter to the fundamental ideas of being. As a result, Greek culture became both humanistic, because man's mind was one with ultimacy, and also neoplatonic, ascetic, and hostile to the world of matter, because mind, to be truly itself, had to separate itself from non-mind.

Modern humanism, the religion of the state, locates law in the state and thus makes the state, or the people as they find expression in the state, the god of the system... In Western culture, law has steadily moved away from God to the people (or the state) as its source, although the historic power and vitality of the West has been in Biblical faith and law.

Third, in any society, any change of law is an explicit or implicit change of religion. Nothing more clearly reveals, in fact, the religious change in a society than a legal revolution. When the legal foundations shift from Biblical law to humanism, it means that the society now draws its vitality and power from humanism, not from Christian theism.

Fourth, no disestablishment of religion as such is possible in any society. A church can be disestablished, and a particular religion can be supplanted by another, but the change is simply to another religion. Since the foundations of law are inescapably religious, no society exists without a religious foundation or without a law-system which codifies the morality of its religion.

Fifth, there can be no tolerance in a law-system for another religion. Toleration is a device used to introduce a new law-system as a prelude to a new intolerance. Legal positivism, a humanistic faith, has been savage in its hostility to the Biblical law-system and has claimed to be an "open" system... Every law-system must maintain its existence by hostility to every other law-system and to alien religious foundations, or else it commits suicide.

(R.J. Rushdoony, _The Institutes of Biblical Law_, [The Craig Press, The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1973], pp. 4-6.)



> Rational view:


You've forgotten one thing, Kade. God is not merely reduceable to a scientific hypothesis or theory because of His own nature, which is spiritual or immaterial in essence (John 4:24). Thus, He exists transcendentally outside of nature, yet possessing the ability to personally reveal Himself to whomever He will while simultaneously providing all men sufficient knowledge about His existence through the creation and their consciences, generally, and through His Scriptures, specifically, so that no man is without excuse about God's existence (Romans 1:18-25)

Therefore, your so-called "rational" view chart does not deal with the *transcendental* nature for proving God's existence, which simply states that without God's existence, you could not prove *anything*, even rationality itself. Your chart simply assumes that all metaphysical entities must be proven through some sort of inductive method of scientific discovery, which is a philosophy held by those with a materialistic, atheistic worldview.

----------


## adara7537

What the hell is this biblical government talk? Have you lost your mind? Clearly you have. 

What pray tell is wrong with our current government, as in no biblical influence? Why does there have to be biblical influence?

----------


## sophocles07

> Second, it must be recognized that in any culture the source of law is the god of that society. If law has its source in man's reason, then reason is the god of that society.


These statement seems to have very little with the supernatural.




> If the source is an ogliarchy, or in a court, senate, or ruler, then that source is the god of that system. Thus, in Greek culture, law was essentially a religiously humanistic concept... Because for the Greeks, mind was one being with the ultimate order of things, man's mind was thus able to discover ultimate law (nomos) out of its own resources, by penetrating through the maze of accident and matter to the fundamental ideas of being. As a result, Greek culture became both humanistic, because man's mind was one with ultimacy, and also neoplatonic, ascetic, and hostile to the world of matter, because mind, to be truly itself, had to separate itself from non-mind.


The above generalization of Greek culture is so ridiculous I can't believe it's been published.

----------


## micahnelson

> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;


As a Christian, you are free to believe that all authority rightly flows from God. 

You are also free to regard the government as being lawful only as earthly authority, certainly the constitution as well as the bounds of reasonable consideration would demand such a limitation. 

But, ultimately, you must understand that people will disagree with you. I feel as though you are attempting to witness to people through the language of libertarian government- as if your idea is to convert spiritually as opposed to politically. This is similar to superbowl parties where we pause at halftime to discover that Jesus is the coach and the Bible is his playbook. Am I correct in this assumption?

----------


## sophocles07

I'll note Theocrat's inability to continue a calm, rational debate as he hasn't answered to me lately.

----------


## josephadel_3

The best vehicle for evil is the mask of religious fortitude.

----------


## Atheist73

In my personal experience as an atheist, I am often wary of letting people know during polite conversation. There is, unfortunately, quite an undeserved stigma that accompanies atheism...

----------


## HOLLYWOOD

> The best vehicle for evil is the mask of religious fortitude.


Amen! 

How many have died because of religion? 10 Million? 100 million? more?

Simple: Separation of Church and State... PERIOD!

Here's Taxpayers 'RELIGOUS' dollars inside the U.S. House of Representatives:

*http://www.legistorm.com/office/House_Chaplain/1531/42.html*

estimates... over a $1/4 of million a year!

----------


## Kade

> Amen! 
> 
> How many have died because of religion? 10 Million? 100 million? more?
> 
> Simple: Separation of Church and State... PERIOD!
> 
> Here's Taxpayers 'RELIGOUS' dollars inside the U.S. House of Representatives:
> 
> *http://www.legistorm.com/office/House_Chaplain/1531/42.html*
> ...


Unbelievable.

----------


## kombayn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism

In my personal opinion, everyone should really take this Absurdest approach to religion, god or anything that falls under those subjects. I would click the link and check out the relationship table.

----------


## DamianTV

Religion is spiritual slavery.

I know Im gonna take flack for that statement, however, in that statement I am NOT denouncing the existence of god, a god, gods, the one and only god, whatever, I denounce RELIGION.  Religion, as it is applied to people is nothing more than a preacher or pastor telling you about the words of the bible.  In essence, the preacher, a human, not a god, controls another person by operating on the belief that an individuals spiritual self assessment does not meet the criteria for being a good person and they have to go to CHURCH and give MONEY and listen to their spiritual leaders to be spiritually correct.  Just like being politically incorrect, or morally incorrect, the spiritual leaders (who are nothing more than slaves to the entire operation themselves) prey on the fears and doubts of those who are spiritually incorrect.

Religion has nothing to do with god.  It is the word of man to describe got but is not the literal word of god him / herself.  Again, not saying they dont exist, only that religion is used to control people, hence my original statement.

Look at it this way.  If I was a brainwashing war mongering pastor, and your entire point of view on what god is was based completely and only on what I told you it was, I could make you believe that god wants you to kill the facist american pigs and when you die you get 72 virgins.  People tend to take less offense if a specific religion I bash on is not their own, but this presents a problem in that way of thinking as they continue to believe their religion is the right and richeous one.  What if it isnt and YOU have been manipulated?  There are a lot of people in this country still today that can not read and to know the bible have to be told about it by someone else, which gives them power over you.  I think we do have a lower percentage of illiterate individuals in this country than exist in muslim countries (not trying to bash on muslim, I just think that is an actual statistic).

Religion is just like any other "power" to control people and use the same tools.  Such as FEAR.  Now there is about 55 pages of posts on this entire topic and I havent bothered to read much more than the article so this entire statement may seem a little irrelevant.  But the point as related to the original post is still the same.  Same plans.  Same conspiracies.  Same $#@!, different day.  Make those who believe in god FEAR, and thus HATE those that think god is bull$#@! (Im not saying that is my own personal belief or I dont believe in god) but the FEAR and HATE is used to Divide and Conquer, and start the most profitable of all spiritual offenses, war in the name of god that was started on purpose thru fear mongering (terrorist, terrorist, terrorist bla bla bla) to get more power, more money, more control, and eventually, if we do not wake up to all of the different forms of slavery that are applied to us, we will all end up being enslaved by those that control the words of god, and the media, and the free press.

Religion is spiritual slavery.  Nothing more, nothing less.

----------

