Atheism starts its megachurch: Is it a religion now?

[otherone]

God being the State is absolutely absurd.

FF, who is sovereign?

 

[Christian Liberty]

FF, who is sovereign?

God.

And it is this very fact about God that makes the State NOT sovereign. In fact, it is this fact that destroys the State's moral right to exist.

 

[otherone]

God.

And it is this very fact about God that makes the State NOT sovereign. In fact, it is this fact that destroys the State's moral right to exist.

Then the idea of individual sovereignty is not in accordance with God's intent?

 

[Christian Liberty]

I'm sure that depends on how you define "individual sovereignty". In relation to what? The collective? Absolutely. God? No.

 

[fr33]

God being the State is absolutely absurd. Just because someone is an authority doesn't make them The State. Are parents The State? Private school teachers? Pastors? Of course not. Do you want to ban them from your "free society"? Of course not.

Your god governs you, provides for you, and protects you. He tells you what to do and how to live. And you obey. He does everything statists claim their state does.

Its even worse because you don't even believe God exists. The gang of criminals known as The State is very real, and malicious. So for an atheist a supposedly non-existent God is not comparable to the evil State.

That doesn't make it worse. I am able to understand that you believe both exist. You choose one to obey and work for. You only hate the other so much because it interferes with what you deem your true ruler.

Your slandering of Sola is completely off-base.

I haven't seen you defending me from Sola's slandering. According to him I must worship the state because I'm an atheist. Even if I'm wrong in this argument, I've simply used his own statement against him. He has not backed up his claim any better than I have.

 

[otherone]

I'm sure that depends on how you define "individual sovereignty". In relation to what? The collective? Absolutely. God? No.

Sovereignty isn't relative. There is more than one definition of individual sovereignty?

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Quoting Gordon Clark: "From observational premises no normative conclusion follows."

Since knowledge of the Bible must be obtained through observation, it follows that Scripture cannot tell us anything about morality.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Since knowledge of the Bible must be obtained through observation, it follows that Scripture cannot tell us anything about morality.

Do you know why this is not valid? It's in the bold. You are assuming empiricism before you have proved it. Your job is to prove empiricism, you can't just assume it without any arguments.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Your god governs you, provides for you, and protects you. He tells you what to do and how to live. And you obey. He does everything statists claim their state does.

You're right. Your problem is that you draw the wrong conclusion from this fact. I draw the conclusion that most people (Not you, obviously) idolize the State and try to make it God-like in their minds. Whereas you draw the conclusion that Christians are somehow (inherently, not just statistically) Statists, which doesn't make sense.

That doesn't make it worse. I am able to understand that you believe both exist. You choose one to obey and work for. You only hate the other so much because it interferes with what you deem your true ruler.

I hate the State because it leaves nobody free to do what they wish with their own lives. For me, that's worshipping God. For you, maybe that's worshipping yourself, which you have a right to do in a free society even if I don't approve of it.

Heck, by your own logic you make yourself The State. You follow your own moral dictates, provide for yourself, take care of yourself, etc.

I haven't seen you defending me from Sola's slandering. According to him I must worship the state because I'm an atheist. Even if I'm wrong in this argument, I've simply used his own statement against him. He has not backed up his claim any better than I have.

If Sola_Fide said that every atheist worships the State, than I agree with you that that's slander. I would agree that everyone, without exception, worships SOMETHING, but I agree that it isn't always the State. But statistically, atheists are generally even more statist than Christians. That you personally are a statistically anomaly, as am I, doesn't matter.

@Sola_Fide (and any other Christians here, non-Christians will most likely not decide why I'm asking a question)- My mother tries to make a distinction between supporters of "collateral damage" and supporters of homosexuality on the grounds that the latter issue is black and white in scripture and that the Bible very clearly says it is wrong, but war is sometimes presented as a good thing and so it takes more study to determine when war is and is not justified, and by this logic she defends fellowshipping with and accepting Christians who are wrong on the war issue while she would [at least, seemingly] not say the same about those who reject the idea that homosexuality is wrong. What is your opinion on this argument? (Note that by presenting this argument here I am not saying I agree with it. Just a perspective on the whole thing to consider and maybe address if you are interested.)

 

[Christian Liberty]

Do you know why this is not valid? It's in the bold. You are assuming empiricism before you have proved it. Your job is to prove empiricism, you can't just assume it without any arguments.

This is one point of Gordon Clark's logic that I simply do not understand. If you can't trust your senses, you can't trust the Bible, because you can't actually discern what the Bible's words say. In order to learn Biblical truth you must see, hear, touch (braille?) or use some other sense to discern the Bible.

This is one of very few points where I think Marc Carpenter is correct and you are wrong. As I was reading this, this very short article (Marc is rarely right where he uses more than 100 words or so to make a point) came back to mind:

http://www.outsidethecamp.org/efl270.htm

 

[otherone]

But statistically, atheists are generally even more statist than Christians.

Source?

 

[Christian Liberty]

Source?

In my personal experience the comment is true, although not by as wide a margin as I would like, and I've met non-Christians who are substantially more anti-state than certain Christians.

But I'm not gonna dig for a source, because it was really Sola's assertion. So you should probably ask him. The main reason I repeated it was to distinguish between what Sola actually said (Pretty much the above) and Fr33's erroneous "All atheists worship the State" version of what SF said.

 

[otherone]

In my personal experience the comment is true, although not by as wide a margin as I would like, and I've met non-Christians who are substantially more anti-state than certain Christians.

But I'm not gonna dig for a source, because it was really Sola's assertion. So you should probably ask him.

I've asked him for a source, and he has yet to provide it. You've doubled down with no proof. Your personal experience isn't relevant when you claim "statistically". If you pass hyperbole off as fact, it makes the rest of your arguments appear disingenuous.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Do you know why this is not valid? It's in the bold. You are assuming empiricism before you have proved it. Your job is to prove empiricism, you can't just assume it without any arguments.

Until you can come up with a way to know the Bible without using your senses, you're simply blowing smoke.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Until you can come up with a way to know the Bible without using your senses, you're simply blowing smoke.

Until you prove that knowledge comes from the senses, we can't have a discussion.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Your god governs you, provides for you, and protects you. He tells you what to do and how to live. And you obey. He does everything statists claim their state does.

That doesn't make it worse. I am able to understand that you believe both exist. You choose one to obey and work for. You only hate the other so much because it interferes with what you deem your true ruler.


I haven't seen you defending me from Sola's slandering. According to him I must worship the state because I'm an atheist. Even if I'm wrong in this argument, I've simply used his own statement against him. He has not backed up his claim any better than I have.

Except God allows us to sin-and repent. The State is just a an empty, selfish, inhuman vessel with no sense of right or wrong. When we "sin" (commit a "crime"), the State just does what it chooses with us-throw us in rape cages, murder us, etc.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Until you can come up with a way to know the Bible without using your senses, you're simply blowing smoke.

This is one of the few things I agree with Sola on. Though sciences are useful, they are inherently fallacious (they rely very heavily on induction-a type of reasoning that is never valid according to the laws/rules of formal logic).

 

[Sola_Fide]

This is one of the few things I agree with Sola on. Though sciences are useful, they are inherently fallacious (they rely very heavily on induction-a type of reasoning that is never valid according to the laws/rules of formal logic).

You agree with me on that? Well that doesn't come from an EO mindset HB. That comes from a very Biblical, rationalistic position.

 

[Natural Citizen]

What exactly are "the laws/rules of formal logic"? I suppose that's a two part question. This formal logic and, of course, these laws and rules...

Seems like special pleading to me.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

You agree with me on that? Well that doesn't come from an EO mindset HB. That comes from a very Biblical, rationalistic position.

Whoever told you that is mistaken. Though EO rejects Scholasticism and related philosophies/methodologies, it does not reject reason. (ETA: EO Apologetics uses lots and lots of logic )