The Theist Hatred Of Atheists

[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]

Patience, Ignorance, and Human Autonomy

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]

Your Own Logic

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.

Fuck 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]

Your Hatred Vindicated and You're Refuted

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]

Romans 13....

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/c2007/cbarchive_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 “fuck” 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 fuckin’ 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.

As Mick Jagger sings,

“Don’t want to talk, talk about Jesus—I just wanna see his faaace...”

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 “fuck” 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 fuckin’ 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”.

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...”

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]

Help Yourself

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]

A Great Article, My Sister

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/c2007/cbarchive_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."

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/c2007/cbarchive_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."

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]

So Be It, sophocles07

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 fuck 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 fucking 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.