My Rebuttal, Part 1
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?
