The Theist Hatred Of Atheists

[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]

Enough chit-chat!

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]

For the Children

Hey....

I just saw this:



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*

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]

A Commentary for Your Critique

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/showthread.php?p=1299166#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 FUCK 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 fucking 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]

Whatever, sophist-cles07

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.”

Which is just as stupid and dangerous.

I don’t know what the FUCK 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.



Why not? Why not simply apply these tenets to today’s heathens?

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 fucking 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”.

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 fucking 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 fucking 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 shit. 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 becausethere 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."

So, what's your excuse, sophocles07?

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/December01/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]

Grow Up, sophocles07

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.



Yeah, that’s an obviously good analogy, you complete fucking idiot.



See A rope leash’s above post.



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 fucking break.



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.



blah blah blah




Seriously, why aren’t you in a cage somewhere?



YOU


Your complete inability to even reply logically to rational arguments makes me wonder why you continue to reply with this shit. WHAT are you accomplishing here but making yourself look like a complete idiot?

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 fucking 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.