Back to The Blaze »

Comments (267)

• christhefanatic

  Posted on January 10, 2013 at 5:52am

  Christians ought to be good…they just aren’t. But the whole world ought to be good and it just isn’t. As Witness1974@ points out,” There is none that doeth good…” It is why Christ died for us. Why would He do that if we were so good?
  And just because you are an atheist today, that doesn’t make you an atheist tomorrow.

  Report this comment

  Log in to ReplyReply  

  • Timmy_NorthWest

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 6:00am

    You forget, man is tempted by the flesh, sometimes he loses that battle, but hopefully not the war against evil.

    Report this comment

     

  • DEFCON4

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 6:13am

    @Tim, Yea, though I walk through the ‘valley of the shadow of death’
    I, will fear no ‘evil’, because I am the biggest-baddest,
    “melon-farmer” in the ‘valley’….Ohh-rahhh….

    Report this comment

     

  • Ragnars Repos

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 6:20am

    @CHRISTTHEFANATIC

    ‘As Witness1974@ points out,” There is none that doeth good…”’

    No, there are many who “doeth good”. If not, we wouldn’t be here to discuss this. Humans are good. We wouldn’t exist if we weren’t “good”. LIFE…is GOOD. Humanity IS life.

    “It is why Christ died for us. Why would He do that if we were so good?”

    So, let me get this straight. We were SO BAD that the father allowed his only son to be tortured and murdered by us heathens…to save our souls…then allows us to stay SO BAD?

    This is what I mean, it’s total BS! You can’t make sense of it. An “almighty” could write a better story than this, folks! You’re telling me that this god invented Dickens, Shakespeare, and Rand, but couldn’t do better than the Bible’s drivel? ;-)

    “And just because you are an atheist today, that doesn’t make you an atheist tomorrow.”

    Replace “an atheist” with “a christian”.

    Report this comment

     

  • christhefanatic

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 7:26am

    Ragnars Repos@ Of course you could come up with some kind of definition of the word”good”….as could I. And if we compared our definitions we might find some similarities. But I just wonder how our definitions would compare to God’s definition. Jesus said” None is good but He that is in Heaven “. Have to admit, not currently living in Heaven, that pretty much suggests that He is not talking about me.
    I would agree with you that by our definition of the word”good”, there are some folks who might be said to be better than some other folks. But I am speaking now as a Christian.
    Consider Adam. Would you call him a good man?…or a bad man? The man ate a piece of fruit! How many people could make the claim that the worst thing they ever did was to eat a piece of fruit that their pappy told them not to eat? Adam did not die because he was a bad man. He died only because he didn’t believe God.
    God does not allow us to continue to be bad….we die.
    Christ was not dragged away kicking and screaming for His life. He submitted…When Christ informed the disciples of His impending arrest, Peter uttered threats against any who would try and arrest his Master…and Christ said to him”Get thee behind me, Satan!” Give Peter credit, he loved Jesus…but he was showing great lack of faith. Why would God need a little man with a sword to protect Him?
    Sorry if I’m rambling…I tend to do that.

    Report this comment

     

  • PCs-PushComestoShove

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 7:42am

    @ragnorrepos
    I just want to know why athiests choose not only to reject the Bible but also choose to mock and denegrate those of us who believe. As a matter of fact most athiests seek the opportunity to denegrate our faith.

    Answer me this:
    What is it about christians that scare you? At least we have a moral code (ten commandments), most athiest say if it feels good do it which is no moral code. Both athiests and believers do both good and bad things in life but as christians our moral code tells us we a wrong and should repent.

    What is wrong with following the Ten Commandments? The are the basis of our constitution and most of our laws. What’s the problem?

    Report this comment

     

  • enzomedici

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 9:34am

    Jesus didn’t die for you or anyone else. He was crucified by the Romans like thousands of other people back in those times. It is nonsense folks.

     

  • Marine25

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 9:41am

    @PCS
    We atheists have many reasons for rejecting the bible, the koran, and other ancient works of fiction. Too many to go in to here. Read Sam Harris if you really want to know why people reject those books as, well, just books. Most of us don’t seek to mock or denigrate anyone’s faith. Many of us do respond, however, when fictional creatures and ancient writings of men are introduced into the debate on public policy.
    Christian’s don’t scare me. Atheists don’t say “if it feels good do it”, hedonists do. I don’t care about the 10 commandments as their author eliminates all credibility when he begins by talking about imaginary gods. Those commandments are not the basis for our constitution and most of our laws. Just wanted to address some of your questions.
    History, archeology, sociology and psychology have revealed overwhelming evidence that man created gods. There is no evidence that gods created man. In 10000 years there have been about 10000 different religions and almost 1000 different gods. You refute 9999 of those religions and 999 of those gods, yet experience moral outrage when anyone applies similar measures of reason and skepticism to your chosen god.
    I am not mocking or denigrating

    Report this comment

     

  • SquidVetOhio

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 9:55am

    “History, archaeology, sociology and psychology have revealed overwhelming evidence that man created gods.”

    Shows your ignorance of history and archaeology. Both of which have done nothing but substantiate the Bible. I know because I study it. Your examples of man-created gods applies only to the pagan gods. Not to the God revealed in the Holy Bible.

    Please, name a fictional character in the Bible.

    Report this comment

     

  • Locked

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 9:55am

    @PCS

    A fellow Christian here, I feel the need to correct some of your statements, ‘lest people think that all Christians believe wrongly.

    “most athiest say if it feels good do it which is no moral code.”

    This is false; atheism gives no moral code, including your strawman idea of “if it feels good, do it.” That’s called hedonism, and has nothing to do with religious belief. Most atheists I’ve met believe along the lines of “If it doesn’t hurt other people, we should be able to do it. You don’t have to, but you shouldn’t be punished for it.” But again, that’s not an “atheist” belief; that’s more libertarian than anything else.

    “What is wrong with following the Ten Commandments? The are the basis of our constitution and most of our laws. What’s the problem?”

    The 10 Commandments have very little to with our laws, and certainly almost nothing to do with our Constitution. Of the 10, only two are commonly found in our laws (murder and theft). Local laws may include rulings on adultery (though most have been overturned and ruled unconstitutional) or bearing false witness (though again, lying is perfectly fine in most situations in the US).

    The rest are either decent advice that would be nigh-impossible to legislate, or religious prescriptions that have never been part of US law.

    Our country has a rich Christian heritage, but the Decalogue (commonly called the 10 Commandments) are not the basis of our laws.

    Report this comment

     

  • Marine25

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 10:01am

    @squidvet

    name a fictional character from the bible?

    god.

     

  • AmadeusMaxwell

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 10:08am

    @PCS-PushComestoShove

    “Answer me this: What is it about christians that scare you? At least we have a moral code (ten commandments), most athiest say if it feels good do it which is no moral code.”

    In general, nothing about Christians scare me, so long as they ‘re not trying to force others into their religion. Also, as an atheist neither myself or anyone I’ve ever known has ever said “If it feels good, do it” Someone somewhere may have said it, but I think its a serious misrepresentation for you to say “most”. Speaking only for myself, my moral code in general is to treat others how I wish to be treated.

    “What is wrong with following the Ten Commandments? The are the basis of our constitution and most of our laws. What’s the problem?”

    If someone voluntarily wants to follow the ten commandments, then I don’t see anything wrong with that. The first commandment however is “Thou shall not have any other gods before me”, which is in direct opposition to the 1st amendment’s Freedom of Religion. It’s for that reason that I would object to the ten commandments being imposed on all citizens.

    Report this comment

     

  • Marine25

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 10:17am

    @squidvet

    I am aware that many biblical incidents and characters are, in fact historic. Just not the supernatural incidents. In my post I stated science had far more evidence that man created gods than the other-way-round. There is no historical evidence of gods-creating-man, of biblical miricles, of resurrection after death. None.

    Report this comment

     

  • JRook

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 10:18am

    @Locked As indicated once in a public poll, atheists displayed more religious knowledge than the respondents who claimed to be individuals of faith. Let’s keep it simple. It would be a much better world if Christians and people of other faiths just adhered to the Golden Rule. If adherence to the Golden Rule was used as a litmus test for people’s belief in god and level of faith….. it would confirm that the vast majority of people are atheists.

    Report this comment

     

  • ChrisDiamond

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 10:43am

    @PCS-PUSH

    “What is it about christians that scare you? At least we have a moral code (ten commandments), most athiest say if it feels good do it which is no moral code. Both athiests and believers do both good and bad things in life but as christians our moral code tells us we a wrong and should repent.”

    Just a few things about Christians scare me; chiefly, the desire of many (not all) of them to push their values, morality, judgments on society through the force of law. In this vein, the evangelical right is little different from the lefties. Ban this, ban that… like the left wants to ban free speech and guns, many evangelicals support banning gay marriage, drug legalization etc. See what I mean? And at least be honest enough with yourself to admit that these efforts of evangelicals to use the force of law as I stated do exist, are well-funded (the lobbyists) and propagandized on certain spin channels- er, I mean news outlets.

    Your moral code of the Ten Commandments is honorable, if it were followed even by the deity who supposedly gave it. But, let’s consider: Thou shalt not steal. Do you support any taxes for any reason? If so,… Thou shalt not kill (or murder). Many indirectly break this commandment through their support for continued warfare abroad because many, MANY innocent people are killed (murdered) in our name. I could go on and on if you like…

    And atheists do have a moral code. Many atheists are leftists, but many (continued)

    Report this comment

     

  • Seede

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 10:45am

    @ CHRISTHEFANATIC
    Depends on your belief as a Christian. Some Christians believe differently than others. Some Christians believe that Jesus did not come to save all people while others do believe this. Don’t forget the free will thing. God can stop all crime in an instant and will eventually do so but in the meantime He gave everyone the right to do as they please. This atheist guy curses Shane and hangs up on him without even knowing Shane’s intent. That shows me exactly how atheist’s remain atheist.

    Report this comment

     

  • ChrisDiamond

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 10:51am

    @PCS-Push (continued)

    Many atheists, like me are not leftists. In fact, we are probably much more fiscally conservative than most of the posters here. But we don’t want government to simply quit stealing from us, we want it to quit initiating force against us at every turn. Since we know it won’t, we peacefully advocate for it’s peaceful dissolution. A morality founded in respect for property rights, self-ownership and the personal responsibility that comes with it, and the implementation of the non-aggression principal, or NAP would, arguably, be widely accepted by the religious and non-religious alike. Simply put, society would have this as a ‘legal’ or moral code: I don’t own you. You don’t own me. What’s mine is mine unless I choose to give or share it with you, and likewise for your property. We shall not aggress against each other, and will only resort to violence in self-defense. It is the true embodiment of the ‘Golden Rule’ Christians champion so much. But the dissolution of a governing body is scary to most. Ultimately, whether they will admit it or not, most fear not having the government gun in the room for issues and causes they champion, and would rather have it pointed at them some of the time in order to keep it pointed at others the rest of the time. Christian morality? It pales in comparison, thanks in no small part to it’s blatant hypocrisy, to the morality I have described above.

    Report this comment

     

  • A_CALL_TO_CONSCIENCE

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 11:35am

    This is something many who do not believe in God can’t understand. C.S Lewis wrote two books about human suffering which talk about why would God allow evil things to happen. “The Problem of Pain” and “A Grief Observed.” The second is really about him dealing with the loss of his wife.

    It’s very difficult to try and explain this to someone who does not believe in God. Even some Christians find it hard to understand.

    Report this comment

     

  • JeffersonsPen

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 11:49am

    @marine25 Look at your own hand, the leaf of a tree, your child if you have one or the miky way tonight. Then tell me this all just happened. The arragance of man never stops amazing me. You my friend (as I sin to tell you this) are a damn fool !

    Report this comment

     

  • PRRedlin

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 12:56pm

    As an atheist I really could not give craps what anyone chooses to beleive, but I’ve viewed the NEED for religion as this:

    Some people are born with perfectly good legs, where as some people need to use a crutch to get through the day, some others need a wheel chair, and some are born with no legs at all.

    The same can be said with intelligence.

    Report this comment

     

  • ltb

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 1:51pm

    Gee, there’s an interesting concept… Let’s have a radio show about someone we don’t believe in and talk about how much we hate him.

    Report this comment

     

  • ltb

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 2:18pm

    PRRedlin, why do you atheists always have to get your obnoxious little jabs in? You say you couldn’t care less about what other people believe, then you have to insult people of faith by insinuating that we are unintelligent.

    First off, judging by your writing skills, you’re in no position to accuse anyone of being unintelligent. Second, if you “really could not give craps what anyone chooses to beleive” [sic] you wouldn’t need to insult people who believe differently than you. Obviously the fact that other people believe in Hell bugs you, or you wouldn’t feel compelled to denigrate those people. After all, if you convince yourself that people of faith are stupid, then it makes it easier for you to discount the existence of Hell. Hopefully you don’t find out first hand who was actually being stupid.

    Report this comment

     

  • bonesiii

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:52pm

    Ragnars, clearly that verse about nobody doing good means that nobody does all good all the time, which is the perfect standard that is needed to “get into heaven” by the law method. All humans have failed at that, other than Jesus of course. But of course, one good that is needed to do that and often overlooked would be loving God. Well, Jesus basically made it so that all we absolutely need to do is that.

    Once we come to love God, everything changes, and our addiction to sinfulness in other areas can be transformed into a desire to do right always. We no longer want to keep messing up God’s perfect design for ourselves, others, and the rest of his creation, anymore than if you love your parents you would want to destroy things they own.

    Also, that verse may be implying that without love of God, nobody is TRULY doing good because they’re doing things for the wrong motives; selfishness instead of Love. If someone tells the truth, that is “good”, but if they do it to harm someone else maliciously (I’m sure you can think of examples where this is possible, and being silent would have been better — I don’t mean lying, don’t get me wrong), then it isn’t really good, is it? The all-knowing God knows whether that is the case for all better than us.

    Report this comment

     

  • ltb

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:34pm

    bonesiii, I usually find that Christians who talk about how much they’ve changed since being saved are hiding some huge sin, or are oblivious to their own flagrant sins. Nine times out of ten, such people are obese, failing to remember that gluttony is a sin. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve changed immensely during the past 30 years since I got saved and flinch when I think of some of the things I’ve done in my past; however, I never look at myself and think, “I am such a better person since I got saved.” When I look at myself I think, “I am so unlike Christ, even though I desperately want to be like him.” The world conspires against us (especially against Christians), to make us unChristlike and I have yet to meet a Christian who walks the walk as well as (s)he talks the talk. Billy Graham, maybe, but no one in the generations that followed his. That being said, nothing would please me more than if everyone in the world was like Jesus, and impossible as it may be, being like him should be the goal of every Christian.

    Report this comment

     

  • ChrisDiamond

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:38pm

    @BONES

    Actually, I believe the verse is alliterating how our best of potential goodness is not goodness in comparison to the goodness of God. Essentially, the Christian theology boils down to we all suck worse than we could ever comprehend, we couldn’t do ANYTHING to make ourselves worthy of the presence of God, but because Jehovah allowed man to torture and murder His son, our worthless behinds can be reconciled to a God who lamented that He created us and flooded the world for it, killing millions and saving just Noah and his crew, by recognizing/accepting how utterly despicable and worthless we are and accepting the saving grace of the innocent blood of Jesus. That is, after all, the only way we nasty, filthy, sinful, hateful, disgusting hunks of dust have a means by which to even approach Jehovah.

    My two cents.

    Report this comment

     

  • bonesiii

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:41pm

    “allows us to stay SO BAD?”
    No, if you STAY so bad, you have not really followed Jesus and you’re still not saved. Read it; this is one of the most common points made. Paul and James go into great detail on it, and Jesus said it repeatedly. Instead, the saved are to spend the rest of these lives lovingly allowing the Spirit to guide us to be better in more and more categories. I’ve experienced this myself. Before, I had totally conflicting desires on it, but now more and more my desires are changing to honestly want good, and want sin less and less.

    “You can’t make sense of it.”
    I once felt that way, but that was before I decided to honestly try. It takes some research and honest soul-searching, but it’s very worth it. What it does also do is tend to have a sorting effect on making those who are obviously not even trying like you expose that about themselves, so we can see you for what you really are; very lost and desperately needing to come back into God’s love. :) Those that love truth and thinking will be attracted to the search for the answer to this and will come to faith.

    Just like any -accurate- description of complex -reality-, like the working of a car for example. Someone could take your same approach to anything else that’s complex and wrongly think it’s impossible to make sense of it. But an oversimplified description designed to appeal to you is not true just because it’s simple… ;)

    Report this comment

     

  • bonesiii

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:49pm

    “usually… Christians… hiding some huge sin, or are oblivious to their own flagrant sins.”
    We will probably always be stuck in some sins in THIS life. If we are truly saved, then as long as we still live in this life, more and more our desires to sin will be transformed by the Spirit into desires to do good. And as a result we WILL do more and more good and less and less evil. Only at the Resurrection (or maybe some other point after our physical deaths) will all our sinfulness be totally removed in this life. As I understand it.

    Personally I still have many sins I haven’t broken entirely free of. And some of them I don’t like to talk about yet. But I HAVE experienced that transformation, and when I tried on my own to do it before eventually giving up my pride and accepting Jesus, I failed every time. In my personal life, then, I find that God has proven himself to me, and proven TO ME that I am saved. This does not prove to -others- that I am saved or that God exists, as I could be entirely lying. (Although I never could have imagined this back when I wasn’t saved, lol. I just didn’t get it at all.)

    I tell people this to help them see how it does make sense, as this is what I think the Bible teaches, in context, so they might also accept and experience this proof themselves. ^_^ I’m challenging others to try it.

    Also, it has helped me catch myself in more and more of those “flagrant” sins over time. :)

    Report this comment

     

  • bonesiii

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:56pm

    “I never look at myself and think, “I am such a better person since I got saved.”
    Oh no no no. I’m not saying that anything about ME is better. That’s legalism. I think that idea is utterly nuked, and the vapor itself obliterated lol, by the Bible when we really honestly try to understand it. Only God is by his nature good, and I can only be good if I continue to listen to his guidance. Pride is always the enemy. You raise an extremely wise caution. :) Yes, that trap can exist.

    What I’m basically saying is that the Bible’s challenge as I understand it is for us to constantly in this life hunt down more possible sins in our continuing life and honestly pray for God’s guidance on whether they are sins. And trust me, we’ll keep finding them, but that’s good because it means God is refining us. :)

    But by the same token, there is a trap in allowing the lost to go on thinking that what Ragnars said is accurate, because it appears to be one think keeping him from understanding and coming to Jesus. :) We have a duty to try our best to accurately teach what the Bible really means, as we currently understand it, and better yet encourage the lost to open their minds and look into it in-depth themselves.

    And lemme add, I think there are traps connected to ALL good approaches, so caution is always needed. Pride can slip in anywhere, basically, although thankfully I’ve found Love is easier the more I give into it. ^_^

    Report this comment

     

  • ltb

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 5:22pm

    bonesiii, just from reading your brief comments, there is no doubt in my mind that you are saved. You have a very firm grasp on our sinful nature, the sacrifice Jesus made on our behalf and the struggle that ensues after we receive the gift of salvation.

    Report this comment

     

  • ltb

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 5:32pm

    The best teaching I’ve ever heard on why God would allow something like child rape to happen is by Andrew Wommack. In that teaching, Andrew lays out, according to the Bible, how God gave man dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:26) and how we basically screwed ourselves after Adam and Eve invited Satan into the world (Genesis 3:6). Since God’s gifts are irrevocable (Romans 11:29), he could not take dominion back, because revoking the gift would have made him a liar and it is impossible for God to lie (Hebrews 6:18).

    The long and the short of it is that now God has to work through human beings, since we are in charge of the world. Personally, I believe that God talks to everyone all of the time, but that we choose to ignore him, and that if a parent were in tune with God, (s)he would have enough discernment to never leave his/her child alone with someone who is a pedophile. I also find it difficult to blame God for the actions of a pedophile, when it’s the pedophile who committed the evil deed. If you want to be angry with someone for all of the sin that’s in the world, be angry with Adam and Eve. Of course, if you’re a Christian, you’ve already forgiven Adam and Eve, because you realize you would have done the same thing they did. If you don’t believe the Bible, or the account of Adam and Eve, I got nothing for ya.

    Report this comment

     

  • A_CALL_TO_CONSCIENCE

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 5:56pm

    @LTB

    That’s a good explanation. There are similar answers like that. The problem is people like Matt Dillahunty and his co-host don’t like that answer. More importantly I don’t think they want to believe that answer or for it to make sense; if it made sense that’s just one less reason for them not to believe. It goes to what you stated about Atheists having a radio show. It seems rather odd to be apart of a show like this and be the President of the “Atheist community of Austin (TX).” What’s the point if you say there is no god or don’t believe in one? I think Atheists like this who try so hard to almost prove there is not a god are doing so because they don’t want there to be a god.

    Report this comment

     

  • bonesiii

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 5:57pm

    “History, archeology, sociology and psychology have revealed overwhelming evidence that man created gods.”
    You do realize the Bible itself says that, though, right? It’s Hasty Generalization to assume that because other gods are manmade, the God of the Bible is, too.

    I think it’s proven that God does exist. Similar to what you said, the reasons are many and difficult to get into in-depth here. Suffice it to say, we realize that without this infinite God, man could not exist. No other explanation holds water, like the many flaws in evolution. Really, most other false religions are a form of evolutionism, like the Greek myths which said that the universe came into being through chaos, and the gods of that belief were basically just really advanced aliens akin to the Glowey Balls of Light so often featured in Star Trek. :P (Seriously, watching it on Netflix now and it seems like every other episode they run into such aliens and yet they seem to have forgotten that they already did a few episodes before… Aaaanywho…)

    The point is, there’s a vast difference between concluding from reason that an explanation must be correct (which is what atheists also claim to be doing), as biblical believers do, and just inventing a story and pretending to believe it to true. When pressed, atheists reveal that they’re in the latter category, not as they claim to be.

    Report this comment

     

  • bonesiii

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 6:04pm

    “There is no historical evidence of gods-creating-man, of biblical miricles, of resurrection after death. None.”
    Yes there is. God demonstrated the Bible’s truth via prophecy, so we know we can trust that it is His Word. Science when well-understood shows that there had to be -some- kind of creator, as evolution has been disproved by a number of means, esp. radiocarbon, universally observed downward/neutral changes rather than up as evolution requires, fossils fitting the Bible more and more the more we learn of them, etc. Other considerations like internal consistency narrow the quest down to just the Bible when it’s understood properly — all other worldviews including atheism are contradictory. :)

    The resurrection one especially has strong evidence as you would know if you had looked into it. There were around 500 witnesses who had every reason to expose it if it was a lie but who all held firm, etc. Besides, the Christ prophecies back up that he was not just another man. And what about Lazarus who Jesus raised? There were tons of witnesses to that resurrection; they even buried him.

    You can brush it all away with a stubborn and utterly blind faith that “somehow” it was all faked — I get that. But you can do that for anything including atheism/evolution so it’s really of no help.

    Report this comment

     

  • LeftOfRightOfLeft

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 6:11pm

    @SQUIDVETOHIO
    You might want to reread these archaeology books you’re reading. The story of Moses going down the river in a basket is stolen from Babylonian legends Sargon. There are a lot of stories from the Bible that are actually from mythology from much earlier in history. Even the story of Jesus dying on the cross is actually based on the patterns of the sun. This is mainly due to people worshiping something that is real, the sun. I personally refuse to believe a book written 2000 years ago and edited several times to fit the agenda of the king.

    Also the 10 commandments as a source for morality really? I don’t consider my wife property, that is what that whole don’t covet thy neighbor’s wife business is actually about. Those are some solid “family values” one member of the family is property.

    Report this comment

     

  • bonesiii

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 6:14pm

    “in a public poll, atheists displayed more religious knowledge than… individuals of faith… If adherence to the Golden Rule was used… it would confirm that the vast majority of people are atheists.”
    I saw and took that poll and it is highly deceptive. There was no consideration for biblical Christians versus anyone else. It was even open to any old religion, which really atheism is. I also scored far higher on it than what they said the average atheist did; almost 100%. Besides, almost all the questions were about the most inane trivialities, often not even connected with the Bible but about other religions!

    I’m convinced that if a poll was run properly that could test biblical Christians, atheists, and other groups, based on the actually relevant core teachings of the Bible rather than trivial details like what was that guy’s name, etc. that biblical Christians would score far higher than any of them. Atheists might score higher than some groups, esp. non-Christians and nominal Christians, but they would likely score lower than most believing Christians too. I know from reading what they post online all over the place, lol — they’re usually far off the mark.

    This poll is wrongly used to imply that atheists are smarter than biblical Christians but that was NOT what it tested at all.

    I agree it’d be best if all used the Golden Rule, but that would show the BIBLE’s credibility, at the -expense- of atheism.

    Report this comment

     

  • bonesiii

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 6:30pm

    “The story of Moses going down the river in a basket is stolen from Babylonian legends Sargon. There are a lot of stories from the Bible that are actually from mythology from much earlier in history. Even the story of Jesus dying on the cross is actually based on the patterns of the sun.”
    Well there’s a new one lol.

    Could you elaborate on these? They don’t seem to make sense at first glance.

    I -have- heard similar claims for example about the global Flood, but when studied carefully they are shown not to be plausible at all. The Babylonian myth that is claimed to come before that was actually obviously written afterwards. Remember that the Bible includes the “toledoth” lines which it is believed were signatures of the authors of parts of Genesis. So Noah wrote his section, then Shem another, before other people who had passed on the same story by word of mouth “telephoned” it into corrupted versions, which became the Babylonian myths and others.

    For example, the Genesis account portrays a boat which would actually be highly seaworthy, which the supposed myth-borrowing theory simply can’t explain, but the Babylonian one is a cube.

    As for these others, isn’t is possible there were stories of similar things happening in the past but that these events really did happen too? After all, it’s the Bible that teaches us that there’s “nothing new under the sun.” :)

    Report this comment

     

  • A_CALL_TO_CONSCIENCE

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 6:32pm

    @LEFT

    That has nothing to do with her being property. It simply means be happy with what you have and don’t go around desiring what others have. Be content.

    Report this comment

     

  • bonesiii

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 6:36pm

    “@LTB

    That’s a good explanation. There are similar answers like that. The problem is people like Matt Dillahunty and his co-host don’t like that answer.”
    I agree that’s a very good explanation.

    The thing about not liking answers like this is that they are rational, and atheists claim to care about that. I find it’s always helpful to point out the inconsistency of their emotional reactions, considering that claim of theirs. Maybe the best answer is to point these things out. And to also point out that if the real reason they are rejecting God is, as we often allege, that they want to keep on sinning, then they need to understand why sin really IS bad for them. That the all-knowing God who reason demands exists and who must be Love, tells us what’s right and wrong to help us. :)

    There will probably always be some who stubbornly and loudly refuse, but I have faith that there are some people who are quietly reading along and who do want to find the truth and want salvation, who our words may help reach. ^_^ I get the sense the loud atheists are desperate that we won’t realize that most of their own followers may be like that — may be open-minded and may be coming to Christ, in the hopes that we’ll just shut up.

    Also, LTB, thank you. ^_^ I think you are saved as well. :)

    Report this comment

     

  • ltb

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 6:47pm

    A_CALL_TO_CONSCIENCE and BONESIII, you guys might enjoy Chuck Missler’s “Cosmic Codes.” Even though Chuck spends some time talking about the “Bible Codes,” the book is about much, much more (e.g., intelligent design in microbiology, ancient prophecies fulfilled, foreshadowing of Jesus in every book of the OT, etc.) and is a big faith builder.

    Report this comment

     

  • LeftOfRightOfLeft

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 7:33pm

    @BONESIII

    http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/nemonarchs/g/Sargon.htm
    I would agree with you that the stories could be the same. I then look at how the story of Jesus errr I mean Horus is also identical that starts to make me wonder. Odds are Christianity is just a remake of an old religion. Also the story of Christ dying on the cross for three days is really just a remake of the Pagan beliefs about the how the sun moves across the sky. The Christian cross is really a new form of the Pagan Zodiac. If my son’s report looked identical to his older brother’s report from a few years earlier I wouldn’t assume my son’s think identically.

    @A_CALL_TO_CONSCIENCE
    Women are treated as property throughout the bible. I certainly define “family values” with the selling of a child into slavery. The bible condones disgusting acts of barbarism. Rape someone’s virgin daughter pay the father shes now your wife.

    “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,b he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.”

    Report this comment

     

  • bonesiii

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 8:23pm

    “Women are treated as property throughout the bible.”
    That is not at all true. Women are equal. Read what Paul has to say on the matter for example. However, it is honest that there were people, including believers, who sinned in that matter. The real teaching is that men are to be servant-rulers of women. Read what Jesus says about how leaders are to serve (not in name only as is all too common among our politicians).

    You go on to just quote the laws that are recorded in the Pentateuch, but Jesus answered that attack 2,000 years ago when he said that Moses permitted some things because the people’s hearts were hard. Those were akin to our due process laws today which can technically protect criminals in some ways, like guaranteeing them the right to lawyers or silence, as a part of human government. They were not God endorsing slavery and the like. Instead, God wanted us all to be free and equal as he intended. :)

    Atheism too can be used to justify slavery or sexism, and often is — it even makes sense without objective morals.

    As for this:

    “The Christian cross is really a new form of the Pagan Zodiac.”

    This is just bizarre. :P Do you really take that idea seriously? It clearly looks like grasping at straws to me. And in any case, we can make the same argument against evolution; as I said, it is really just Greek myth recycled. “There is nothing new.” But logic backs up the Bible, unlike the others. :)

    Report this comment

     

  • A_CALL_TO_CONSCIENCE

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 8:24pm

    @LTB

    I have never heard of that book, but will certainly check it out. Thanks.

    @LEFT

    The Bible condones no such thing. You’re speaking of OT law. Since sin entered the world things like this happened and were allowed to happen. This was no command to Christians.

    I posted this below in reply to another poster.

    “While the Bible doesn’t come right out and say “slavery is bad” we know that it’s something God does not approve of. This is not because of changing times. (Keep in mind there were different forms of slavery back then, many of the “slaves” in Biblical times were POW.)

    It was socially accepted then so going about it through violence or rebellion wouldn’t have been the best idea. Jesus knew that in order to truly get rid of slavery you must change a man’s heart. Jesus wanted to get at the root cause. In fact, after accepting Christ many slave owners freed their slaves, why? They knew it was the right thing to do, the Christ like thing to do.”

    Also, when Jesus stopped the woman from being stoned and told her to go and sin no more he did something considered wrong by society. Since legally they could kill a woman for adultery.

    Report this comment

     

  • ghampton106

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 11:52pm

    “It is why Christ died for us. Why would He do that if we were so good?”

    Christ was born to us, lived his life as one of us, ministered to us, was sacraficed to attone for our sins, and overcame death for one reason…..the unending love of our Heavenly Father. G-d very much cares about our mortal lives to be sure, but of far more importance to Him is our soul, and it through the choices that we make in life that determine what happens to our soul after our body dies. He wants as many of us as is possible to find eternal life……and that is a kind of love that none of us can fathom in its fullest form….

    As for those questioning the reality of the christian faith, of christ, of His resurrection, of creation….I would suggest that you read a series of books written by Lee Strobel that takes his expertise in law and investigative journalism and looks into Christ, Creation, Faith, etc…..in these books Strobel does an outstanding job of making very strong arguments in support of his topic…..he uses very scientific strategies to assess many of the claims against the bible…take the time athiests…it is worth the read.

    Report this comment

     

  • Locked

    Posted on January 11, 2013 at 11:05am

    Couple points:

    @BonesIII

    “It was even open to any old religion, which really atheism is.”

    Atheism is not a religion. Not even close. It has no official hierarchy, no services, no rituals, no places of worship, no central text. It is only a rejection of the supernatural.

    And ‘lest you go on to say “Dawkins is a priest! Universities are their churches! On the Origin of Species is their bible!” … just no. By those kinds of straining of the definition, a 4-H club is a religion.

    Report this comment

     

  • Locked

    Posted on January 11, 2013 at 11:17am

    @A_Call

    You had replied to me below, and I still say you’re wrong :-)

    ““While the Bible doesn’t come right out and say “slavery is bad” we know that it’s something God does not approve of… It was socially accepted then so going about it through violence or rebellion wouldn’t have been the best idea. Jesus knew that in order to truly get rid of slavery you must change a man’s heart.”

    Absolutely false. Society’s perception changed, but the Bible’s words did not. This is definitely because of changing times. Your argument is “God didn’t forbid slavery because He knew it would make people upset.” Well tough luck if people get upset because of it! One thing we DO know is that God does not sugarcoat His commands. Do you think “Thou Shalt Not murder” would have been better if it had been “Thou shalt not be mean to others”? Of course not.

    In fact, your idea that Jesus’s goal was to overthrow slavery by changing men’s hearts is even worse, because it means for thousands of years before Jesus came to earth, God openly allowed slavery without a single condemnation!

    “Also, when Jesus stopped the woman from being stoned and told her to go and sin no more he did something considered wrong by society. Since legally they could kill a woman for adultery.”

    See? So God is fine with stepping on toes.

    (By the way, Jesus and the woman taken in adultery is not part of the original Bible. It was added a few hundred years later)

    Report this comment

     

  • A_CALL_TO_CONSCIENCE

    Posted on January 11, 2013 at 11:40am

    @LOCKED

    Well, I was using it to reply to LEFT.

    I never stated that. I said he allowed it to happen because during that time the people wanted it. He let them have it.

    How is that worse? Jesus didn’t come to free slaves but save the souls of men (remember his concern was not with the temporary home earth, but with the everlasting kingdom, heaven). His goal was never an uprising to overthrow the bad people (or bad government). However, he knew, like I stated that when someone chooses to follow him he would do what is right, such as treating women equally, not having slaves, etc. God had a plan from the beginning. While the OT laws were for the Jews (for different reasons) there was a reason for all of that. A big reason was to show the need for a savior.

    Not part of the original Bible? I would disagree with that. What exactly are you implying by that statement?

    Report this comment

     

  • Locked

    Posted on January 11, 2013 at 11:52am

    @A_Call

    “I never stated that. I said he allowed it to happen because during that time the people wanted it. He let them have it. ”

    But you also said that “we know that it’s something God does not approve of.” If God disapproved of it, why did He allow it to continue? How do you -know- He disapproved if the Bible never says so, God never condemns it? Because Christians thousands of years later decided it was bad? What else could you call that but society changing it’s mind?

    “Not part of the original Bible? I would disagree with that. What exactly are you implying by that statement?”

    Exactly what I said. The earliest versions of the Bible (and several of them have full accounts of the Gospel of Mark) do not contain this story. It’s not in Sinaiticus or Vaticanus. It is not until the fourth century that references to it first appear, but even then the earliest versions we find of it aren’t until the fifth century biblical versions.

    Report this comment

     

  • A_CALL_TO_CONSCIENCE

    Posted on January 11, 2013 at 12:58pm

    @LOCKED

    The same reason he allowed other things to happen…it’s a fallen world. Allowing it doesn’t =approving. I would call it better understanding. After all, Jesus told us to love God and love others, which tells me slavery (in the sense most think of) would be wrong.

    Any specific source I could look at?

    Report this comment

     

• PAUL GULLO

  Posted on January 10, 2013 at 5:29am

  Atheist’s are just a bunch of spoiled kids who never grew up. Also , they are a great diversion to conversations about Jesus , they bring into question religion as a whole , and we all know why. I believe in listening to people’s opinion about things , and thinking about the relevance to the situation at hand, and if the particular persons ideas are helpfull or not. If not I tell them why. Lets tell the atheist why their ideas are not helpful in resolving the problems in America . They will probably start to cry , then we can go on with our lives knowing that we did a good deed to help a child learn to respect what he has.

  Report this comment

  Log in to ReplyReply  

  • Marine25

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 9:44am

    I thought growing up required giving up your imaginary friends.

    Report this comment

     

  • AmadeusMaxwell

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 12:08pm

    @Paul

    “I believe in listening to people’s opinion about things , and thinking about the relevance to the situation at hand, and if the particular persons ideas are helpfull or not. If not I tell them why.”

    Cool, sounds very reasonable

    “Lets tell the atheist why their ideas are not helpful in resolving the problems in America”

    This sentence makes it seem as of you’re ready to write-off any and all ideas from atheists before hearing their ideas. Not very reasonable

    Report this comment

     

  • ChrisDiamond

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:07pm

    Hi Paul,

    “Atheists are a bunch of spoiled brats who never grew up,” huh? Interesting. If you always start your (non)arguments with ad hominem, you will never develop any credibility. Oh, and baseless insults are a fine representation of your Christ. They make you sound like a spoiled brat who never grew up.

    “Also, they are a great diversion to conversations about Jesus , they bring into question religion as a whole, and we all know why.” – I’m particularly interested in this ‘why.’ Yes, we question religion as a whole, and you meet us about 95% of the way by disavowing Islam and Allah, Greek Gods like Zeus, Hinduism’s Shiva, Taoism, Buddhism, Shintoism, paganism, Satanism, Zoroastrianism etc as ludicrous notions. So I guess you’re only 95% as bad as we pesky atheists who dare question.

    “Lets tell the atheist why their ideas are not helpful in resolving the problems in America. They will probably start to cry , then we can go on with our lives knowing that we did a good deed to help a child learn to respect what he has.” – You’re assuming your ideas are ‘right.’ The Voluntaryists have the correct moral philosophy on organizing society, and consequently many (but not all) are atheists. We wouldn’t infringe on people’s desire or right to worship, so long as the exercise of that right did not infringe on the free exercise of our rights. Listen to some free stuff available at http://www.nomorecages.com

    Report this comment

     

• clinker

  Posted on January 10, 2013 at 5:18am

  Anyone ever wonder just who it is that provides God given rights to atheists?

  Report this comment

  Log in to ReplyReply  

  • Timmy_NorthWest

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 5:26am

    Darn good question. Well, athiests, your turn to try to hit it out of the park.

    Report this comment

     

  • Ragnars Repos

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 5:53am

    @CLINKER

    I could not say it better than this:

    “A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

    The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

    Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.” ~Ayn Rand

    Report this comment

     

  • TheCalmOne

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 6:54am

    I don’t know – maybe you could demonstrate to us who it is. Here’s a hint, by the way – citing the Bible is not an argument. You may have heard of something called ‘circular reasoning’.

    Report this comment

     

  • SquidVetOhio

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 9:43am

    ” citing the Bible is not an argument. You may have heard of something called ‘circular reasoning’. ”

    Not citing what you know to be the truth is to accept the premise of the person to whom you are debating. Something called “admitting defeat”. Since you are aware of what circular reasoning is, you should understand that fossil and rock dating is a joke. But, I digress…

    Here’s the problem atheists have when it comes to morality. It has no foundation, no absolute. The best you can come up with is “most people agree” which is subjective. At one time “most people agreed” that slavery was morally acceptable.

    Believers have an absolute. Now, we fail to live up to those absolutes all the time but they exist none-the-less.

    And to question as to why God does not intervene to stop bad things from happening is called “Anthropomorphism” = the thought that any attribution of human characteristics (or characteristics assumed to belong only to humans) to other animals, non-living things, phenomena, material states, objects or abstract concepts, such as organizations, governments, spirits or deities.

    God says clearly that “as heaven is above Earth, so are my ways above your ways”. We as finite sinful, weak beings are in no position to judge an omniscient, omnipotent, holy God as to his justification for any action he takes or does not take. We must simply trust that it is right which calls for an amount of humility that atheists don’t posses.

    Report this comment

     

  • Locked

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 10:07am

    @Squid

    Need to correct you on a few things; to other folks, not all Christians think this way!

    “Since you are aware of what circular reasoning is, you should understand that fossil and rock dating is a joke. But, I digress…”

    But radiometric dating is science, not a joke. Please don’t make us Christians out to look like loons who disbelieve proven science.

    “Here’s the problem atheists have when it comes to morality. It has no foundation, no absolute. The best you can come up with is “most people agree” which is subjective.”

    This is called the moral relativism fallacy, and I discussed it when someone else posted it below. Briefly, morals don’t need to be objective in order for the person holding them to have footing to argue that someone’s actions are wrong. People can ground their morals in many things; and yes, social mores are one of them.

    “At one time “most people agreed” that slavery was morally acceptable.”

    And many used the Bible to justify it, as the Bible does not condemn slavery, but only seeks to regulate it. The Bible’s words didn’t change, but the social acceptance of slavery did; and with it, our interpretation of the Bible’s words. 200 years ago, we wouldn’t say “the Bible does not condemn slavery”; we’d be saying “The Bible has slavery in it, so it’s obvious that God wants us to have slaves.”

    I personally believe there is an objective morality out there, but that doesn’t mean atheists can’t be moral.

    Report this comment

     

  • A_CALL_TO_CONSCIENCE

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:36pm

    @LOCKED

    I’m glad you believe in an objective morality; however what SQUID said is still correct.

    “The best you can come up with is “most people agree, which is subjective.”

    While it’s fine for a group of people to come together and say they agree about certain things being right and wrong, there still needs to be an objective standard of morality from which they draw. Otherwise, even acts we consider “wrong” “bad” or “unjust” would simply be that person’s morality and we could not tell them they could not do those acts. I’m not sure if you have ever read “Mere Christianity” but the first part of the book talks about this exact thing.

    While the Bible doesn’t come right out and say “slavery is bad” we know that it’s something God does not approve of. This is not because of changing times. (Keep in mind there were different forms of slavery back then, many of the “slaves” in Biblical times were POW.)

    It was socially accepted then so going about it through violence or rebellion wouldn’t have been the best idea. Jesus knew that in order to truly get rid of slavery you must change a man’s heart. Violence, changing the laws, etc could have worked but as Jesus always did he wanted to get at the root cause. In fact, after accepting Christ many slave owners freed their slaves, why? They knew it was the right thing to do, the Christ like thing to do.

    Report this comment

     

  • Locked

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 7:07pm

    @A_Call

    ” there still needs to be an objective standard of morality from which they draw. Otherwise, even acts we consider “wrong” “bad” or “unjust” would simply be that person’s morality and we could not tell them they could not do those acts. ”

    Of course you could. If you based your beliefs on what society says is right, you’re well within your rights to point out when others are wrong. That’s the entire undoing of the relative morality fallacy; it assumes that someone cannot state their opinion unless there is some divine authority figure saying “Thou Shalt Not.” That’s never been the case (or rather, as I believe there IS a divine authority figure saying “Thou Shalt Not,” I think atheists and non-Christians just misrepresent where that innate feeling comes from).

    “While the Bible doesn’t come right out and say “slavery is bad” we know that it’s something God does not approve of.”

    But this comes back to the social acceptance problem. Christians 200 years ago, especially in the south, would have had no problem claiming that God was A-OK with slavery. It went against our American beliefs, but the Bible never said anything coming close to “slavery is bad.” It simply says how to regulate it.

    Let’s take a different example: the penalty for causing a miscarriage is a fine, but killing a person is penalized by death. Does this mean that a fetus is worth less than a living human? You could argue it either way, no?

    Report this comment

     

  • A_CALL_TO_CONSCIENCE

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 8:08pm

    @LOCKED

    That’s the point though. Simply because society claims it to be right doesn’t mean it is objectively right. That’s why moral relativism isn’t a fallacy. One can certainly state their opinion, and they can also base that opinion of right and wrong on society or what people most agree on. However, unless there is an ultimate objective standard that has been established which does not change, right and wrong will simply be opinions that no one has to listen to.

    If one person claims that stealing is ok, but another says it’s not..who’s right? We would of course point to the laws and what most people agree is right and wrong. What if we couldn’t point to that? With no objective standard you would have two people with conflicting opinions of right and wrong. One could even make the logical argument that murder is morally right.

    True. However, that doesn’t change what’s always been there about it being wrong. People have used the Bible to justify many things and even prohibit certain things. For example: interracial marriage, even though the Bible has always defined marriage as one man one woman (no matter color). The truth never changed.

    I don’t think you could argue either way. A life is a life. The problem is that even though I use the Bible and God as my objective moral standard that never changes, others don’t. However, they will always appeal to an objective moral standard whether they realize it or not.

    Report this comment

     

  • Locked

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 9:58pm

    @A_Call

    “Simply because society claims it to be right doesn’t mean it is objectively right. ”

    … uh, exactly. That’s what I said. People can base on what’s best for society, or how society thinks, and it’s not objective but still valid.

    “However, unless there is an ultimate objective standard that has been established which does not change, right and wrong will simply be opinions that no one has to listen to.”

    Again, fallacy. One could think murder is A-OK, but if society is against it, you’ll be tossed into jail the first time you off someone, and everyone will think you deserve it. See? Subjective morality is just as valid and existant as objective morality.

    “If one person claims that stealing is ok, but another says it’s not..who’s right? ”

    Again, see above. Society as a whole has agreed that stealing is wrong, so society is right.

    “What if we couldn’t point to that?”

    If there were no laws, then it’s upon each individual. Let’s take a micro-scale example. One person thinks stealing is wrong; another thinks stealing is fine. If person B steals from person A, person A is completely within their rights to stop them from doing so. Person B might complain, but they’re infringed another person’s rights: tough luck.

    All I’m saying is that you cannot create the strawman that atheists have no morals. They do. They simply don’t derive them from God… but that doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. Claiming so is a lie.

    Report this comment

     

  • bonesiii

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 11:58pm

    Let’s cut to the chase. The all-knowing God knows why things are wrong, and we humans don’t always know enough.

    If He doesn’t exist, then we are left adrift. Let’s be honest about that.

    If an atheist cares, and if (this is the key) God actually didn’t exist, then they could use science to learn what is right (though we would hope they wouldn’t make the common mistake of assuming their current partial science has always found the right answer). But this still depends on their “random” desire to care. If someone else doesn’t, as many atheistic criminals have argued in history, then science just becomes their tool to figure out how to get away with it, or even just how to do it and not even care about getting away.

    And we could never really be sure that the science has been done right. Future generations can forget, too, just as easily as these recent generations are forgetting the real history of America which they didn’t live, or how the truth of the global Flood got forgotten as distance in time from it grew. It would basically become necessary for each individual to do it all over from scratch to be truly convinced, and our lives are just too short.

    So, without God to cut through the noise and prove himself to us, and that his Word is trustworthy, moral bounds on others really do become nonsensical. Only “I wouldn’t do that myself, but you can” subjective morality can be rational.

    Report this comment

     

  • bonesiii

    Posted on January 11, 2013 at 12:02am

    “Anyone ever wonder just who it is that provides God given rights to atheists?”
    This is a pretty good example of a bad argument that shouldn’t be used; sorry, Clinker. It’s pretty easily answered like this — they don’t believe in God-given rights.

    Logically they cannot believe in rights at all except majority-given or force-earned rights or some such thing. Many may emotionally (thankfully) partially listen to their God-given conscience and act as if there were objective rights too, but without thinking through why that is contradictory within their own worldview. However, these would not believe that those “magically granted” rights were God-given. They would just take them for granted, and I’m sure many do, sadly.

    Report this comment

     

  • A_CALL_TO_CONSCIENCE

    Posted on January 11, 2013 at 11:13am

    @LOCKED

    How is subjective morality just as valid? It’s based off the opinions of other people. Why must I obey the opinions of others? Just because more people disagree with me?

    “If there were no laws, then it’s upon each individual”

    That’s exactly the problem. If left up to each person then ANYTHING could be considered right. Even if I have violated someone’s rights it would still be that person’s opinion and all they would have to tell me that I was wrong would be “because I said so.”

    I agree with that. I’ve never held atheists don’t have morals. Everyone appeals to an objective standard of morality, regardless of laws or society. I believe that standard to be God of the Bible and his moral laws which he established since he created the universe.

    Report this comment

     

  • Locked

    Posted on January 11, 2013 at 11:33am

    @A_Call

    “How is subjective morality just as valid? It’s based off the opinions of other people. Why must I obey the opinions of others? Just because more people disagree with me?”

    You -obey- because of the consequences if you do not. That’s not the topic at hand: the topic at hand is how people derive their morality and whether or not they can complain about others. Otherwise an atheist could just as easily say “Why must I obey your opinions? I don’t believe in the Bible.” The point is that other people have their morality, and when they say something is wrong, they’re basing it on some set of morals (subjective or objective).

    “If left up to each person then ANYTHING could be considered right.”

    No it wouldn’t. People would still have sets of morals. Your argument that there is an objective morality fails at the most basic premise… because there are people who reject it but still act in a way that you consider “right.”

    “I agree with that. I’ve never held atheists don’t have morals.”

    I’m sorry if I’ve been misunderstanding you then; I suppose we were talking about different things. My point has been that even without a belief in God, atheists can still criticize the morals of others.

    “Everyone appeals to an objective standard of morality, regardless of laws or society. I believe that standard to be God of the Bible and his moral laws which he established since he created the universe.”

    I agree, and this is my view as well.

    Report this comment

     

  • A_CALL_TO_CONSCIENCE

    Posted on January 11, 2013 at 11:46am

    @LOCKED

    Oh, I guess we have. It’s perfectly fine. I enjoyed the discussion anyway.

    Report this comment

     

  • Locked

    Posted on January 11, 2013 at 1:09pm

    @A_Call

    As did I. Thank you for it!

    Report this comment

     

• christhefanatic

  Posted on January 10, 2013 at 5:18am

  Kind of a silly argument. Atheists…hold fast to your belief that you are going into a hole in the ground. Christians…hold fast to your faith in God and your hope for eternity ….and, just to show what a nice guy I am, may you all be proven correct.

  Report this comment

  Log in to ReplyReply  

• Timmy_NorthWest

  Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:59am

  moderationisbest, you missed the part in the bible where it tells there is a time when you stand in front of god for judgement. You don’t simply get in due to belief, it’s the biggest part of it. You must believe in god AND be of good character to enter heaven. Remember that part of it?

  Report this comment

  Log in to ReplyReply  

  • Witness1974

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 5:26am

    “There is none that doeth good, no not one.” “All our righteousness is as filthy rags.” “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” Was the thief on the cross saved by his good character or his belief? His entrance into Parardise with Christ was based on the character of Christ, not on the “good” character of the malefactor himself. True we all face judgement, but we stand or fall based on whether we stand in the Righteousness of Christ or our own self-righteousness. Those who are counting on their own works to get them into Heaven will be cast out. All that said, we are to try to follow Christ and conform to Him, but even that is by His strength and not our own. This is one of the reasons prayer is so important. We are to ask for His help in doing good.

    Report this comment

     

  • SquidVetOhio

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 9:48am

    “You must believe in god AND be of good character to enter heaven.”

    Sorry but, you’re wrong.

    “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
    Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

    - Ephesians 2: 8-9

    However, a true born again believer will do good works because he will have God’s Spirit indwelling him. It will be ever a part of his spiritual nature. And he will still sin until death or Christ’s return because that is part of his human nature he inherited from Adam.

    Report this comment

     

  • ModerationIsBest

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 11:07am

    @SQUIDVETOHIO

    I love when Christians tell me “You don’t understand” and then another Christian comes along and agrees with me.

    Shows just how fallible the supposed “infallible” book is.

    Report this comment

     

  • bonesiii

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:05pm

    Reality is complicated — I actually think it’s a mark in favor of the Bible’s truth that it’s possible for Christians to disagree. I wouldn’t want to believe in something that was so simple there would be no room for confusion if someone hadn’t studied it in-depth and thought hard about what more could be behind it. :) Specifically:

    “‘You must believe in [G]od AND be of good character to enter heaven.’ Sorry but, you’re wrong.”
    I’ve come to understand that it’s actually both, but it’s hard to put it concisely. Let me try though because this may matter more than anything.

    God created us to love Him and our fellow ‘creatures’ that he made. That is the life he intended for us, including the Holy Spirit guiding us as to everyday right and wrong. Now, we messed that up when we sinned. Now we get basically addicted to sinfulness.

    Enter Jesus, who paid for our sins (God is Just, too, etc.). There’s a lot more to that; you guys can study this yourselves I’m sure. But what I’m getting to is that once we accept Jesus, he gives us the Holy Spirit again, and in this life already to some extent, if we also intentionally “live by the Spirit” as Galations puts it, he helps us control ourselves to do good. In heaven, sin will be fully removed and we’ll do good always.

    So that doesn’t mean that in our PAST we had to be perfect, but we must strive to be more perfect, and Jesus helps us do that. We can’t also keep loving sin.

    Report this comment

     

• yazoo

  Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:49am

  I’m an Athiest. Some of my fellow travelers seem to forget that whatever Athiest believe is also religious in that it requires faith. No on can prove or disprove the existance of God, but their worst mistake is in not accepting that they just might be wrong, as in “I
  swear there aint no Heaven, but I prey there aint no Hell”.

  Report this comment

  Log in to ReplyReply  

  • TheCalmOne

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 6:56am

    Pascal’s Wager has been shown to be a useless argument many times over. Do some research.

    Report this comment

     

  • Marine25

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 9:59am

    Spoken like a true theist.

    Report this comment

     

  • bonesiii

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:07pm

    How do you know “Pascal’s Wager” is useless? I don’t think being useful was the point of it, per se but to explain what he thought would eventually happen, but it matters to a lot of people, so that seems clearly to be false.

    Report this comment

     

  • Locked

    Posted on January 11, 2013 at 11:38am

    @BonesIII

    “How do you know “Pascal’s Wager” is useless?”

    As a reason to choose Christianity, it certainly is. Using Pascal’s Wager is like saying “You should enter the lottery because you can either win or lose: it’s 50/50!”

    Report this comment

     

• TimKan7719

  Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:37am

  Well this finally prompted me to register for the blaze. I have been a long time watcher of Mr. Becks show, from CNN, to Fox news , and even read the blaze every day.
  To the Atheist: Please provide definitive proof that god does not exist. Until you do please stop your bigotry towards my faith, cause my belief in God makes him real to me, I don’t ask you to believe in the same thing as My but I will continue to pray for you.
  Man is both good and evil, he has the capability to do both. Man has free will we always have. People have the right to turn their back to god at any time they wish. Atheist tosses around the thought that oh if gods all powerful he could stop a rape, or a murder, or a death so forth and so on. What God truly wishes is there to be No need for him to stop a rap, no need for him to stop and abortion, no need for him to stop a murder. He wants his children to be good, the same thing a parent wants for their child. But as any parent will tell you all have fallen short at one time, just like all God’s children at one time will fall short of the grace of god. Some just never turn from their wicked ways.
  As to an Atheist Beliefs, If the majority of the world believed that Bestiality was good, or that sex with minors was ok, would you toe the line with the Majority? I know no true Christian that would.

  I guess that will have to do for my First post here at the Blaze.
  The two things in life worth fearing are the Wrath of God and the Wrath of a good wom

  Report this comment

  Log in to ReplyReply  

  • Desertcatn

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 12:11pm

    Thank you . . . that was a great first post!

    Report this comment

     

  • AmadeusMaxwell

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 1:45pm

    To TimKan7719:

    Speaking for myself, and the other atheists I personally know and have talked with: We do not claim that there isn’t a god or gods. We don’t know. Many will say that’s agnosticism; it is, but we don’t currently accept the claims of theists either, as they haven’t provided evidence. This makes us both atheist and agnostic. We don’t accept others claims without justification, and we don’t make any claims, so we have no burden to provide proof.

    Tim, please inform of what bigotry I am committing against you, I will promptly stop. Not only that, but I will encourage others to stop as well.

    In kind, would you please help end bigotry toward atheism? One example, here within the state of Texas, is that we may not legally hold office.

    As for your question on morality, neither myself or the atheists I know would ever base the justification for their morality on “majority rules”. So no, those acts you mentioned are not okay in any society.

    Report this comment

     

  • ChrisDiamond

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 2:54pm

    Hi TIMKAN

    “Please provide definitive proof that god does not exist. Until you do please stop your bigotry towards my faith, cause my belief in God makes him real to me, I don’t ask you to believe in the same thing as My but I will continue to pray for you.”

    Where to begin…

    As an atheist, I’ll submit that no atheist can absolutely disprove the existence of God, or a God, or Jehovah, or Allah, or Shiva, or the tooth fairy, the flying spaghetti monster… but like the ones mentioned after (a) God, Jehovah and Allah, we believe their existence to be so unlikely as to merit non-existence. You, yourself are an atheist as well, when it comes to Islam and Allah, Buddhism and the Buddha, Hinduism and Shiva, Greek mythology and Zeus… we just go one (or many) God(s) farther. Richard Dawkins created a scale from 1-7 for one’s theism or atheism. At “1,” a person absolutely believes that their God exists, created everything and intervenes in life. At “7″, a person absolutely believes that no God exists whatsoever. Most atheists I know are around the 6 or 6.5 on that scale.

    As opposed to citing our doubt of your religion as bigotry, be sure in your faith, display your knowledge of it and science (Dinesh D’Souza and Dr. William Lane Craig do very well at this), and learn the facets of logical argumentation (specifically fallacies) so you can call atheists you debate with out for straw men, ad hominem etc. Put on that ‘armor of God’ and join the fray!

    Report this comment

     

• phil1765

  Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:23am

  Ragnars Repos
  No, we attack religion because it makes people do evil things, period. It is a caveman’s philosophy.

  You are so full of crap, I have been religious all my life and it hasn’t caused me to do even 1 evil thing. It has however given me a belief system that has allowed me to avoid some situations that my peers deemed to be cool but ended up getting in trouble for. I don’t begrudge you your right to believe in nothing if that is what you choose to do, I do however doubt that your belief that religion inherently causes people to do evil is a coherent thought, has evil ever been done in the name of religion yes, is it inherent in all religion of course not and if you say that it is you are being intelectually dishonest to further your hatred for anything that YOU deem to be wrong. Like I said you have the right to believe the way that you want to, but why is it so important to you to try to convince me that the way I believe is evil?

  Report this comment

  Log in to ReplyReply  

  • Ragnars Repos

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 5:48am

    @PHIL1765

    I don’t hate Christians. There are many who I love dearly, in fact. But I do loathe Christianity, and all of humanity’s religions.

    There are so many contradictions, lies, and so much profound ugliness…

    I could list thousands, but let’s start with just this one example:

    Christians claim to believe that abortion is the murdering of a human child, a soul created by their god.

    If you accept it as murder, then there is a very real holocaust taking place in the US right now.

    Christians will line up by the thousands to eat chicken and vilify gay people, but they won’t be bothered by the wholesale slaughter of millions.

    The way I see, there are only two possible explanations. One, they don’t buy their god’s assertion that it is murder. Two, they are monsters.

    How can you believe that it’s murder and do nothing? The Pope went to great lengths to criticize capitalism recently, but hardly mentions his genocide problem.

    Do Christians have any idea how this looks “from the outside”? How could a “loving god” forgive such a thing?

    There is no way a deity exists–he/she/it would not tolerate these “followers” for an instant.

    Report this comment

     

  • Desertcatn

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 12:27pm

    It’s called free will! You are like a peeping tom, creeping around Christian windows, thinking you know what is going on because you can look through the window, but you don’t . . . creepy intruder!

    Report this comment

     

  • Desertcatn

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 12:29pm

    My reply was to rag . . .

    Report this comment

     

  • ChrisDiamond

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:22pm

    DESERTCAT – Free will from ‘God’ the all knowing and all powerful is a joke. Your own Bible disproves it, and reasoned, logical deductions from the stories disprove it. It’s simply another story crafted as a panacea for Christians to understand/explain why there is evil in the world, when all you have to do is look to your God to know how and why there is evil in the world… Thank Him (the creator of ALL things) for it, if you believe in Him. See Isaiah 45:7 for more.

    @Phil

    Under the call of Pope Urban II for Christian men to leave their families and their homes to wage a holy war against the Muslims during the Crusades, with the promise that all sins committed during this righteous war would be forgiven, men used religion as an excuse to commit themselves to committing atrocities against fellow human beings. God ordered David to go into villages and kill every living thing, man, woman, child and beast (after saying “Thou Shalt Not Kill”), the Spanish Inquisitors killed many in the name of religion, as did our ancestors kill millions of native Americans, purportedly for their heathen religions, but more correctly to oust them from their lands. Still, done under a religious undertone as God’s ‘good work.’ You may very well have never done 1 evil thing under the stress of religion, but that hardly mitigates the evil and atrocities committed under Christians and by Christians throughout it’s bloody history.

    Report this comment

     

• phil1765

  Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:01am

  It must be a really hard time for atheists at this point in history. The only problem I ever have with atheists is the fact that not only do they want to believe in nothing but they want to make it next to impossible for you to show any sign that you believe in God. They also seem to single out christians because I don’t hear them screaming and yelling about a muslim bowing for their prayers, so atheists is it just christians you hate or are you just too afraid to tell a muslim he can’t pray in public?

  Report this comment

  Log in to ReplyReply  

  • DeavonReye

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 9:12am

    You need to do more research then.

    Report this comment

     

  • AmadeusMaxwell

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 2:35pm

    @Phil1765

    As an atheist, neither myself or anyone I know wants to stop anyone from praying in public. As long as you’re not trying to force me or others to pray.

    Also, the very show this thread was about has spoken against the quran and Muslims before. I’ve talked in person with Muslims about religion, and honestly I feel much safer disagreeing with a Muslim than a Christian. Every Muslim I’ve talked with has been very kind, patient and exceedingly friendly. Christians can be too, but you never know, even some of the most gentle Christians I’ve talked with can turn into angry sycophants in a heartbeat.

    Report this comment

     

• avgconservative

  Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:41am

  With the exception of innocence of the young, let me clarify.

  If all people are basically good, then there was no need for Jesus.
  All people are basically evil.
  Evil is defined by God.
  Good is defined by God.

  These are basic tenants of Christianity.

  I find it humorous that Atheists still use God’s definition for good and evil.

  Report this comment

  Log in to ReplyReply  

• Ragnars Repos

  Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:25am

  “…atheists don’t attack Muslims, is because they know the harm would be returned; they are cowards.”

  I attack them regularly, actually. But not because they’re any more/less dangerous than christian cult members. Both are highly toxic.

  Report this comment

  Log in to ReplyReply  

  • Desertcatn

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 12:21pm

    Al Jazeera is calling you, better get over there . . .

    Report this comment

     

  • ChrisDiamond

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:30pm

    @Desertcat

    I’ll apologize up front for my bluntness here, but are you so intellectually stunted that you can’t contribute anything of any real value to the discourse?

    Report this comment

     

• ThriCeSLewis

  Posted on January 10, 2013 at 2:53am

  After what the caller said, I don’t blame them. However, what I do find curious is their righteous indignation. What is it grounded in? Remove the transcendent and there’s no reason to get angry at rape. Or at the caller. Anger tells us what we care about…its an emotional response to something wrong. Which means there’s something ‘right’. By hanging up on the caller and calling him a piece of s*!@, they are decrying innocence lost…oppression and extolling respect, humility, responsibility, justice, compassion and love. Which are transcendent virtues. Which come from…? Certainly not blind materialism.

  As far as the Bible is concerned, context is king. Understanding and knowledge are not the same. God does not ‘watch idly’ by – aloof and apathetic while a child is raped. God became man for a reason. He died at humanity’s hammer for a reason. He defeated death for a reason. He’s not aloof, unconcerned or powerless. Suffering matters….death matters because Life matters. Atheists have no grounds for complaint if this were not true.

  “Try to exclude the possibility of suffering which the order of nature and the existence of free-wills involve, and you will find that you have excluded life itself”.CS Lewis

  As for their misrepresentation of contextless Biblical ‘teachings’ –
  http://sermons2.redeemer.com/sermons/literalism-isnt-bible-historically-unreliable-and-regressive

  Report this comment

  Log in to ReplyReply  

  • bonesiii

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:43am

    I agree with you.

    One point in answer to their challenge — the basic fallacy of the idea that God should step in and stop all sin is that we would never get to truly understand just how awful it is. By allowing us to see what it’s like to live in a universe (mostly) without his direct intervention, we can know that we don’t want to live in a world without Him (hell), but we want to accept his salvation and go to heaven, where no sin will be allowed. :) This even applies to deaths caused by ‘natural’ means due to the removing of God’s protection after the Fall. We are allowed to truly understand the horror of sin.

    That is horrible — yes — but it can only be so if we look at it through God’s Holy perspective. If atheism were true, it would just be a different kind of cosmic accident among a universe that is entirely made up of mere accidents. (And of course, atheistic existence is not possible.)

    And in any case, the fact that God does not stop all sin doesn’t amount to evidence that he doesn’t exist; it’s just as possible that the atheists have simply misunderstood, as I’m convinced. While it’s difficult to accept this reality, it is not intuitively difficult to accept that God exists. That’s far too convenient of an excuse, especially for someone who is rejecting salvation themselves, so they themselves are committing sin that God is not stopping.

    Report this comment

     

  • Locked

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 9:07am

    @Thrice

    “However, what I do find curious is their righteous indignation. What is it grounded in? Remove the transcendent and there’s no reason to get angry at rape.”

    I’m a Christian myself, but I can’t help but believe you’re making a strawman argument here. You’re saying that atheists cannot get angry because they believe there is no absolute morality? What about subjective morality? Or empathy?

    I propose that one does not need to believe in God to feel something for his fellow man. I’ve known plenty of atheists who are incredibly “moral” by my Christian standards, but they don’t believe God exists. They feel the way they do because they have their own morals; and while they may not be absolute, they are quick to point out that no morality is absolute, even in the Bible. Take “thou shalt not murder” and then try to reason why God would order the slaughter of Caananite women and children, for example.

    My guess is that you have the same thinking on the topic that I do: that the basic empathy we hold for one another is a product of God’s will, which atheists just don’t believe exists. Still, the fact that we do think alike despite having different beliefs shows that atheists are just people, same as Christians, and can be just as moral or immoral as the rest.

    Report this comment

     

  • ChrisDiamond

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:37pm

    @LOCKED

    I haven’t said this enough, if I’ve said it at all… I thoroughly enjoy reading your posts. I have been edified and educated by many of the things you post here, and I sincerely appreciate it. We disagree on religion and the existence of God, but I admire your approach, your depth of knowledge and your reason. Thank you for taking a stand (3 times on this page in this thread) for atheists as moral people, or at least of having the capacity for morality.

    Report this comment

     

  • bonesiii

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:57pm

    “You’re saying that atheists cannot get angry because they believe there is no absolute morality? What about subjective morality? Or empathy?”
    I can’t speak to what he meant, but what I think on this is that as a logician and someone who cares about the negative moral affects of turning away from God, I cannot in good conscience say that atheists are being rational on this subject. Yes, it is possible for an atheist to be irrational and have moral standards anyways, but their worldview removes the logical support for that position. If atheists went around proudly declaring that they were irrational that would be one thing, but they’re constantly saying that theirs is the only rational view.

    But questions like this expose that to be a lie, and a dangerous one. I’m glad when an atheist does embrace morals, but I have the guts to honestly say what I think about WHY that is — because the Bible is true, and they do have a God-given conscience, and it IS evidence against their own worldview. This matters; it should not be just made into an intellectual debate, but we should always keep in mind that tolerating their inconsistency on this risks more and more people slipping (consistently) into total immorality.

    And that is what we see happening all around us if you look at the stats. That greatly concerns me and many of us.

    Report this comment

     

  • ChrisDiamond

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:26pm

    @Bones

    If we have a God-given conscience, then how can something like physical hunger (a need that manifests as a desire of the flesh) overpower a conscience given to us from on -high to make cannibalism an attractive alternative to starving to death? Cannibalism is wrong; theists and atheists alike would agree on that, but in extreme situations like that, the morality switch turns off, suggesting that the desire of the flesh can overcome our sense of morality.

    I’m not trying to build a straw man here, or offer a red herring… I would simply like your take on what I asked.

    Report this comment

     

  • Locked

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 10:11pm

    @BonesIII

    “I cannot in good conscience say that atheists are being rational on this subject.”

    Then we’ll have to agree to disagree. Objective morality starts with a presupposition: that God exists and thus there are objective morals. Atheists reject this premise and honestly, accepting it is a leap of faith (which is inherently “irrational”). I don’t think that accepting God’s existence is difficult, but others demand proof… which is admittedly scarce (scientifically). But that’s why we call it faith: it’s believing what you feel, not what can be proven. If we could prove God exists, beyond scientific doubt, we’d have no need for faith.

    “If atheists went around proudly declaring that they were irrational that would be one thing, but they’re constantly saying that theirs is the only rational view.”

    But there’s no inconsistency. From what I’ve seen, when an atheist says “Murder is wrong,” he is saying “I think murder is wrong.” He has his own set of morals, and feels free to judge others by them, whether they be based on societal norms, libertarianism, the Golden Rule, or any other set of morals.

    When I say “Murder is wrong biblically,” that’s just my interpretation of the Bible. Another person may say “Well, God is ok with murder in some cases, like when it comes to murdering women and children in war,” and that’s just as “subjective” as an atheists’s view.” We might have the same source, but both are subjective.

    Report this comment

     

  • bonesiii

    Posted on January 11, 2013 at 12:26am

    “If we have a God-given conscience, then how can… a need that manifests as a desire of the flesh… overpower…”
    Basically we also have God-given freewill. :)

    In psychological terms, the “conscience” is the report by the subconscious, parallel-processing (therefore much more powerful) thought centers as to what is right, to the conscious (don’t confuse the two terms; it may be better to call the conscience the ‘intuition’ to avoid the confusion). The problem with intuition is that it only feeds our linear conscious the conclusion to a logical analysis, not all the steps along the way. So there is room for doubt as to whether the intuition has done its thinking properly. It’s even possible for the intuition in general to feed us false conclusions, especially if we’re poorly trained in logic as most are (I blame liberals ;)), so a lot of people confuse the general intuition for the “what is right and wrong” intuition.

    In other words, the conscience report gives us one of multiple choices to make, while other reports are also made such as “this will feel good”, and the conscious (the linear part of our mind that we experience as “us”) has the ability to choose between these different options, ignoring the conscience. This can happen regardless of the amount of situational temptation, though obviously when the situation gives more pressure, sin is more likely.

    Report this comment

     

  • bonesiii

    Posted on January 11, 2013 at 12:30am

    “Then we’ll have to agree to disagree. Objective morality starts with a presupposition: that God exists and thus there are objective morals. Atheists reject this premise”
    Atheists technically reject the first, but not necessarily the second. That’s what I’m talking about. Often they haven’t thought it through and act as if the second is true, even though it requires the first. These atheist TV hosts are a case in point. They are seeking to impose their subjective morals on rapists, and this caller. That is not rational. If they want to be consistent they would have to have more of a “whatever floats your boat” attitude to such things.

    Now don’t get me wrong — it’s perfectly possible for there to be irrational atheists who basically have a subjective moral that they choose to direct anger towards those who do things they would not do. But this is logically inconsistent with their worldview.

    “he is saying ‘I think murder is wrong.’”
    But this is not rationally possible under atheism. He could only -logically- say “I don’t personally want to murder, but you do whatever you want.” It isn’t based on thought or right/wrong under atheism but mere personal preference.

    Report this comment

     

  • bonesiii

    Posted on January 11, 2013 at 12:40am

    “…others demand proof… which is admittedly scarce (scientifically)… faith [is] believing what you feel”
    But there is more to this than mere absolute proof. I personally think that science has now abundantly proven that something LIKE the Bible must be true, at least by normal scientific standards (which are usually ignored sadly), since evolution is ruled out by the science we have now. Of course, as a logician I must at least give token credence to the possibility of some kind of black swan alternative explanation that nobody has yet been able to imagine. But given the options on the table of what we know or have imagined now (Bible, evolution, compromise views, other religions, etc.), I think we can say it’s proven.

    That said, let’s pretend for sake of argument that it wasn’t. Even so, there is also ‘evidence’ which is an indication that something appears to be true without absolutely proving it. At the very least, there is resounding evidence in every category of science that the Bible is true, because its explanation fits our actual observations with no need to resort to what I call “patches”, or “rescuing hypotheses” as evolution and other religions must.

    Biblical faith is all about believing based on the best evidence and discernment, not just any old feeling which could support -anything-. Although I do think our intuitions feed a kind of “feeling” that all can accept as faith (short answer).

    Report this comment

     

  • bonesiii

    Posted on January 11, 2013 at 12:52am

    “When I say “Murder is wrong biblically,” that’s just my interpretation… Another person may say “Well, God is ok with murder in some cases, like when it comes to murdering women and children in war,” and that’s… subjective”
    No, there is the science of hermeneutics to determine from the original language what was meant. :) It is not subjective. Subjective interpretations and misinterpretations are both possible, though, as well.

    Just as I know from your words what you mean by a type of ‘science’ of definitions, we can also use the same system to understand what God meant. :) In many of the most important cases (salvation, creation, etc.) God seems to have gone out of his way to prevent misinterpretations, by restating it in different words elsewhere or giving extra details (such as the biblical creation account which goes out of its way to tell us the six days were literal and is later repeated clearly in Exodus and also confirmed by one of Jesus’ statements about man being created at the beginning). In some less important sections, that is possible, but murder isn’t one.

    Of course, “murder” is also just a word with multiple definitions, but biblically it clearly means unjust killing, distinct from justified wars and capitol punishment. You can use the label “murder” in place of “killing”, but that changes nothing real. It doesn’t make a justified killing (like self-defense) unjust (or vice versa).

    Report this comment

     

  • bonesiii

    Posted on January 11, 2013 at 1:00am

    Another thing that’s vital here to remember is that if God DOES exist, then an atheist being good is not enough and that should NOT satisfy us. Sometimes I get the vibe from some Christians, and I kinda do from you, Locked, that you feel like we should just leave the atheist to be happy being moral and damned. But shouldn’t we care about them and want them to be saved? I’m sure you do, but my point is, I’d like to see that expressed clearly, you know?

    Kinda a pet peeve of mine, and not sure how to put it into the right words. But it often seems like some Christians buy into the myth that atheists often put forward that it’s good for there to be a secular comradery or something like that where we all act like “as long as you’re moral, everything’s great”, and if someone loves the lost enough to call to them to find salvation, these Christians may join the atheists in acting like we should “keep our religions inside the churches” as they often say.

    I bring this up mainly because I’m curious what your take on it is. :) Also, gotta be frank — it’s a bit disturbing, although somewhat also cool I guess, to see someone like Chrisdiamond apparently acting like he thinks you are just okay to agree to disagree on God.

    NOTE: I’m NOT talking about negative judgementalism, but about lovingly trying to help rescue the lost from their doom. :) Any thoughts? :)

    Report this comment

     

  • bonesiii

    Posted on January 11, 2013 at 1:10am

    Typo: distinct from justified wars and capital punishment.

    Report this comment

     

  • Locked

    Posted on January 11, 2013 at 9:39am

    @BonesIII

    “Atheists technically reject the first, but not necessarily the second.”

    Of course the second is true. If someone rejects a source of objective morality (ie God) then they reject the notion of objective morality.

    “They are seeking to impose their subjective morals on rapists, and this caller. That is not rational.”

    Sure it is. They have their own morality, based on whatever they base it upon. By rights that means they have some reason for believing their morality is superior to the rapist’s; that means they feel free to disagree with his actions. You seem to be buying into the relative morality fallacy as well; if someone says “all subjective moralities are equal,” they are admitting that there is an -objective- scale that makes them equal… which is a contradiction (a moral relativist doesn’t believe there’s an objective scale to measure the “correctness” of morality).

    What you’re doing, in effect, is forcing an objective lens onto a subjective morality… and in doing so, you’re ignoring what someone who doesn’t believe in objective morality says.

    “But this is not rationally possible under atheism.”

    Sure it is. Someone with subjective morality can easily say “Murder is wrong” based on their own morals. If someone responded with what you said, the subjective person just says “I don’t agree to the objective system you’re using to judge all morality as equal. Mine’s the right one.” No contradiction.

    Report this comment

     

  • Locked

    Posted on January 11, 2013 at 9:40am

    “Atheists technically reject the first, but not necessarily the second.”

    Of course the second is true. If someone rejects a source of objective morality (ie God) then they reject the notion of objective morality.

    “They are seeking to impose their subjective morals on rapists, and this caller. That is not rational.”

    Sure it is. They have their own morality, based on whatever they base it upon. By rights that means they have some reason for believing their morality is superior to the rapist’s; that means they feel free to disagree with his actions. You seem to be buying into the relative morality fallacy as well; if someone says “all subjective moralities are equal,” they are admitting that there is an -objective- scale that makes them equal… which is a contradiction (a moral relativist doesn’t believe there’s an objective scale to measure the “correctness” of morality).

    What you’re doing, in effect, is forcing an objective lens onto a subjective morality… and in doing so, you’re ignoring what someone who doesn’t believe in objective morality says.

    “But this is not rationally possible under atheism.”

    Sure it is. Someone with subjective morality can easily say “Murder is wrong” based on their own morals. If someone responded with what you said, the subjective person just says “I don’t agree to the objective system you’re using to judge all morality as equal. Mine’s the right one.” No contradiction.

    Report this comment

     

  • Locked

    Posted on January 11, 2013 at 9:49am

    @BonesIII (cont)

    “Even so, there is also ‘evidence’ which is an indication that something appears to be true without absolutely proving it.”

    That’s the thing though; there isn’t. For example, the Bible says the world was created in 7 days; science said it took millions to form and billions to look like it does today. Well, we might argue, 7 days isn’t seven ACTUAL days for God… but now we’re needing to “patch” the Bible’s words. It’s not a problem for someone with faith, but for a scientist they would say “Well, your hypothesis was seven days, not seven unspecified amounts of time. Your hypothesis is wrong.”

    Believing in the Bible is necessarily unscientific because we’re taking a conclusion (the words of the Bible) and making the problem fit it. When it doesn’t work, biblical fundamentalists either discount the evidence, or (more non-literal readers) reinterpret the words of the Bible. Science seeks to do the opposite: it tests a hypothesis, and discards it when it doesn’t fit the evidence.

    “Biblical faith is all about believing based on the best evidence and discernment, not just any old feeling which could support -anything-”

    Biblical faith is believing based on the Bible, so yes, I agree it’s not just any old feeling. Evidence doesn’t come into play – again, faith is not science.

    Report this comment

     

  • Locked

    Posted on January 11, 2013 at 10:00am

    @BonesIII

    “No, there is the science of hermeneutics to determine from the original language what was meant… Subjective interpretations and misinterpretations are both possible, though, as well. ”

    I agree. The problem is of course that when a supernatural agent is involved, it gets tough. Later on you say:
    “Of course, “murder” is also just a word with multiple definitions, but biblically it clearly means unjust killing, distinct from justified wars and capitol punishment. ”

    The problem is “justified wars.” In this case, what is justified? Biblically, it would mean wars mandated by God, correct? There’s no other justification for what would otherwise be murder.

    Take the genocide of the Canaanites (my example from before). Today, even in war, we would be morally appalled if our soldiers burst into the homes of non-combatants, and murdered the women and children. But this was sanctioned by God in the OT. Does that mean that our wars today are not justified if we seek to avoid doing this? Or does that mean that Christians in the US are hypocrites for getting upset at the idea of women and children being specifically targetted if it’s morally neutral in justified war?

    Again, you run into the problem of saying “well, killing is ok, but not murder. But it’s not murder in some cases, but we only know those cases when God tells us directly.”

    Another example: Andrea Yates thought God told her to murder her 5 kids. How do we know?

    Report this comment

     

  • Locked

    Posted on January 11, 2013 at 10:07am

    @BonesIII (cont)

    “Another thing that’s vital here to remember is that if God DOES exist, then an atheist being good is not enough and that should NOT satisfy us.”

    Of course not. I don’t think there’s an atheist alive in the US who doesn’t know about God and Jesus Christ, however.

    “Sometimes I get the vibe from some Christians, and I kinda do from you, Locked, that you feel like we should just leave the atheist to be happy being moral and damned.”

    Happy? Not really happy – but I’m realistic. You cannot FORCE belief.

    “something like that where we all act like “as long as you’re moral, everything’s great””

    What myth is this? I’ve always been frank with my appraisal: without belief in Jesus Christ, one will not gain eternal life. And I’ve also always been frank that if someone doesn’t WANT to listen, you can’t force them to do so. That’s why I have a “live and let live” mentality; if you can’t make a horse drink water, at least you can have everyone treat the dying beast kindly.

    “Also, gotta be frank — it’s a bit disturbing, although somewhat also cool I guess, to see someone like Chrisdiamond apparently acting like he thinks you are just okay to agree to disagree on God.”

    Not sure why it’s disturbing. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. If you’re respectful to someone, then they tend to be respectful back. I present my opinions, and people are free to believe or not. I don’t force them, or belittle others.

    Report this comment

     

• joan k

  Posted on January 10, 2013 at 1:54am

  What kind of God allows anyone to do anything harmful to anyone else? A God that wants us to have free will to do good or evil. We have a God that allows evil sometimes to occur so that good people can shine through it. He is a God that allows good people to prove they should enter his Heavenly Kingdom. You have both light and darkness in this world and God allows you to choose your own path.

  Report this comment

  Log in to ReplyReply  

  • ModerationIsBest

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 2:09am

    @JOAN K
    “He is a God that allows good people to prove they should enter his Heavenly Kingdom.”

    Ask the majority of Christians on here and around the globe. You can’t “earn” entering Heaven.

    You either believe in Jesus and go to Heaven or reject him and go to hell.

    There is no weighing of actions or deeds. There is no account of your life.

    That’s what’s so disgusting about it.

    Their God views the rapists who don’t believe in him, and the humanitarian who doesn’t believe in him, and sends them to the same place.

    Report this comment

     

  • tonykeywest17

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 2:12am

    It is depraved men who think that this life is all there is that use these arguements. Even in the worst and darkest of experiences God is able to give comfort to those that he loves. The human body goes into shock to preserve itself from trauma, God is merciful and kind and promises to wipe away every tear.
    Funny how athiests are looking to blame God when the blame lies squarely on their own shoulders. They fight agaisnt God and reject his standards. God said that rapists should be put to death. Athiest say to hell with Gods standards?? WTH. And I wonder how many of these gaythiests are pro murder of children in the womb.

    Report this comment

     

  • Witness1974

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 2:55am

    @Joan The first thing a Christian has to come to terms with is the fact that he or she needs to be saved from the wrath of a Holy God. People who merit God’s mercy, of which there are none, do not need to be saved. Christ came into the world to save sinners. You can give up on trying to make God a debtor to you by your good deeds; that will never happen. But you can be forgiven and be saved on the basis of the righteousness of Christ. No matter what you’ve done, if you submit to God’s plan of salvation instead of your own, He will cover your sins with the blood of Christ and substitute the righteous, sinless life of Christ in place of your sinfulness. Any real Christian will freely confess their sin and the darkness of their heart. Even Paul the Apostle called himself the “Chief of sinners.” First salvation, then good deeds in the power of the Holy Spirit as a response to the love of God. Read the Gospel of John; The Good News is all there. God’s grace, love, and peace to you, Joan.

    Report this comment

     

  • bonesiii

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:51am

    “There is no weighing of actions or deeds. There is no account of your life. ”
    That’s not correct, though I can see how it can be easily misunderstood. It took me a while to get it, but it actually makes perfect sense. On Judgement Day God WILL demand an accounting for your life, but the problem is we ALL fall short. But God is love, and he can both forgive, and most importantly (what you seem to have missed), enable us to change. :)

    It also proves this by making the partial, early transformation of our hearts that we experience through the Spirit to be the means to know we are saved, in this life. You’ve probably heard the old claim and maybe fell for it, that people can’t change. Well, not on their own, maybe, but the Bible actually agrees with that.

    Basically, God is Love and created us to be loving too. We are to Love God, and all his creation including our fellow humans.

    Anything less than that is at least a little bit hateful. And that is just not good enough. Only Jesus can transform our “partial hatefulness”, etc.

    However, that said, someone who continues to sin in this life without honestly trying to change will be thrown out even if they call on the name of Jesus. So your portrayal of things is inaccurate. :) (Plus there will be other rewards, not about salvation, for good deeds.)

    You might have to think about it for a while; it’s difficult to put down in concise words.

    Report this comment

     

  • Locked

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 9:13am

    @BonesIII

    “However, that said, someone who continues to sin in this life without honestly trying to change will be thrown out even if they call on the name of Jesus.”

    Sounds a bit like the no True Scotsman fallacy: only God knows who the “true” Christians are.

    But what if some people (say, Westboro Baptist Church) truly believe they are doing God’s work on Earth, and honestly believe they are following Christ to the best of their ability. Will they be thrown out?

    If the Bible says (as Moderationisbest mentioned) that only the faithful will be saved, but gives no clear instruction on what being faithful is, we’re all pretty much screwed, huh?

    Report this comment

     

  • Locked

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 9:58am

    Note: I’m just being rhetorical. I agree with Moderation’s assertion: yes, even murderers and rapists who repent and follow Christ will be granted eternal life. That doesn’t mean they get off free here on Earth, of course.

    Report this comment

     

  • bonesiii

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:21pm

    “Sounds… like… No True Scotsman fallacy: only God knows…”
    All I was talking about there was indeed God’s judgement on that day. :) There is also no God-given book on what makes a true Scotsman; that’s basically the whole point of that fallacy’s being outlines by logicians.

    “what if some people… truly believe… Will they be thrown out?”
    Well, Paul instructed us on such gray areas (if we do not see clear answers from the Bible) to withhold judgement and wait until that day to find out Jesus’ ruling. :) This is the basis of the commandment in the New Testament against being judgemental. :) But personally, I do not believe anyone deep down “truly” ever believes that doing wrong is right; the subconscious is far too powerful of an analyzer for that in my experience, feeding into the conscience/intuition.

    “If… but gives no clear instruction on what being faithful is”
    I’ve found that it’s crystal clear if you study it carefully enough. If you honestly believe, and tell others that you have accepted Jesus, and live by the Spirit so that you experience his transformative power, the Bible tells us this is the seal on our souls that proves we are saved. And that transformation makes us start doing more and more good with a genuine spirit, which others can tell, re: “know them by their fruits” and the 1 John test of whether they love. What’s hard to read are deathbed conversions, etc.

    Report this comment

     

  • bonesiii

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:24pm

    So with some people, we can be fairly sure they’re in even though there are still areas where that transformative power has not yet reached (I see that as a gradual lifelong process while we are in this body, though at the Resurrection it will be instant and complete for us all IMO for heaven). Quite frankly, you seem to be one of us to me. :) But I do think you’re wrong on some points, and if it turns out I’m right on that, Jesus will tell you so on that day. And that can actually matter too as it may mean you’ll earn less rewards in heaven, so I have a good reason to wish that you would improve on those areas for your sake. :P

    Report this comment

     

• PoliticiansRCrooks

  Posted on January 10, 2013 at 1:42am

  I guess people forget that the Devil makes people do evil things.

  Report this comment

  Log in to ReplyReply  

• HaploVoss

  Posted on January 10, 2013 at 1:41am

  I actually have a few atheist friends – here in the bible belt of all places. We get along fine and have some seriously heated but still in the end friendly debates. The caller was obviously a dweeb. Not as a person – I don’t know the person – but as having the ability to discuss his opinion on a topic. I would have probably had a similar reaction just out of sheer annoyance if nothing else. lol

  Point being, it is true that even atheists – although they derive their morality from their culture / society as a whole, do have the free will to deny the presence or existence of God in any form. Although I don’t agree with this, I’m not going to berate them for it – I know some people believe it is a necessary part of faith to attempt conversion but if I have a good debate with someone I don’t see it as my duty to rob them of their free will either.

  To each their own, and although the fall back debates of all sorts of ‘evil deeds’ are in the end pointless and easily debunked with simple discussion… it is unfortunate to have these kinds of videos / callers / what have you end up being ‘representative’ of either side. IMHO anyway.

  Report this comment

  Log in to ReplyReply  

  • ModerationIsBest

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 1:50am

    Hey, a rationale Christian on TheBlaze.

    It’s always a treat to find one on here every now and again.

    Report this comment

     

  • bonesiii

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:28am

    Yes, I’ve had several pleasant conversations with intelligent atheists. They’re not all like the blustery types that tend to make the most noise. The sad thing is I will sorely miss the pleasant atheists in heaven if they stay on the road they’re on. :(

    The real challenge is in wishing the really vile ones would repent so that we would miss them too — but I believe that is our Lord’s desire. :)

    Report this comment

     

• Steelhead

  Posted on January 10, 2013 at 1:20am

  what kind of God lets priest rape young boys ?

  Report this comment

  Log in to ReplyReply  

  • Keatonc33

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 1:24am

    I’m guessing the same one who sat idly by during the crusades!

    Report this comment

     

  • marine249

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 1:52am

    go away

    Report this comment

     

  • Lesbian Packing Hollow Points

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 2:34am

    If priests are God’s representatives on Earth, and priests molest little kids, does that represent that God is a child molester himself?

    Report this comment

     

  • Steelhead

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 2:45am

    lphp- it would seem so if you believe in God

    Report this comment

     

  • PaxInVeritate

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:06am

    LESBIAN LESBIAN PACKING HOLLOW POINTS… even though the question seems to be rhetorical…  No. 

    Report this comment

     

  • Witness1974

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:09am

    First, your supposition is wrong: Priests are not God’s representatives on earth. After Christ there was no more any need for a mediator between God and man. Christ is our mediator.

    Second, to present the idea that God is a monster is to reveal your ignorance of the character of God. He chose to give angels and men free will. What would you have Him do?

    Third, perhaps you should consider placing blame where it is deserved: The devil and his minions; the evil in the hearts of men that drives them to make such horrible choices.

    Suggestion: If a priest rapes a child, hang the priest and give thanks to God that he has given us a sense of justice. Unfortunately this society has chosen to abandon its responsibilities for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the evil actions carried out by evil men.

    Report this comment

     

  • Lesbian Packing Hollow Points

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:30am

    “Second, to present the idea that God is a monster is to reveal your ignorance of the character of God. He chose to give angels and men free will. What would you have Him do?”

    Ummmm… have you READ the Old Testament? He was a very vengeful, angry, and jealous god back then, suborning murder, rape, and genocide. Analyzed psychologicly, the OT god is positively psychotic.

    And speaking of ignorance… angels… free will? I thought angels were the perfect beings completely in thrall, the mindless slaves to god’s will. God couldn’t have meaningful relationships with them because they were essentially just pieces of his own mind, and it was for this reason that god created the imperfect beings, man, and imbued him with free will to have other intelligent beings in the universe with which to commune.

    But what do I know? I’m sure your Divinity degree from Bob Jones University is polished to a high sheen up there on your wall.

    Report this comment

     

  • bonesiii

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:04am

    Person Posting Hollow Points… This is where people go wrong on these issues — they try to turn what is a very serious matter that should be discussed with maturity and love into something to play little ego-trip, smart-alecky mudslinging games on. I hope that you have just had a bad day and this doesn’t define your whole outlook on life… But frankly it’s very disturbing.

    Why not instead, if you really believe what you’re saying, try to seriously engage people to convince them that you’re right, out of concern that what is called religion really is leading to priests abusing little boys (this goes for Steelhead too)? How does someone get to the point where they think this is a subject where it’s okay to act like you actually enjoy that (you think) people are allowing such crimes because it gives you something to feed your addiction to insulting people? It sounds like you love the idea because it provides you your entertainment… Ugh.

    Have you ever considered that it might be a turning away from the God who is Love that actually fuels these crimes? And that atheism only adds fuel to the fire? Look at the stats — these sorts of things go up the more a society strays from genuine faith in the God of the Bible. Isn’t it possible these abusive priests are just using religion as the cover for their sin, while at the same time that religion can be true? And that those who DO believe it are very good?

    Report this comment

     

  • Witness1974

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:06am

    @Hollow Points: Do you always resort to the ad hominem attack when you disagree with someone? I have read the Bible numerous times and I think you should read it too. Angels had free will. They made their choices and were confirmed in those choices. That is why there are angels and demons. Human beings have free will while they live here on earth and are confirmed in their submission to God or rebellion against God when they die. As far as the God “of the Old Testament” being all the things you accuse him of, I think if you read the New Testament you will find that the God the Bible reveals is the same in both testaments. “In the Old Testament is the New Testament concealed. In the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed.” The best example of that is Christ who was promised in the OT and given in the NT. The God revealed in the Bible is the same good, holy, righteous, just, loving, and merciful God throughout the whole text. He is all these things and more, infinitely and perfectly–yet you being finite judge Him. * I’m sure you might have taken offense of my use of the word ignorant. I do not consider “ignorant” a perjorative term. I didn’t say “stupid.” Ignorance is a temporary and somewhat curable condition that we all suffer to one degree or another and is only bad if it is willful. I give you the same challenge I was given 37 years ago. Read the whole Bible closely and get back to me. If you’re honest you’ll cave just like I did.

    Report this comment

     

  • BODYBAG

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:07am

    @STEELHEAD
    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 1:20am
    what kind of God lets priest rape young boys ?
    ——————————————————
    The same kind that allows you and LPHP to openly call him a child molester and psychotic.
    Mark my words —- folks like you have some real hard times ahead. Guaranteed.
    Make sure you remember me telling you that.

    Report this comment

     

  • bonesiii

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:11am

    “Ummmm… have you READ the Old Testament? He was a very vengeful, angry, and jealous god back then, suborning murder, rape, and genocide.”
    Jealousy in that context meant that he was “jealous for the good”; it’s a way of saying he wanted the good. He was righteously angry at those that were evil. He never supported sin as you falsely claim. He did support justified war. It is not just irrational but psychologically dangerous to pretend that these things are not good, just because it is possible for you to mistake them for bad things.

    This is really just another parroted line from the likes of Dawkins — it is clearly atheists like him who haven’t really read it, carefully. Here’s a good example in Zech. 7:

    “And the word of the Lord came to Zechariah, saying, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, Render true judgments, show kindness and mercy to one another, do not oppress the widow, the fatherless, the sojourner, or the poor, and let none of you devise evil against another in your heart.” But they refused to pay attention and turned a stubborn shoulder and stopped their ears that they might not hear. They made their hearts diamond-hard lest they should hear the law and the words that the Lord of hosts had sent by his Spirit through the former prophets. Therefore great anger came from the Lord of hosts.”

    Atheists who express anger at what they say is wrongdoing on the part of this God are contradicting themselves.

    Report this comment

     

  • bonesiii

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:23am

    For example, if we demand consistency, then an abusive priest could simply point out that the atheist is being “intolerant” or even “religious” by acting as if there are objective morals. He could allege that it’s the atheist who is doing wrong by being negative. It’s the exact same reasoning atheists like you have just used against God’s “intolerance” of sin.

    Anybody who lives solidly in the real world knows that some things are wrong, and it’s good to say so.

    Report this comment

     

• rick20033

  Posted on January 10, 2013 at 12:59am

  I understand what the caller was trying to say, but he was incapable of saying it clearly, so he shouldn’t have made the call. He also should have considered what the Lord said about not casting pearls before swine.

  The hosts of the show, like most atheists who claim morality is relative, betray their inconsistency by recognizing the immorality of child rape. If we are all the result of random chance, if there’s no God-given objective morality, on what basis is it wrong to rape a child? Because society says so? What if society changed its mind? Would you? I doubt it. So, on what basis is it wrong to rape a child? Because you disapprove personally? Who cares what you think? Why is your morality better than the rapists? Maybe he thinks you’re immoral for NOT raping children. On what basis can you say otherwise without appealing to a moral question? Perhaps you’ll say something like, “We have to oppose child rape to have a society that survives.” That assumes a society that survives is a good thing, or that survival is a good thing. Who are you to push that on someone else? Maybe the child rapist feels that child rape is even BETTER than a society that survives.
  Atheists have NO reason to open their mouths and express outrage about anything, because in the end nothing matters and their opinion about whatever they’re talking about is no more important than whether they prefer sandwiches with mustard or not. The proper response to anything they say is, “Who cares?”

  Report this comment

  Log in to ReplyReply  

  • tonykeywest17

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 2:19am

    Well said. God hates athiests. Athiests hate God. who cares what they say.

    Report this comment

     

  • PaxInVeritate

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 2:50am

    TONYKEYWEST17… God does not and can not hate Atheists, for they are just as much His children as you are. Anyone who loves God loves all souls, even the darkest of souls, and will fast and pray for those souls to open their hearts to His Devine Mercy before their deaths. Spiteful indifference is not a characteristic of God nor a follower of Jesus Christ.

    Report this comment

     

  • Desertcatn

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:09am

    C. S. Lewis makes the argument the best, in “Mere Christianity”, an excellent book!

    Report this comment

     

  • joboww

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 8:59am

    a better argument than this could have and should have been made. Its a matter of free will, I suppose most atheists would rather be robots.

    Report this comment

     

• Back To Reality

  Posted on January 10, 2013 at 12:52am

  Atheists have nothing to prove, and yet they keep trying.

  Figure that one out.

  Report this comment

  Log in to ReplyReply  

  • neffy812

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 1:40am

    Actually, Christians are the ones that need to prove something, and after all this time, they still haven’t. Figure that one out.

    Report this comment

     

  • tonykeywest17

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 2:16am

    Athiests arent fooling anyone who knows Gods word. Jesus said they those whos deeds are evil hate the light and do nto come to the light lest their deeds are exposed. He who dies what is true comes to the light. They Hate God they Love sin and darkness. Misery loves company . So theyre not trying to prove anything as much as keep as many in the darkness with them as they can.

    Report this comment

     

  • bonesiii

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:32am

    I think Christians -have- proved the Bible true, though. At least it’s been enough to convince me. I’ve gone over a lot of it in comments on previous articles, out of time to retype it here but maybe I can get into it if you wish. :)

    Instead of bickering over who has a burden of truth, I think we all have the burden to SEEK the truth, regardless of what it will turn out to be, honestly, looking into all sides, etc.

    Report this comment

     

  • BODYBAG

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 11:05am

    @NEFFY812
    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 1:40am
    Actually, Christians are the ones that need to prove something, and after all this time, they still haven’t. Figure that one out.
    ————————————–
    No one is obliged to PROVE anything to you. I dont feel the slightest bit responsible for you.
    Thats your job.

    If you’re right —— I lose nothing
    If Im right —— you lose EVERYTHING.

    I feel pretty good about my odds.

    Report this comment

     

• Keatonc33

  Posted on January 10, 2013 at 12:46am

  People will stoop to such lows instead of admitting defeat. this site is case in point! ; )

  Report this comment

  Log in to ReplyReply  

• marine249

  Posted on January 10, 2013 at 12:28am

  the show and the callers are all
  as dumb as a post.

  Report this comment

  Log in to ReplyReply  

  • Keatonc33

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 12:47am

    let me guess.. you’ve heard exactly one minute and forty three seconds of this show!

    Report this comment

     

• john vincent

  Posted on January 10, 2013 at 12:26am

  Harris and Dillahunty have landed on an age old argument that they cannot understand, therefore they ‘reason’ God out of the picture, blaming Him for the culpability of man’s nefarious deeds. It is always circular, and always the same, a broken record as it were, with nothing new added to the trumpet tune played by amateurs.

  God did not direct a plane into the twin towers; He did not light the match which caused a house to burn down, killing all inside; He did not order young Adam to kill children in a Conn. school; He is not responsible for the mindless rants by Leno, Stephanopolis, Carney, Cuomo, Feinstein, Pelosi, Gore, Mike Moore, and He certainly did not order a raping. These are the acts simply of humans on an earth where all is not right. (hint- s i n )

  For God’s sake, even people who I admire come up short. Atheists? There are none, and this makes the God denier that much more angry. Some will flock to this post and ‘prove’ this statement false, but alas, they cannot. ‘The fool hath said IN HIS HEART, there is no GOd…’ it is not a matter of belief, but only one of denial.

  The proof is in nature, the conscience, and if sought for, in the book of books, where all are accountable. May I offer a simple proof for the existence of GOd: His patience toward they who rebuke His hand, as if a puny ant could build Everest. He who gives breath to man and He who paints the rainbow is ever so benevolent toward they who deny His being; ie, two talk hosts.

  Report this comment

  Log in to ReplyReply  

  • BODYBAG

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 12:38am

    Very excellent post. Thank you.

    Report this comment

     

  • LittleFinger

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 12:42am

    I didnt really understand your last paragraph there, some elaboration might be helpful. And if your argument is that Atheists know in their heart that there is a god but chose to deny it, your going to have a hard time convincing us of your viewpoints. I assure you that is not the case. I truly do not believe in a supernatural element. If your response is that I am lying to you, the conversation is over.

    Report this comment

     

  • Ragnars Repos

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 2:05am

    @John Vincent

    “…blaming Him for the culpability of man’s nefarious deeds.”

    “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” Genesis 1:27

    rapists, child rapists, child murderers, hitler, mao, pol pot, manson family, jim jones, barry soetoro, and on, and on, and on.

    Your god needs to work on his “image”, doesn’t he?

    Report this comment

     

  • tonykeywest17

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 2:28am

    Your comments , however well meant, are contradictory to scripture. You are trying to tidy up God -to make him more palatable. Stop that. God is absolutley sovriegn and everthing that happens does so by his decree. Including evil. Amo 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?
    Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
    Job 2:10 What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?
    No son of adam is innocent . ALL deserve death and HELL. If God in his justice leaves men to what the deserve – who are you to question him. And if in his mercy he saves some and keeps them and takes them to his bosom, who are you to question that. God made you and he can do what he pleases with you . deal with it.

    Report this comment

     

  • Ragnars Repos

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:18am

    @TONYKEYWEST17

    “No son of adam is innocent . ALL deserve death and HELL. If God in his justice leaves men to what the deserve – who are you to question him. And if in his mercy he saves some and keeps them and takes them to his bosom, who are you to question that. God made you and he can do what he pleases with you . deal with it.”

    You are much more rational than most christians, actually. This isn’t saying much, but yours is a far more accurate interpretation than the “loving god” pitch. It’s close to how I see the fiction.

    We “deal with it” in a vastly different way, however.

    Report this comment

     

  • john vincent

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 6:30am

    rag-
    litl fing-
    tony-

    Sin is the great divide. A child holds a piece of candy behind his back at age two. His Dad asks him ‘did you take the candy?’ With a straight face, he says ‘no,’ thinking he can get away with it because it is hidden, is similar tro the denial of God. There is a reality to the kid that makes him think he can pull off the crime. Same thing with Adam and the wife. Adam says ‘who me?’ when caught in the trap.

    God made man in his image? Yes, now you are saying God is defective because His offspring is bent? ”In Him was no sin…’ easy enough

    The text from Amos is certainly worth noting, but the entire warp and woof of scripture must be discussed, like the predestination topic, no room here nor time, nor paper. God does not need tidied up, He takes no blame for the deeds of the miscreants loose in His creation. Creating an ‘evil’ environment does not make it his fault as you suggest. Men are not machines with no will as you suggest. Scripture teaches God is Sovereign, but Man is responsible. Period.

    Report this comment

     

• dosdelgados

  Posted on January 10, 2013 at 12:18am

  Setup?

  Report this comment

  Log in to ReplyReply  

  • LittleFinger

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 12:28am

    Nah, the hosts of the Atheist Experience get these types of calls all the time. You can check their website out, or their greatest hits on youtube. In a country of 300 Million, 80% of them being Christian, youre going to get some idiots to come out of the woodwork.

    Report this comment

     

• ModerationIsBest

  Posted on January 10, 2013 at 12:14am

  According to Christianity, Shane is right.

  They follow the teaching that everyone is born worthy of an eternal torture, and only by accepting a human sacrifice can we avoid said torture.

  Mourdock expressed the same sentiment when he said children conceived by rape were what “God intended.”

  If you are saying that the child was intended, then you have to say that the rape was also intended.

  Report this comment

  Log in to ReplyReply  

  • woodyee

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 12:20am

    You’re an idiot – period

    Report this comment

     

  • TSUNAMI_22

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 12:32am

    ModerationIsBest

    Would you be appalled if I said that Christians prayed for people like you the most?

    Report this comment

     

  • Keatonc33

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 12:45am

    This is exactly why i’m an atheist!

    Report this comment

     

  • ModerationIsBest

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 12:58am

    @WOODYEE

    I noticed you didn’t say I was wrong with my assessment of the Christian belief system.

    That’s because I described it correctly. That’s the thing, people come on here and call me “mean” and “nasty” and “Christian hating” when in reality, I’m just saying the same thing that they say everyday. I just don’t put a silver bow around it and can see its evilness for what it really is worth.

    @TSUNAMI_22
    No, most of my friends are evangelical Christians. I’m pretty sure they pray for me. I’m also sure that they worship a supernatural being that will send me to an eternity of torture for not worshiping it. I’m also sure that I don’t think they’re going to receive any punishment for not agreeing with me. I’m also sure that I would never worship a being that would subject my friends or anybody else to torture FOREVER for not accepting it.

    Can you say the same thing?

    So, despite them viewing me that way, I still enjoy being their friend.

    Report this comment

     

  • Al J Zira

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 1:06am

    I agree! He’s an idiot.

    Report this comment

     

  • AntBrain

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 1:09am

    I think it’s laughable that an atheist promotes the idea of child rape as being evil. It just so happens that social evolution has engineered a construct that pretends child rape is immoral … but if child rape could be shown to improve human survival, the atheist is stuck. It is an accident that child rape is morally wrong. The institution of religion is the only reason an atheist believes child rape is evil, and their twisted minds have borrowed another morality irrationally. Talk about the pick and choose. I’d just assume you grow up and thank God you’re inculcated by religion from the backward inevitable conclusion of your irrational belief system. By the way, stop telling us what the Bible says until you read the thing.

    Report this comment

     

  • ModerationIsBest

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 1:24am

    @ANTBRAIN

    If that were true, that the ONLY reason I think child rape is wrong, is because of the Bible then I should also think that homosexuality is wrong, which I don’t.

    I should also think that sex before marriage is wrong, which I don’t.

    I should also think that worshiping any other God is wrong, which obviously I don’t being an Atheist.

    Christianity worships Abraham’s faith, that he would kill his kid for God(yes yes I know, God supposedly stopped him, but Abraham was still willing to do it).

    You also worship another human sacrifice in the form of Jesus.

    Therefore, you are pro-human sacrifice. I can say that I am not. Where did I get that morality from? Surely not from the Bible.

    The Bible teaches that anybody who doesn’t believe in Jesus is going to hell to be punished FOREVER. I think eternal punishment is a wicked preachment. I think worshiping any supernatural being that would do that is immoral. Where did I get that morality from?

    Sorry to say, but I have read the Bible which is why I’m so disgusted by its immorality.

    Report this comment

     

  • PaxInVeritate

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 2:11am

    MODERATIONISBEST… are we born with ‘original sin’? Yes. That does not mean that we are “born worthy of an eternal torture….” Our inheritance is the original desire of God, that being, we are created to be with Him for eternity. It is through God’s Love of His creation that He gave His Life for us, which I’m sure your Evangelical friends have said to you time and again.
    For God, Human Free Will is inviolable. That is His Devine gift to human beings and He will never interfere with it. 

    “God intended” for our biological functions to operate as designed. Whether the act of copulation is through love or violence the end result (purely from a biological standing) is either pregnancy or not. The ‘goodness’ of a child is not tainted by the violent act of rape, for the child is not the cause but the effect. Therefore you can not assign blame to the child, which pro-abortionist do. This is what Mourdock ineptly tried to explain.

    “… anybody who doesn’t believe in Jesus is going to hell to be punished FOREVER.”

    Again, this goes to Free Will. He will not violate you by forcing you to love Him, but honor your choice. It’s not a punishment but a choice you made. As much as it hurts Him, he will accept your rejection of Him.

    Report this comment

     

  • Ragnars Repos

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 2:30am

    @ANTBRAIN (apropo)

    “The institution of religion is the only reason an atheist believes child rape is evil…”

    Oh, you mean that institution with leaders who sodomize alter boys after mutilating their genitalia and terrorizing them with tall tales of demons? I did not know that’s how I figured out that child rape is evil.

    Well, whaddya know! Ya learn sumpin’ urvry day from deez here ant-brained holy folk.

    Report this comment

     

  • WHATYOUSAY

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 7:59am

    @ Ragnars Repos

    “Oh, you mean that institution with leaders who sodomize alter boys after mutilating their genitalia and terrorizing them with tall tales of demons?”

    Demonizing the “instituion” or in this case the religion because of what one person does, that is affiliated with the institution, is bigoted. If you see a black man robbing a liquor store, do you automatically conclude that whole black race is bad?

    Report this comment

     

  • Locked

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 9:46am

    @Antbrain

    “It just so happens that social evolution has engineered a construct that pretends child rape is immoral … but if child rape could be shown to improve human survival, the atheist is stuck. ”

    This is called the moral relativism fallacy and is easily proven wrong. The fallacy states there are only two options… you must accept either

    -objective morality, with a supernatural or transcendental grounding for morality, or
    -relative morality, where I have my moral truths and you have yours, and I have no ability to criticize.

    But there are many different options besides these two. For example, you can base your idea of morality upon the laws of a country (which seems silly to me, but there’s that). Or upon philosophical concepts like utilitarianism (which is what you imply by saying if child rape was good for society, atheists would be for it). It could be founded on social evolutionary ideas: that there is a shared (not objective) grounding in the programming common to all humans that we should generally treat each other well in order to better survive.

    Someone who believes that we should follow the laws of society is free to criticize someone who breaks those laws. Someone who believes that humans have an innate and vested interest in being fair to one another is free to criticize those who act like jerks.

    Morality does not -need- to be objective, and non-objective morality does not lack an ability to criticize.

    Report this comment

     

  • ModerationIsBest

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 11:17am

    @PAXINVERITATE

    Ah, there’s the silver bow around it that Christians wrap it in.

    What is the punishment for sinning and not repenting? For not accepting that Jesus died on your behalf for your sins? You would say hell likely.

    We are born with original sin. Meaning, we are born sick, we are born already destined to go there.

    Ask any Evangelical, or heck any Christian and they will say that EVERYONE deserves hell, but only through God’s grace can we avoid it. Therefore, we are BORN going to hell.

    “Again, this goes to Free Will. He will not violate you by forcing you to love Him, but honor your choice. It’s not a punishment but a choice you made. As much as it hurts Him, he will accept your rejection of Him.”

    Oh it’s this again. The old “he doesn’t send you there, you send yourself.” nonsense. How laughable. How much do you hate yourself to say that and actually accept it?

    Your “all knowing” “all loving” God created a system in which every human is born worthy of eternal torture, and that only by accepting a human sacrifice can you avoid it.

    What’s worse is he wants you to “choose” to love him, he won’t “force” you to. Yet he threatens that if you don’t “choose” to love him, you’ll get punished FOREVER. Well now that’s an incentive laden decision isn’t it? Give me a break,honestly.

    Have more respect for yourself then that.

    Report this comment

     

  • The_Cabrito_Goat

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:00pm

    Original sin is a catholic thing though.

    Report this comment

     

  • ModerationIsBest

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 5:08pm

    @THE_CABRITO_GOAT

    Not true, Evangelical Christianity follows the same model. I’d actually be tempted to say that it’s more an Evangelical thing then it is a Catholic thing.

    Report this comment

     

  • BrutalTruth

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 9:45pm

    Mod, Perhaps it’s actually a God thing.

    Report this comment

     

  • PaxInVeritate

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 10:33pm

    MODERATIONISBEST…

    “What is the punishment for sinning and not repenting? For not accepting that Jesus died on your behalf for your sins? You would say hell likely.”

    Yes. Committing Mortal Sin and not repenting will lead to Hell, which is a correct understanding. However, a person is not responsible of not accepting Jesus dying for their sins if they have not had the opportunity to know that truth (i.e. an ‘aboriginal’ person who have not been exposed to Christianity). If a person led a moral life, by following their God given sense of right and wrong (i.e. conscience) to the best the of their nature, they will be able to, at the end of their life, to choose to live eternally with God. However, if they have chosen to commit acts they knew were inherently evil and not repent, then at the end of their life they will not be able to stand the presence of God who is infinitely pure, good and loving. It will be so painful for them to be in the presence of God that they will choose to be apart from Him forever…that is what we call Hell – the complete absence of God.

    “We are born with original sin. Meaning, we are born sick, we are born already destined to go there.”

    If you wish the term “sick” okay, yes as you term it… but we are not “born already destined to go” to Hell. That is an incorrect understanding. God does not destine anyone to hell. It is freely chosen.

    (cont)

    Report this comment

     

  • PaxInVeritate

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 10:38pm

    Again, Man was created “very good” (i.e. Holy) and in perfect union with God. Perfection was, is and always will be the intent of God for His creation. However, it was the Divine Gift of Free Will and Man’s accepting of Satan’s temptation to “become like God” that Man made the decision to turn away from the perfect union with God (i.e. rejection of God). This is the ‘original sin’ and it had an effect on all of creation, not just Man. Now because Man was created “very good” (original intent of God), we have God’s Love always residing within us, even in the sinful state we are born into. This notion “that EVERYONE deserves hell” is Calvinistic and theologically in error.

    “Again, this goes to Free Will. He will not violate you by forcing you to love Him, but honor your choice. It’s not a punishment but a choice you made. As much as it hurts Him, he will accept your rejection of Him.” — “Oh it’s this again. The old “he doesn’t send you there, you send yourself.” nonsense. How laughable.”

    This is not nonsense nor laughable. That is the teaching of the Catholic Church, of which I am a devout, highly engaged member. And before you start refuting the Church and her teaching consider this; the Catholic Church was founded and established by Jesus the Christ, who is both human and divine (God) -
    (cont)

    Report this comment

     

  • PaxInVeritate

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 10:48pm

    in contrast to other Christian expressions (Denominations) which were all started by fallible human men who changed several tenets of the original teachings given to the Church by God. If the members of the early Church (the Apostles, and many other disciples who were all martyred) had any doubt of the truth and validity of Church beliefs, would they have freely given their life for it? Would you give your life for that which you know absolutely was a lie? Thousands and thousands of men and women of the Catholic faith in the first centuries died rather than renounce their faith. People will accept death for what they know as true, but how many do you know who will die for what they have even a little amount of doubt?
    Your “all knowing” “all loving” God created a system in which every human is born worthy of eternal torture, and that only by accepting a human sacrifice can you avoid it.
    What’s worse is he wants you to “choose” to love him, he won’t “force” you to. Yet he threatens that if you don’t “choose” to love him, you’ll get punished FOREVER.

    (cont)

    Report this comment

     

  • PaxInVeritate

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 10:55pm

    You WANT to be FORCED to love AGAINST your will instead of invited? Do you demand your ‘significant other’ to love you, or do they demand that you love them? To love is a choice. In fact Love is God. If you would please… think of the love you have for your ”significant other” and ‘dwelling’ upon that, ask Jesus to speak to your heart. What can it hurt? If “He” doesn’t exist, then it will not mean anything other than a few moments of your time.

    Report this comment

     

  • ModerationIsBest

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 10:58pm

    @PAXINVERITATE

    Oh so then Jesus isn’t necessary for salvation?

    You just made your own savior irrelevant.

    Good job

    Report this comment

     

  • ModerationIsBest

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 11:30pm

    @PAXINVERITATE

    Let’s quit all of this mindless dribble.

    Fact is, you worship a God, who being all knowing, created a system in which billions of people would eventually wind up getting tortured FOREVER.

    Therefore, even if your God was real, which I doubt it is, i still wouldn’t worship it.

    If you haven’t seen from my previous posts, i gave Christianity a shot and realized that not only is it unlikely to be true, but even if it was I wouldn’t worship that God.

    #1. I don’t think there is any God
    #2. If there is a God, I doubt it’s one of the many that have already been represented
    #3. The idea of worship seems very human to me. I’m a human, i’m fallible and I would never want anybody to worship me. The idea of someone constantly worshiping me, agreeing with me sounds horrible.

    Your God is a supernatural being, but NEEDS to be worshiped. Your God is also full of rage. Basically, your God sounds very human to me.

    You would think an all knowing all powerful being would be above the need to be worshiped, praised, adored but no, yours DEMANDS it.

    Report this comment

     

  • Locked

    Posted on January 11, 2013 at 10:13am

    @Pax

    “Yes. Committing Mortal Sin and not repenting will lead to Hell”

    Mortal sin is a Catholic idea, not a biblical one. Only one sin is worse than others.

    Also, the wage for sin is death.

    Report this comment

     

• woodyee

  Posted on January 10, 2013 at 12:05am

  Idiot callers…there’s one on every radio station.

  The other odd thing is, Atheists have to prop-up/justify themselves and their non-religion beliefs by attacking the religious beliefs of others. I think they’d be justified if someone were forcing religion on them, but to do it to peaceful Christians and Jews merely because they believe in God is irrational behavior – sort of like the irrational behavior you get from demons who have holy water tossed on them in the movies, or crosses stuck on their foreheads, or have Biblical passages read to them, except THAT’s in the movies – the irrationality of militant Atheists is real..

  You NEVER hear of Mosques or Islam being attacked by Atheists.
  You ALWAYS hear of islamists attacking Christians and Jews.
  You ALWAYS hear of Atheists attacking Christians and Jews.

  They share two things in common – hatred for Jews and Christians, and the evil that accompanies hatred. When they’re done with the Christians and Jews, the Islamists/Muslims will turn on and slaughter the Atheists, who will have no one to turn to.

  Idiot MILITANT Atheists…

  Report this comment

  Log in to ReplyReply  

  • LittleFinger

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 12:34am

    It always irks me when someone uses the word “militant” to describe these types of atheists. You could use argumentative or confrontational, but militant? They don’t mean you any harm.

    Also, Matt and Tracy have been quite vocal in their critisisms of Islam. The majority of the people who call into their show are christians, and Matt was once one himself, so thats what they usually end up talking about.

    Report this comment

     

  • BODYBAG

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 12:48am

    “They share two things in common – hatred for Jews and Christians, and the evil that accompanies hatred.”

    The target gives it away.
    Truth is always the target.
    No one bothers with Islam because its a lie.

    Report this comment

     

  • Desertcatn

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 2:39am

    Thank you, Woodyee, atheists are all over the Christian forums, calling them bigots, etc.. LittleFinger, harm is being done and the only reason atheists don’t attack Muslims, is because they know the harm would be returned; they are cowards.

    On another note, I wonder when the gay community will become outraged by Al Gore selling them out in the Al Jazeera deal.

    Report this comment

     

  • Ragnars Repos

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:10am

    “Atheists have to prop-up/justify themselves and their non-religion beliefs by attacking the religious beliefs of others”

    No, we attack religion because it makes people do evil things, period. It is a caveman’s philosophy.

    Report this comment

     

  • Desertcatn

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 6:50am

    Ragnars, evil is something all humans are capable of, so putting it just on religion is ridiculous! You do admit that atheists are on the attack, which is fine, it’s just cowardly to only attack those who don’t fight back! Why don’t you attack the Muslim religion? I never see atheist say a word about or to Muslims. Your convictions mean nothing until you can attack all religions . . . especially one that hangs gay people and mutilates women! Christians stand for what they believe, even if it costs their life! You are weak!

    Report this comment

     

  • BODYBAG

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 11:01am

    @DESERTCATN
    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 2:39am
    Thank you, Woodyee, atheists are all over the Christian forums, calling them bigots, etc..
    ———————————————————–
    Thats why arguing with them on an anonymous chat board is a waste of time.
    They’re not the slightest bit open to what you have to say —– their only purpose
    here is to inflame, attack and create chaos.
    Alinski 101

    Their very presence here tells you everything you need to know.
    My position on atheists is they have that right. Good luck with it. They’ll need it.
    Beyond that its not my problem.

    Report this comment

     

  • Desertcatn

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 12:05pm

    Good point, Bodybag, I don’t usually engage but sometimes I just have to jump in there and say something! I agree that they do have the right to their beliefs, it’s a shame that they can’t reciprocate.

    Report this comment

     

  • ModerationIsBest

    Posted on January 11, 2013 at 2:42am

    @DESERTCATN

    If a Muslim in America would come up to me and starting preaching nonsense, I would call it equally nonsensical as I do a Christian.

    Link to me a news site in America that is majority Muslim and I will go there.

    I will battle nonsense wherever it arises.

    Report this comment

     

• BODYBAG

  Posted on January 10, 2013 at 12:04am

  Wow.
  These 2 make a powerful case for atheism.
  Looks like it has done wonders for them.
  /sarcasm off

  This looks and sounds like an interview with a satanic death metal band.
  The thing on the left beside bloat boy looks like a member of Judas Preist

  Report this comment

  Log in to ReplyReply  

  • DeavonReye

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 9:00am

    So, . . . you resort to personal attacks. Does that make you the winner?

    Report this comment

     

  • Desertcatn

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 9:19am

    It’s just an observation, Deavon, do you have something against free speech?

    Report this comment

     

  • DeavonReye

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 9:31am

    Not at all. But we should at least attempt to be civil.

    Report this comment

     

  • Locked

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 10:18am

    @desertcatn

    “It’s just an observation, Deavon, do you have something against free speech?”

    What does free speech have to do with this? Free speech just means the government can’t prosecute you for what you say.

    Report this comment

     

  • Desertcatn

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 12:08pm

    Deavon, why should we be civil? Locked, maybe that’s what free speech means to you, I believe otherwise!

    Report this comment

     

  • DeavonReye

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 12:15pm

    It is childish to use “The thing on the left” for Tracy, or “bloat boy” for Matt. If you don’t agree, use your free speech to offer why. It is absurd to just call names.

    Report this comment

     

  • Desertcatn

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 12:40pm

    After reading the attacks on Christianity by those on this forum, bloat boy just doesn’t seem that offensive. What you don’t understand, is that you are insulting someone Christians know and love and you have the right not to believe, but your attacks are highly offensive. I’ve never seen your mother, don’t know if she exists but I wouldn’t insult her or you by insisting she doesn’t exist and that you are some kind of moronic fairy for believing she does, works both ways, Deavon!

    Report this comment

     

  • DeavonReye

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 12:50pm

    I try never to say that someone is a moron FOR believing in a god. And personally attacking someone’s appearance is hardly the same as “a person stating that they see no credible evidence for this god you claim exists”. The former is an attack. The latter is a personal opinion, based upon information being offered. There is a difference.

    Report this comment

     

  • Locked

    Posted on January 10, 2013 at 1:01pm

    @desertcatn

    “maybe that’s what free speech means to you, I believe otherwise!”

    What do you believe? If we’re talking about the concept of free speech (or freedom of speech), it means freedom from prosecution, not freedom from consequence.

    Report this comment

     

« Back to The Blaze