natural law, christian, ten commandments, liberal, obama,
It took me a minute, but I think "natural law" as discussed by Fred Hutchison, RenewAmerica "analyst" is the Ten Commandments, the idea being that every person everywhere automatically knows the Ten Commandments whether they know itor not. The article is a criticism of liberalism (we're blown about by the winds of popular fads) and Obama (he's the weathervane), but I thought I'd deal with one particular bit of silliness: the idea that everywhere and everywhen in the universe "thou shalt not steal" is held to be true.
In the early 20th century, the jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes was the most famous proponent of positive law. G. K. Chesterton and C. S. Lewis were very popular proponents of natural law.
Chesterton's fictional detective, Father Brown, was a like a Christian Sherlock Homes. He was on the trail of Flambeau, a criminal mastermind. Before Father Brown solved a case against Flambeau, he debated Flambeau about natural law versus positive law. Flambeau speculated that there are many worlds in the starry heavens and that each one has a different moral law. Father Brown replied that every one of those worlds has a mortar board, "Thou shalt not steal." In this way, Father Brown emphasized the universality of natural law and rejected cultural relativism. His terse comments rebuked Flambeau for being a thief. His comments also rebuked him for temporizing the immorality of his thefts by using the relativistic philosophy of positive law.
How would Father Brown know that? Has he been to every world in "the starry heavens" and asked? Or is he, like Chesterton, simply unable to imagine people who are not just like him?
It was hardly uncommon, several hundred years ago, to run into peoples in both the Americas and in Africa that did not have any notion of land being owned by any particular individual. Land was just land, if you wanted to use it, fine, but you couldn't own it. This led to trouble for the natives when the (Christian) Europeans moved in with their concepts of land ownership. Native leaders thought they were granting the Europeans limited use of the land, when in fact they were effectively destroying themselves.
It's not too hard to imagine a culture in which there is no notion of ownership at all, land or otherwise. I am wearing this sweater because I'm cold and it fits me and it looks nice with my outfit, but when I am done with it, someone else can wear it. I live in this house because it suits me, but I could live in another house, or someone else could live in this one. Father Brown knows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that this culture has never existed on earth or anywhere else in the entire universe? Really? How?
The idea of natural law is that the creator hardwires some things directly into our brains, we all know them whether we are ever taught them or not. If you've spent any time with small children, you know this isn't true. If a baby wants something, they grab it. They don't consider ownership, they have no concept of theft. It is the reaction of adults to their grabbing that teaches them that particular commandment.
Think about the implications of natural law. Why bother to raise your children? If natural law exists, you could lock your kids in a closet or drop them off in the woods for wolves to raise and they'd still grow up to be adults who don't steal, lie, have sex outside of marriage, worship false idols or take the name of the lord in vain.
Nobody actually thinks that, do they?
Showing posts with label ten commandments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ten commandments. Show all posts
Friday, August 21, 2009
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Thou Shalt Always Kill
dan le sac, scroobius pip, ten commandments,
Thou shalt think for yourselves.
And thou shalt always... Thou shalt always kill!
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Wow. Just Wow.
ten commandments, crazy, death, penalty, homosexual, rape, bestiality, incest, capital, euthanasia, infanticide, prochoice, prolife, abortion, birth control,
Daniel Florien, at Unreasonable Faith, reminded me of the Society for the Practical Establishment and Perpetuation of the Ten Commandments.
Daniel just did a post on the article "Exposing the Atheist", and I've done a couple on the SPEPTC, as well, so I went looking around the site to see if there was anything new to discuss.
All I have to say is that I clearly didn't look closely enough at this site the first time around.
Controlling the World's Population
by Robert T. Lee
The present world's population of people is said to be nearly 6 billion. It is expected to rise to 8.9 billion by 2030, and reach 10 to 14 billion by 2050. The largest increases are expected to take place in some of the poorer countries, such as Africa and southern Asia. I actually don't know if this is true or not, but it sounds about right, especially with the Pope running around telling people that condoms are Teh Evul.
In view of those projections, more and more attention is being placed on ways to control the world's population.
Some of the present methods proposed and practiced are: legislation restricting how many children a family can have, contraceptives, sterilization, sexual abstinence, permanent celibacy which would be different from sexual abstinence how?, deliberately induced abortions as opposed to accidentally induced abortions?, infanticide, euthanasia, homosexuality i'm pretty sure nobody is a homosexual purely for the sake of population control, delayed marriage, sterilization of the retarded which we could include under "sterilization", war as population control?!, fatal disease inducement upon certain portions of the human population see: what the eurpoeans did to the native americans and etc. "and etc."? uh, yeah.
Although demography draws its insight from several of the so-called intellectual fields, such as anthropology, biology, economics, history, medicine, sociology and statistics, so called intellectual fields? if none of the above are intellectual, what is? it is quite obvious that most of the ways proposed and being tried to control the human population is are blindness -ness, foolishness -ness, immoral and thus infringes upon the God-given rights of the weakest and most innocent of the human community. wait until you see what is seeing, wise, moral and doesn't infringe on rights.
There is a better and more sane way to control the human population without allowing immorality, the immorality of delayed marriage or sexual abstinence? without doing injustice to anyone wait for it. and while not seeking to discourage pronatalist prolife, i think. views among the human population. we don't really care about prochoice lemurs, after all.
Since the population of mankind is a "closed" population - no humans can migrate to and from earth, only the rate of births and deaths can increase or decrease the human population. what living thing on the planet would not qualify as "closed" under this definition? just curious.
Therefore, the way to control the population growth is through the increase of the human mortality rate by legitimate means. we're almost there. Not through the crimes of abortions, infanticide, euthanasia and etc; but through the automatic DEATH PENALTY for the broad spectrum of deeds that are high crimes in the sight of the true GOD. that's right kids, abortion, infanticide and euthanasia are crimes, but the death penalty for adultery is just and righteous. that's his moral answer to overpopulation: kill everyone. This principle of population control has never been addressed by demography. I wonder why? It is the cornerstone better than birth control! of proper human population control which the builders have rejected. i just can't see why.
Some of the high crimes which God requires the human society to vigorously odd use of an adverb enforce the death penalty upon are: blasphemy against the true God i'm dead; idolatry leigh at odins daughter, and denelian, dead.; breaking the Lord's day we're all dead; dishonor to parents every teenager to ever live, dead; murder; adultery according to the last study i saw, 40% of women and 60% of men would be dead; incest; homosexuality half the people i know dead; bestiality; rape not punishable by death in the bible. there are two punishments for rape in the bible: marrying your victim or paying her father; kidnapping what verse is that? god was fine with the israelites kidnapping virgins and turning them into sex slaves; seeking to destroy the righteous what?; putting to death the innocent i'm gonna need a bible verse on that one(such as putting innocent embryos and fetuses to death in abortions); seeking to overthrow God's appointed authority question Mr. Lee and you're dead, etc.
If this method of population control were ever enacted, we wouldn't have to worry about population control, because there would maybe 3 people left, and 2 of them would be in comas.
In order for the world community of humans to actually put this decorous someone needs a dictionary principle into practice, it must adopt the MORAL LAW OF GOD - THE TEN COMMANDMENTS as the supreme laws of the World community. boy am i glad that not only isn't the US a christian nation, but the world isn't christian, either.
This principle of controlling the population punishing everyone everywhere for everything until there isn't anyone left would positively affect the economic prosperity of nations by removing anyone making or spending money?, positively affect the health and increase the life expectancy of lawabidding citizens how? mouthy teenagers aren't the reason for cancer, properly educate the human race in fear i suppose, positively affect the family structure by removing all the families, overwhelmingly reduce crime, etc. actually, capital punishment has never been shown to reduce crime. in fact, capital punishment increases extremely violent crime. think about it: if you're going to get the needle anyway, you may as well go out in a blaze of glory. Every legitimate aspect of the human society would benefit greatly. if by "legitimate aspect" you mean "executioners", i suppose.
By adopting the TEN COMMANDMENTS as the supreme laws of the earth and properly administering them actually the ten commandments don't address bestiality, homosexuality, incest or rape, the true criminals - those worthy of death pretty much everyone, will be the ones put to death instead of the innocent. It is only right to focus on true criminals who commit high crimes of adultery and mouthing off to one's parents in order to control the world's population rather than focusing on the most helpless, innocent and weakest people of the human society. you know, by using birth control.
now that is some grade-A, prime cut crazy, there.
Daniel Florien, at Unreasonable Faith, reminded me of the Society for the Practical Establishment and Perpetuation of the Ten Commandments.
Daniel just did a post on the article "Exposing the Atheist", and I've done a couple on the SPEPTC, as well, so I went looking around the site to see if there was anything new to discuss.
All I have to say is that I clearly didn't look closely enough at this site the first time around.
Controlling the World's Population
by Robert T. Lee
The present world's population of people is said to be nearly 6 billion. It is expected to rise to 8.9 billion by 2030, and reach 10 to 14 billion by 2050. The largest increases are expected to take place in some of the poorer countries, such as Africa and southern Asia. I actually don't know if this is true or not, but it sounds about right, especially with the Pope running around telling people that condoms are Teh Evul.
In view of those projections, more and more attention is being placed on ways to control the world's population.
Some of the present methods proposed and practiced are: legislation restricting how many children a family can have, contraceptives, sterilization, sexual abstinence, permanent celibacy which would be different from sexual abstinence how?, deliberately induced abortions as opposed to accidentally induced abortions?, infanticide, euthanasia, homosexuality i'm pretty sure nobody is a homosexual purely for the sake of population control, delayed marriage, sterilization of the retarded which we could include under "sterilization", war as population control?!, fatal disease inducement upon certain portions of the human population see: what the eurpoeans did to the native americans and etc. "and etc."? uh, yeah.
Although demography draws its insight from several of the so-called intellectual fields, such as anthropology, biology, economics, history, medicine, sociology and statistics, so called intellectual fields? if none of the above are intellectual, what is? it is quite obvious that most of the ways proposed and being tried to control the human population is are blindness -ness, foolishness -ness, immoral and thus infringes upon the God-given rights of the weakest and most innocent of the human community. wait until you see what is seeing, wise, moral and doesn't infringe on rights.
There is a better and more sane way to control the human population without allowing immorality, the immorality of delayed marriage or sexual abstinence? without doing injustice to anyone wait for it. and while not seeking to discourage pronatalist prolife, i think. views among the human population. we don't really care about prochoice lemurs, after all.
Since the population of mankind is a "closed" population - no humans can migrate to and from earth, only the rate of births and deaths can increase or decrease the human population. what living thing on the planet would not qualify as "closed" under this definition? just curious.
Therefore, the way to control the population growth is through the increase of the human mortality rate by legitimate means. we're almost there. Not through the crimes of abortions, infanticide, euthanasia and etc; but through the automatic DEATH PENALTY for the broad spectrum of deeds that are high crimes in the sight of the true GOD. that's right kids, abortion, infanticide and euthanasia are crimes, but the death penalty for adultery is just and righteous. that's his moral answer to overpopulation: kill everyone. This principle of population control has never been addressed by demography. I wonder why? It is the cornerstone better than birth control! of proper human population control which the builders have rejected. i just can't see why.
Some of the high crimes which God requires the human society to vigorously odd use of an adverb enforce the death penalty upon are: blasphemy against the true God i'm dead; idolatry leigh at odins daughter, and denelian, dead.; breaking the Lord's day we're all dead; dishonor to parents every teenager to ever live, dead; murder; adultery according to the last study i saw, 40% of women and 60% of men would be dead; incest; homosexuality half the people i know dead; bestiality; rape not punishable by death in the bible. there are two punishments for rape in the bible: marrying your victim or paying her father; kidnapping what verse is that? god was fine with the israelites kidnapping virgins and turning them into sex slaves; seeking to destroy the righteous what?; putting to death the innocent i'm gonna need a bible verse on that one(such as putting innocent embryos and fetuses to death in abortions); seeking to overthrow God's appointed authority question Mr. Lee and you're dead, etc.
If this method of population control were ever enacted, we wouldn't have to worry about population control, because there would maybe 3 people left, and 2 of them would be in comas.
In order for the world community of humans to actually put this decorous someone needs a dictionary principle into practice, it must adopt the MORAL LAW OF GOD - THE TEN COMMANDMENTS as the supreme laws of the World community. boy am i glad that not only isn't the US a christian nation, but the world isn't christian, either.
This principle of controlling the population punishing everyone everywhere for everything until there isn't anyone left would positively affect the economic prosperity of nations by removing anyone making or spending money?, positively affect the health and increase the life expectancy of lawabidding citizens how? mouthy teenagers aren't the reason for cancer, properly educate the human race in fear i suppose, positively affect the family structure by removing all the families, overwhelmingly reduce crime, etc. actually, capital punishment has never been shown to reduce crime. in fact, capital punishment increases extremely violent crime. think about it: if you're going to get the needle anyway, you may as well go out in a blaze of glory. Every legitimate aspect of the human society would benefit greatly. if by "legitimate aspect" you mean "executioners", i suppose.
By adopting the TEN COMMANDMENTS as the supreme laws of the earth and properly administering them actually the ten commandments don't address bestiality, homosexuality, incest or rape, the true criminals - those worthy of death pretty much everyone, will be the ones put to death instead of the innocent. It is only right to focus on true criminals who commit high crimes of adultery and mouthing off to one's parents in order to control the world's population rather than focusing on the most helpless, innocent and weakest people of the human society. you know, by using birth control.
now that is some grade-A, prime cut crazy, there.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Fun with Daily Morality
science, religion, christian, bible, ten commandments, evangelical, evangelism, witness, atheism, atheist, atheophobia, evolution, big bang, stupid
The Blindness of Atheism
(or: Why Atheism is Teh Evul)
okay, this is fun, what follows next is a slew of unattributed quotes. Let's see if we can identify them, shall we?
"Blindness and atheism are ideologically synonomous...." made up by our nameless author. bad form, that.
"Absolute truth implies that truth cannot be subject to one's own mind, but is rather established by an absolute and common Creator, therefore proving God's existence. If there is no absolute truth, it cannot be absolutely held true that God does not exist." and, again
"All deceased atheists either cannot say whether atheism is right or wrong because they don't exist themselves, or they can indeed say that atheism is wrong..." actually all deceased people are incapable of telling us anything because they are dead. unless Mr. Asshat is in regular communication with dead people. his own quote. again.
"If the irrational universe created itself or if an irrational explosion created the universe, then an educated, rational atheist should be able to create the universe with relative ease today..." that makes no sense at all, unless one chooses to redefine almost every word in that sentence. again.
"No faith in God is the most blind faith of all, because it assumes that no faith can be placed in God without any verifying evidence that faith in God fails, and with proof that faith in God is remarkably solid." no faith in any supreme being would simply be no faith at all. actually, the rest of that sentence doesn't make any sense at all. quoting himself. again.
"Atheism is more of a fanciful desire rather than a sincere belief..." so, they're both fanciful desires. so nice of you to admit that, nameless author. usually, that's my line. again.
"The burden of proof for God's existence doesn't reside with the one who asserts God's existence because it is not at all a burden to prove God's existence. What is an impossible burden is proofing He doesn't exist." first of all, proving. second of all, no. and, seriously, stop quoting yourself.
(I am not posting the entire article here, as it is unnecessarily long, and doubtless boring. These are merely the highlights, as it were.)
Atheists are people who deny the existence of their Maker and the existence of the Creator of the universe. we're people who don't believe there is a supreme being. "deny" implies that we know there is a supreme being, a sky daddy if you will, we're just being obstinant about the whole thing. Like 2 year olds. We're not. We just do not believe in a sky daddy. You are more than welcome to believe, or not, in any sky daddy(s) that you wish. Atheism is an ideological struggle primarily against Christianity because Christianity strongly explains the existence of the True God and proclaims that all humans have the responsibility to love and obey His Law. no. atheism, the nonbelief structure, is not in a struggle with anything, being a nonbelief structure. atheists do struggle against christianity, but only in countries where christianity is dominant. atheists do not struggle against christians in saudi arabia, for example. and, we do not struggle against christians because christianity proves the sky daddy, but rather because christians seek to make their faith into laws, because christians regularly persecute atheists and other nonchristians, and christians just can't leave the science alone. asshat.
This Law is written in the hearts of all people who feel exactly the same way you do and is clearly perceived as the embodiment of sanity belief in the sky daddy embodies sanity? seriously? BWAHAHAHAHAHA, civility "you're going to burn in hell for all eternity" is not civil and self righteousness for mankind as a whole. damn those insane, uncivil, unself righteous Hindus. bastards. Atheists are nevertheless against this Law because of their depravity i'm so utterly depraved that i work, pay bills, pay taxes, give to charity, remain faithful to my husband and adopt abused dogs. i'm just awful., but they find it hard to condemn the Law because of its obvious rectitude.
i've said this before, but it bears repeating: what society, ever, has not forbidden lying, stealing and murder? what society could survive that encouraged those actions?
So they deny the existence of the Maker of this Law sky daddy so as to deceptively undermine the universal authority this Law has all right, who leaked the atheist agenda?. So one can truthfully what an interesting use of this word say that debate with atheists over whether God exists is the ideological toggle position hmmm? between immortal human souls morally responsible to God and animalistic human bodies without a soul and responsible to no one and with no life after death. that's right: believe in the sky daddy and you're immortal, human and morally responsible; atheists are soulless, irresponsible animals. nice. although, if atheism renders one soulless, i guess i really don't have to worry about what happens when I die.
Atheists would rather view humans as animals who are not under a universal moral Law from God and would rather not face the reality of an afterlife for souls of humans. no, i just can't believe in the illogical, irrational fantasy of the sky daddy. i like to think that humans are capable of morality on their own, without the necessity of being told that murder is bad. (notice how the ten commandments don't reference rape at all? if you only follow god's law, apparently raping is okay.) as for the afterlife, i'll believe it when i see it. The existence of God nevertheless in their minds is the greatest obstacle against this fantasy no, we don't believe in the existence of the sky daddy. it is the greatest obstacle to rational discussion with christians, however. and so they primarily deny God’s existence on this basis, - often without realizing it. oh, so i think i just don't believe in the sky daddy, but asshat, who is telepathic, apparently, knows different. uh huh.
Even atheists admit this. For example one atheist wrote i added the cite. asshat apparently doesn't feel a need to credit others for their work., “Atheism has wide ranging implications for the human condition. In the absence of belief in God, ethical goals must be determined by secular (nonreligious) aims and concerns, human beings must take full responsibility for their destiny, and death marks the end of person’s existence.” So this is really an outline of the ideology that atheists profess, and denying the existence of God is the most convincingly way in their minds to lend credibility to this ideology. amazingly, that quote admits no such thing. what the writer is saying is that if you remove the sky daddy from the equation, all we're left with is us. so, now we need to end hunger, end violence, help the environment, etc. for me, that's a fantastic thought that makes getting up in the morning worthwhile. for some, not so much, i guess.
Therefore when you are accosted by atheists when has anyone, ever, been "accosted by atheists"? (okay, i'm sure there are some atheist muggers, but that's not what this asshat means.) last time i checked it's not atheists that engage in open air preaching, tract distribution, and door to door sales . . . er, evangelizing. , atheists’ ultimate goal is usually not to get you to disbelieve the existence of God true, worship my socks for all i care, but for you to espouse their ideology nope, just stop abusing my ideology and will be fine. (oh, and quite trying to legislate your beliefs.)(and, leave science to scientist, okay?) and to assume their hostility against God’s morality i can't be hostile against something i don't believe in. i'm not hostile towards the easter bunny, either, against Christianity, against an absolute truth find me one. oh, wait, i got one: e=mc2, against the infallibility of the Bible BWAHAHAHAHA did you know bats are birds and insects have 4 legs?, and against the general conscience of humans it's all the depravity we're sunk in which may naturally feel pricked when it goes contrary to the Law that God has written in everyone’s heart. everyone who feels like you Denying God’s existence is perhaps the most obscure way however, of leading people down a turbulent slope against the historical peace Christianity has brought. what historical peace? is this asshat for real? christians brought down the roman empire into chaos, christianity gave us over a dozen crusades, the salem witch trials . . . is this some new definition of peace i am unaware of?
...
Atheists wish to argue that statistics and evidence we call that "proof" show that atheists are no more immoral than believers. true, actually When atheists make this claim however, one should realize these three facts. you're going to abuse the word "fact", aren't you? First, when atheists use the word, “moral” they are not talking about the morality of God true, and how does that relate to anything?, but rather what atheistic society has defined “ethical” in a practical sense, if nobody's lying, stealing or murdering, what's the difference? do you really care why the man you just passed on the street didn't kill you?. So in other words, their definition of morality is what atheists call morality. and your definition of morality is what christians call morality, so? Second, when atheists use the word “believer” they are using an immensely broad definition referring to people who claim to believe in God or gods, without regard to the authenticity of those who truly believe in the true God, and those who ostensibly invoke His name. ah, i sense a No True Scotsman coming. The nuance between true believers and hypocrites is greater than the difference between night and day, that's not reallty but atheists don’t make that distinction. that's right, any atheist who does wrong represents all atheists, but any christian who does wrong wasn't christian in the first place. And lastly, atheists fail to realize that atheism is immoral by mere definition , because it promulgates a lie and labels the truth of God’s existence as folly. so, if a christian kills someone, they're moral purely because they are christian, but if i save a busload of children, i'm still immoral
...
Moreover, the “betterment of humankind” as atheists label it can never be realized through the lie that God doesn’t exist. If one wanted to establish a better path for humankind, he or she would be wise to look beyond the transient corporal existence of humans and consider the eternal spiritual state human souls enter after only a short period of time in the corporal state. Therefore true Christians’ efforts have far reaching implications that continue after corporal death, whereas atheist’s best efforts struggle to reach even the grave. you know, i love this logic. it explains why churches are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to make sure gays don't get married, when there are more than 35.5 million households in the US that don't have enough food. see, it doesn't matter how much people suffer here on earth. child sex slaves? who cares- they'll go to heaven. starving children? doesn't matter- just give them a bible! if you can't see what's wrong with that, i can't help you.
...
The argument atheists intend to use when they cite the presence of evil is that God, being good, can’t exist because He wouldn’t allow evil. actually, i just argue that it is sophistry at best to assert that good things that happen are god, bad things are free will. it's inane. Such an outlook should spiral atheists into chronic depression. no, actually it does not. if evil is a function of a supreme being, there is nothing to be done about suffering and pain. if, on the other hand, we are responsible for evil, there is a chance, no matter how slim, to end evil. that's reason for celebration. Since they acknowledge that evil does exist, but want to assert that God does not exist, they lock themselves into a hopeless world with no possibility of evil ever being destroyed. see above. i'm not sure how you got from A to Q. God is the only One capable and willing for that matter, to destroy evil. show your work. True Christians look forward to the certain fulfillment of the destruction of evil by God. and it can't be yesterday, because? sky daddy as sadistic voyeaur is not comforting. Atheists must look to the dejected depravity proven historically of man to rectify the world and to scrap evil. huh? There is surely no hope in man for the destruction of evil. i'll admit, it's not likely, but no hope at all? nope. In fact, the exemplification of evil is proceeding from bad to worse in man. show your work. Atheism itself is a form of evil. stop that. God is going to scrap atheism on the last day by the manifestation of Himself. true, if the sky daddy appeared before me, i would absolutely worship him. your point? When everyone bows their knee to God, one evil will certainly be dispelled, and that evil will be the lie that God doesn’t exist. i'd really prefer to get rid of rape and murder and child molestation, but whatever. Atheism is undoubtedly the very producer of THIS evil. well, duh. atheism is indeed atheism.
...
young earth creationism
...
stalin was teh evul, therefore all atheists are teh evul
...
creation proves the creator proves creation proves the creator
...
Atheists also say that although the Bible does have some truth in it, it is nevertheless a book filled with lies, deception, and fantasy from superstitious idiots. i never said idiots, i did say "bronze age desert nomads". they may have been remarkably intelligent bronze age desert nomads, i don't know. Such a bigoted diatribe truth? the Israelites were bronze age desert nomads, no matter how you spin it. against the Bible is very virulent for the moral development of all people how? hindus are moral, last time i checked. you're not defending the Bhagavad Ghida, are you?, and further verifies that contemporary American atheism insinuates a dissident ideology to the Bible. no, we don't insinuate it, we just say it right out. On the contrary, the Bible has been a huge factor conserving morality throughout the world really? show your work, and has been at the core of beliefs against murder through abortion for example i don't buy that, so you're not convincing me, try again., against cursing and swearing we all know cursing and swearing brought about the end of the roman empire, against violence except the violence god ordered and the violence regularly done in the name of god, and against all evil in general rape's not even covered in the bible. Proper interpretation of the Bible the writer's has never proven pernicious to any innocent person or system. no true scotsman Atheists likewise discount the miracles described in the Bible because there is absolutely no proof of them, and say that if such miracles did occur strong evidence should exist to corroborate them, or else they should be considered false otherwise i can claim to perform 6 miracles a day before breakfast and you have to believe me. The fact is, however, such miracles were witnessed by dozens of people who have accurately told us what happened how do you know they accurately reported events? and what "dozens" of people? only 4 gospels appear in the bible. It would be hard for such evidence to be revamped back to what existed at the time what?. Most importantly, God is the witness to these miracles as well. so, the guy i don't believe in proves himself by witnessing his own miracles? that's not even close to logic. God’s testimony is far better than all evidence. not if you don't believe in god. Evolution, big bang and other propositions of atheists try scientists, the words are not interchangeable do not even have a shred of empirical evidence yes, they do, creationism, however, does not, yet atheists nevertheless believe or at least say they believe them. actually, belief or disbelief in science is irrelevant. the universe is as it is. science only seeks to describe it.
The Blindness of Atheism
(or: Why Atheism is Teh Evul)
okay, this is fun, what follows next is a slew of unattributed quotes. Let's see if we can identify them, shall we?
"Blindness and atheism are ideologically synonomous...." made up by our nameless author. bad form, that.
"Absolute truth implies that truth cannot be subject to one's own mind, but is rather established by an absolute and common Creator, therefore proving God's existence. If there is no absolute truth, it cannot be absolutely held true that God does not exist." and, again
"All deceased atheists either cannot say whether atheism is right or wrong because they don't exist themselves, or they can indeed say that atheism is wrong..." actually all deceased people are incapable of telling us anything because they are dead. unless Mr. Asshat is in regular communication with dead people. his own quote. again.
"If the irrational universe created itself or if an irrational explosion created the universe, then an educated, rational atheist should be able to create the universe with relative ease today..." that makes no sense at all, unless one chooses to redefine almost every word in that sentence. again.
"No faith in God is the most blind faith of all, because it assumes that no faith can be placed in God without any verifying evidence that faith in God fails, and with proof that faith in God is remarkably solid." no faith in any supreme being would simply be no faith at all. actually, the rest of that sentence doesn't make any sense at all. quoting himself. again.
"Atheism is more of a fanciful desire rather than a sincere belief..." so, they're both fanciful desires. so nice of you to admit that, nameless author. usually, that's my line. again.
"The burden of proof for God's existence doesn't reside with the one who asserts God's existence because it is not at all a burden to prove God's existence. What is an impossible burden is proofing He doesn't exist." first of all, proving. second of all, no. and, seriously, stop quoting yourself.
(I am not posting the entire article here, as it is unnecessarily long, and doubtless boring. These are merely the highlights, as it were.)
Atheists are people who deny the existence of their Maker and the existence of the Creator of the universe. we're people who don't believe there is a supreme being. "deny" implies that we know there is a supreme being, a sky daddy if you will, we're just being obstinant about the whole thing. Like 2 year olds. We're not. We just do not believe in a sky daddy. You are more than welcome to believe, or not, in any sky daddy(s) that you wish. Atheism is an ideological struggle primarily against Christianity because Christianity strongly explains the existence of the True God and proclaims that all humans have the responsibility to love and obey His Law. no. atheism, the nonbelief structure, is not in a struggle with anything, being a nonbelief structure. atheists do struggle against christianity, but only in countries where christianity is dominant. atheists do not struggle against christians in saudi arabia, for example. and, we do not struggle against christians because christianity proves the sky daddy, but rather because christians seek to make their faith into laws, because christians regularly persecute atheists and other nonchristians, and christians just can't leave the science alone. asshat.
This Law is written in the hearts of all people who feel exactly the same way you do and is clearly perceived as the embodiment of sanity belief in the sky daddy embodies sanity? seriously? BWAHAHAHAHAHA, civility "you're going to burn in hell for all eternity" is not civil and self righteousness for mankind as a whole. damn those insane, uncivil, unself righteous Hindus. bastards. Atheists are nevertheless against this Law because of their depravity i'm so utterly depraved that i work, pay bills, pay taxes, give to charity, remain faithful to my husband and adopt abused dogs. i'm just awful., but they find it hard to condemn the Law because of its obvious rectitude.
i've said this before, but it bears repeating: what society, ever, has not forbidden lying, stealing and murder? what society could survive that encouraged those actions?
So they deny the existence of the Maker of this Law sky daddy so as to deceptively undermine the universal authority this Law has all right, who leaked the atheist agenda?. So one can truthfully what an interesting use of this word say that debate with atheists over whether God exists is the ideological toggle position hmmm? between immortal human souls morally responsible to God and animalistic human bodies without a soul and responsible to no one and with no life after death. that's right: believe in the sky daddy and you're immortal, human and morally responsible; atheists are soulless, irresponsible animals. nice. although, if atheism renders one soulless, i guess i really don't have to worry about what happens when I die.
Atheists would rather view humans as animals who are not under a universal moral Law from God and would rather not face the reality of an afterlife for souls of humans. no, i just can't believe in the illogical, irrational fantasy of the sky daddy. i like to think that humans are capable of morality on their own, without the necessity of being told that murder is bad. (notice how the ten commandments don't reference rape at all? if you only follow god's law, apparently raping is okay.) as for the afterlife, i'll believe it when i see it. The existence of God nevertheless in their minds is the greatest obstacle against this fantasy no, we don't believe in the existence of the sky daddy. it is the greatest obstacle to rational discussion with christians, however. and so they primarily deny God’s existence on this basis, - often without realizing it. oh, so i think i just don't believe in the sky daddy, but asshat, who is telepathic, apparently, knows different. uh huh.
Even atheists admit this. For example one atheist wrote i added the cite. asshat apparently doesn't feel a need to credit others for their work., “Atheism has wide ranging implications for the human condition. In the absence of belief in God, ethical goals must be determined by secular (nonreligious) aims and concerns, human beings must take full responsibility for their destiny, and death marks the end of person’s existence.” So this is really an outline of the ideology that atheists profess, and denying the existence of God is the most convincingly way in their minds to lend credibility to this ideology. amazingly, that quote admits no such thing. what the writer is saying is that if you remove the sky daddy from the equation, all we're left with is us. so, now we need to end hunger, end violence, help the environment, etc. for me, that's a fantastic thought that makes getting up in the morning worthwhile. for some, not so much, i guess.
Therefore when you are accosted by atheists when has anyone, ever, been "accosted by atheists"? (okay, i'm sure there are some atheist muggers, but that's not what this asshat means.) last time i checked it's not atheists that engage in open air preaching, tract distribution, and door to door sales . . . er, evangelizing. , atheists’ ultimate goal is usually not to get you to disbelieve the existence of God true, worship my socks for all i care, but for you to espouse their ideology nope, just stop abusing my ideology and will be fine. (oh, and quite trying to legislate your beliefs.)(and, leave science to scientist, okay?) and to assume their hostility against God’s morality i can't be hostile against something i don't believe in. i'm not hostile towards the easter bunny, either, against Christianity, against an absolute truth find me one. oh, wait, i got one: e=mc2, against the infallibility of the Bible BWAHAHAHAHA did you know bats are birds and insects have 4 legs?, and against the general conscience of humans it's all the depravity we're sunk in which may naturally feel pricked when it goes contrary to the Law that God has written in everyone’s heart. everyone who feels like you Denying God’s existence is perhaps the most obscure way however, of leading people down a turbulent slope against the historical peace Christianity has brought. what historical peace? is this asshat for real? christians brought down the roman empire into chaos, christianity gave us over a dozen crusades, the salem witch trials . . . is this some new definition of peace i am unaware of?
...
Atheists wish to argue that statistics and evidence we call that "proof" show that atheists are no more immoral than believers. true, actually When atheists make this claim however, one should realize these three facts. you're going to abuse the word "fact", aren't you? First, when atheists use the word, “moral” they are not talking about the morality of God true, and how does that relate to anything?, but rather what atheistic society has defined “ethical” in a practical sense, if nobody's lying, stealing or murdering, what's the difference? do you really care why the man you just passed on the street didn't kill you?. So in other words, their definition of morality is what atheists call morality. and your definition of morality is what christians call morality, so? Second, when atheists use the word “believer” they are using an immensely broad definition referring to people who claim to believe in God or gods, without regard to the authenticity of those who truly believe in the true God, and those who ostensibly invoke His name. ah, i sense a No True Scotsman coming. The nuance between true believers and hypocrites is greater than the difference between night and day, that's not reallty but atheists don’t make that distinction. that's right, any atheist who does wrong represents all atheists, but any christian who does wrong wasn't christian in the first place. And lastly, atheists fail to realize that atheism is immoral by mere definition , because it promulgates a lie and labels the truth of God’s existence as folly. so, if a christian kills someone, they're moral purely because they are christian, but if i save a busload of children, i'm still immoral
...
Moreover, the “betterment of humankind” as atheists label it can never be realized through the lie that God doesn’t exist. If one wanted to establish a better path for humankind, he or she would be wise to look beyond the transient corporal existence of humans and consider the eternal spiritual state human souls enter after only a short period of time in the corporal state. Therefore true Christians’ efforts have far reaching implications that continue after corporal death, whereas atheist’s best efforts struggle to reach even the grave. you know, i love this logic. it explains why churches are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to make sure gays don't get married, when there are more than 35.5 million households in the US that don't have enough food. see, it doesn't matter how much people suffer here on earth. child sex slaves? who cares- they'll go to heaven. starving children? doesn't matter- just give them a bible! if you can't see what's wrong with that, i can't help you.
...
The argument atheists intend to use when they cite the presence of evil is that God, being good, can’t exist because He wouldn’t allow evil. actually, i just argue that it is sophistry at best to assert that good things that happen are god, bad things are free will. it's inane. Such an outlook should spiral atheists into chronic depression. no, actually it does not. if evil is a function of a supreme being, there is nothing to be done about suffering and pain. if, on the other hand, we are responsible for evil, there is a chance, no matter how slim, to end evil. that's reason for celebration. Since they acknowledge that evil does exist, but want to assert that God does not exist, they lock themselves into a hopeless world with no possibility of evil ever being destroyed. see above. i'm not sure how you got from A to Q. God is the only One capable and willing for that matter, to destroy evil. show your work. True Christians look forward to the certain fulfillment of the destruction of evil by God. and it can't be yesterday, because? sky daddy as sadistic voyeaur is not comforting. Atheists must look to the dejected depravity proven historically of man to rectify the world and to scrap evil. huh? There is surely no hope in man for the destruction of evil. i'll admit, it's not likely, but no hope at all? nope. In fact, the exemplification of evil is proceeding from bad to worse in man. show your work. Atheism itself is a form of evil. stop that. God is going to scrap atheism on the last day by the manifestation of Himself. true, if the sky daddy appeared before me, i would absolutely worship him. your point? When everyone bows their knee to God, one evil will certainly be dispelled, and that evil will be the lie that God doesn’t exist. i'd really prefer to get rid of rape and murder and child molestation, but whatever. Atheism is undoubtedly the very producer of THIS evil. well, duh. atheism is indeed atheism.
...
young earth creationism
...
stalin was teh evul, therefore all atheists are teh evul
...
creation proves the creator proves creation proves the creator
...
Atheists also say that although the Bible does have some truth in it, it is nevertheless a book filled with lies, deception, and fantasy from superstitious idiots. i never said idiots, i did say "bronze age desert nomads". they may have been remarkably intelligent bronze age desert nomads, i don't know. Such a bigoted diatribe truth? the Israelites were bronze age desert nomads, no matter how you spin it. against the Bible is very virulent for the moral development of all people how? hindus are moral, last time i checked. you're not defending the Bhagavad Ghida, are you?, and further verifies that contemporary American atheism insinuates a dissident ideology to the Bible. no, we don't insinuate it, we just say it right out. On the contrary, the Bible has been a huge factor conserving morality throughout the world really? show your work, and has been at the core of beliefs against murder through abortion for example i don't buy that, so you're not convincing me, try again., against cursing and swearing we all know cursing and swearing brought about the end of the roman empire, against violence except the violence god ordered and the violence regularly done in the name of god, and against all evil in general rape's not even covered in the bible. Proper interpretation of the Bible the writer's has never proven pernicious to any innocent person or system. no true scotsman Atheists likewise discount the miracles described in the Bible because there is absolutely no proof of them, and say that if such miracles did occur strong evidence should exist to corroborate them, or else they should be considered false otherwise i can claim to perform 6 miracles a day before breakfast and you have to believe me. The fact is, however, such miracles were witnessed by dozens of people who have accurately told us what happened how do you know they accurately reported events? and what "dozens" of people? only 4 gospels appear in the bible. It would be hard for such evidence to be revamped back to what existed at the time what?. Most importantly, God is the witness to these miracles as well. so, the guy i don't believe in proves himself by witnessing his own miracles? that's not even close to logic. God’s testimony is far better than all evidence. not if you don't believe in god. Evolution, big bang and other propositions of atheists try scientists, the words are not interchangeable do not even have a shred of empirical evidence yes, they do, creationism, however, does not, yet atheists nevertheless believe or at least say they believe them. actually, belief or disbelief in science is irrelevant. the universe is as it is. science only seeks to describe it.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Post #200: Drinking the Kool-Aid(tm)
atheism, atheist, atheophobia, theocracy, religion, fundamentalism, evangelical, evangelism, evil, stupid, ten commandments, crime
Well, I got a good one for Forever in Hell's celebratory 200th post!
Lately, the atheosphere has taken notice of all the xtians who say "I used to be an atheist like you". First of all, atheists number less than 5% of the population of the US, so exactly how many exatheists can there be? Secondly, does reciting the sinner's prayer actually cause involuntary conversion? That would explain a lot.
Anyways, The Society for the Practical Establishment and Perpetuation of the Ten Commandments, SFTPEAPOTTC, gives us Exposing the Atheist. It was written by an exatheist! (Doesn't say which exatheist.)
The following articles are samplings of principles that demonstrate that atheism is pure heathenism and error. To be fair, Mirriam Webster defines a heathen as a person who does not accept the god of the bible, but heathenism includes atheism and paganism and islam and hindu and buddhism, which are all entirely different belief systems. They present some of the reasons why you should turned turn away from atheism and nonbelief - to a staunch belief in the Almighty GOD. I ask you to examine these articles very carefully. don't worry about that, buddy.
The best way to understand the nature of atheism is to understand its author. satan is its author. yeah. we're not satanists, we're atheists. and there is no author. we don't have a holy book. (no, we do not worship The Origin of the Species. stop it.)
Well, I got a good one for Forever in Hell's celebratory 200th post!
Lately, the atheosphere has taken notice of all the xtians who say "I used to be an atheist like you". First of all, atheists number less than 5% of the population of the US, so exactly how many exatheists can there be? Secondly, does reciting the sinner's prayer actually cause involuntary conversion? That would explain a lot.
Anyways, The Society for the Practical Establishment and Perpetuation of the Ten Commandments, SFTPEAPOTTC, gives us Exposing the Atheist. It was written by an exatheist! (Doesn't say which exatheist.)
The following articles are samplings of principles that demonstrate that atheism is pure heathenism and error. To be fair, Mirriam Webster defines a heathen as a person who does not accept the god of the bible, but heathenism includes atheism and paganism and islam and hindu and buddhism, which are all entirely different belief systems. They present some of the reasons why you should turned turn away from atheism and nonbelief - to a staunch belief in the Almighty GOD. I ask you to examine these articles very carefully. don't worry about that, buddy.
The best way to understand the nature of atheism is to understand its author. satan is its author. yeah. we're not satanists, we're atheists. and there is no author. we don't have a holy book. (no, we do not worship The Origin of the Species. stop it.)
It's important to remain conscious of the fact that satan had his origin in heaven, and is thoroughly familiar with the fact of the existence of God, heaven, the angels, hell and etc. and this pertains to atheism how? we don't believe in god, satan, heaven, hell or angels. if a police officer pulls you over and asks you if you know why you were pulled over, do you start talking about that episode of House where they nearly cut off that girl's arm? just as relevant. Thus despite what you have been previously deceptively taught nobody taught me atheism. i was actually raised a good catholic. (this guy probably thinks catholics are devil worshippers, too, but that's a different story.) and despite the deceptive dictionary's is there a nondeceptive dictionary? we're all in on the conspiracy, including the dictionary! meaning of atheism, atheism is properly defined as a denial of the existence of God in the midst of full knowledge that the true God does indeed exist.
Yeah, isn't it fun to win an argument by redefining commonly understood words? I can prove that you're actually muslim if I redefine "muslim" as "follower of christ". wasn't that fun? if you have to redefine commonly understood words, you don't have an argument. sit down and shut up.
Atheism knows God exists atheism is a belief system, it doesn't know anything.; it is quite familiar with that fact, but it says "under no circumstance or situation will I admit to God's existence." i don't believe in god. do not. sorry to burst your bubble, but i don't. and if the person who wrote this always secretly did believe in god, then they weren't an atheist, they were an agnostic. totally different thing.
Atheism clearly perceives the fingerprints of God on all of creation, but refuses to admit He is the Creator. no. Atheism perceives the divine authorship of the TEN COMMANDMENTS no., but refuses to admit that God is their Author. no. Atheism perceives the decorousness and perfection of the TEN COMMANDMENTS, no. but refuses to admit they are superior to all other laws. the stupid, it burns! Atheism clearly perceives the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, but refuses to admit His divinity. no, i freakin' don't. If an atheist could see the wounds in the body of Christ and actually feel them with his hands, he would deny that the wounds are there. first of all, EW! second of all, no, I wouldn't. trust me, if god gave me an indisputable sign of his existence, i'd get down on my knees and worship in an instant. i'm an atheist, not an idiot. Atheism is deliberate effort to never admit the existence of God. no, just a lack of belief in god. what is so hard about that?
Atheism is the ultimate of satanism. no, satanism would be the ultimate in satanism. Ask satan does God exist and he will deny it. do you often speak to satan? Ask him does satan exist and he will deny his own existence even while in your presence. this is getting a little scary. i've met satanists, and even they don't claim to talk to satan. Atheism holds the Bible in one hand, but deny its existence by denying its truth with the other. first of all, my hands don't deny truth, and no, i am currently not holding a bible, though i do frequently read it.
In order to properly understand the nature of atheism, one must understand the natures of righteousness and sin. why? atheism is the lack of belief in a supreme being. one need not understand righteousness or sin to understand that. The two principles are antithetical to one another. Since sin is antithetical to righteousness, its very antithetical nature seeks to nullify righteousness. the second antithetical was totally unnecessary. Since it is an antithetical what's with him and this word? principle to righteousness, it must remain true to its nature even in the most insane instances. what? a + b =c therefore b=29,876,275,49.12? Therefore it must hate God even though God is righteous and has given it no just cause for its hatred. i'm guessing you don't understand the meaning of antithetical, huh? It is this antithetical principle, called "the law of sin" show your work! which is at work in the hearts of atheists causing them to reject God. i like to think it's my logical, rational nature. or, i'm just not good at the worshipping. meh. The law of sin is none other than the law that governs satan's kingdom. so it's like the opposite of the ten commandments?
Below are articles I've presented in effort to expose the true satanic nature of atheism, true satanic nature of atheism is the most stupidest thing i've seen in a while. the great harm it is doing to the american society and the world community SHOW.YOUR.WORK. and to prove and demonstrate that atheists and all other nonbelievers in the true God are the actual criminals of the world community. felony or misdemeanor? there is no proof, anywhere, that atheists commit more crimes than anyone else. in fact, the parts of the US associated with high rates of religious activity, the South, for example, have higher rates of crime. (do i think religion causes crime? no. I think the socioeconomic factors associated with higher rates of fundamentalism are also associated with higher rates of crime.). I hope these articles will enable people to see that atheists are extremely dangerous people. yeah, i'm just a triple homicide waiting to happen. (as soon as someone replaces every joint from the shoulder down in order to allow me to fire a gun.) Therefore laws should be made against them by all the governments of the world community. see, this is what atheists have to deal with. we don't hate jesus, we just hate asshats like this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
