Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

[Hedonist]

Eagle12 wrote:

<quoted text>
Ironic how people who don’t believe in God define who is and isn’t a Christian. As if to say you are some sort of authority on the subject.
Under your analogy Denis Rader known also as BTK was a true to the core Christian since he attended a Lutheran Church. Never mind that he was a mass murder. To you he was a fine example of Christianity.
I guess you would count Judas Iscariot a example of Christianity too. Even though history see’s him as the betrayer.
If I may use your words,“hallucinatory raving of an utter lunatic.” That phrase of yours would fit Denis Rader and you very nicely. Christianity requires more than occasional attendance but obedience to Christ teachings.
It doesn’t matter how the average infidel defines Christianity. It’s how God defines it.

This is an interesting quandary.

None of us can know what someone is really thinking or what their true motivations are. All we can go by is their outward statements of motivation.

So when someone claims to be committing some sort of atrocity because they are carrying out the work of their deity, we might conclude they are crazy, but we would still have to admit they thought of themselves as being highly devout and driven by religion.

And if we considered such a person to be crazy, would that also indicate that we don't really believe anybody could in fact be "talking to god".

[mtimber]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
No, although it is a possibility, that was not my argument. Read it again.

You argument for the First Cause was one of the following:

1. Infinite regress.
2. Uncaused cause.
3. Don't know.
4. Not God.
5. Quantum.

But so far you have stated that it can be any of the above, but the one thing it cannot be, absolutely is:

God

Showing that you are actually totally opposed to the idea of God, right from the start.

Proving the case, that you are indeed suppressing the truth of God as you cannot even allow the idea of God to the table.

Which is not rational.

[mtimber]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
I am saying that causality does not follow from the rules of logic. It is an empirical question whether causality holds or not.

Causality cannot happen without the laws of logic...

Causality is logical by its very nature.

As is reason,(when practiced properly).

All pointing to the logical First Cause.

But you don't want to go there.

So you have to deny either causality or the laws of logic to prevent yourself from going there.

Which one will it be today?

[Hedonist]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
So account for absolute standards of morality, by which you define subjective morality...
You cannot seem to grasp this most basic concept.
It would baffle me, if I did not know why...
Absolute morality requires an intelligent First Cause.
You don't want that, so you think the Herd should set morality...
Problem there is, that once you set that as the standard, you can never complain about any standard of morality anywhere, as the Herds opinion is just that, an opinion.
It is not right or wrong, good or bad.
You argue subjective morality, and then appeal to objective morality to prove your point...
Denying Christianity, whilst borrowing from Christianity to make your argument.
A pickpocket of morality...:-)

Let me type slow so you might be able to grasp this ---

There is NO such thing as an "absolute morality".

Modern societal morality (aka ethics) has evolved over time as a natural part of homo sapiens being a social species.

You still have never even tried to define one (1) moral precept which you can show would not exist without Christianity. Just 1.

[mtimber]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
Why would a first cause have to be eternal?
<quoted text>
Who is doing that? I have argued that it is a *possibility*. I don't know if it is actually the case.
<quoted text>
You have made a LOT of claims without proof.

How could it not be?

Time was caused, that is painfully obvious.

So whatever caused Time, had to be eternal/uncaused.

That time and energy regresses back to origin, is the reason that the Big Bang theory was proposed.

It is obvious that it all started somewhere.

[Hedonist]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
I have already answered this, but again:
Your premise is false.
You assume that the instructions are universal and absolute in all instances of leprosy.
You also have no knowledge of the levitical laws being prophetic, so you cannot comprehend what they are actually representative of, on the prophetic and symbolic level.
But that is ok, because it is not for you anyway, unless you repent of your secular suppression of God.
Hence your confusion.

Obfuscation at it's finest.

Does this stated cure work?

[Hedonist]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
I am bemused why you keep making absolute moral judgements.
When you keep denying there can be absolute moral judgements.
----------
It is this foolish contraction that prevents me treating your question seriously.
And no matter how many times it is explained that this is not quite right, you still keep doing it...

Again with obfuscation.

So are you saying you think Exodus 21:2-6 and 20-21 are examples of good morals?
Or are you just trying to deflect the conversation?

[mtimber]

Hedonist wrote:

<quoted text>
Let me type slow so you might be able to grasp this ---
There is NO such thing as an "absolute morality".
Modern societal morality (aka ethics) has evolved over time as a natural part of homo sapiens being a social species.
You still have never even tried to define one (1) moral precept which you can show would not exist without Christianity. Just 1.

Why then, do you keeping making absolute moral judgements about Christian Morality, it absolute morality does not exist?

Please try to concentrate and understand the critique you are being subjected to...

[mtimber]

Hedonist wrote:

You still have never even tried to define one (1) moral precept which you can show would not exist without Christianity. Just 1.

1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul and all your mind.

[mtimber]

Hedonist wrote:

<quoted text>
Obfuscation at it's finest.
Does this stated cure work?

No, your premise was unsound.

As I explained.

Keep beating that donkey if you want, but your premise is still unsound.

[mtimber]

Hedonist wrote:

<quoted text>
Again with obfuscation.
So are you saying you think Exodus 21:2-6 and 20-21 are examples of good morals?
Or are you just trying to deflect the conversation?

Here you go again.

Defining "Good".

Whilst denying that "Good" can be defined...

You are contradicting yourself.

[mtimber]

Hedonist, seriously now.

Concentrate for a moment.

You state there is no absolute moral standard of "good".

Then why do you keep appealing to an absolute moral standard of "good"?

[Aerobatty]

Adam wrote:

"I have an IQ that will get me into MENSA" Really?

I know.

That's as far as I got before I started laughing so hard my eyes were tearing up and I couldn't see.

I'm still catching my breath.

Good ol' Dave. Always a hoot.

[Aerobatty]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
Instead of being a typical atheist & assuming everything, why don't you do a little research as to why there seems to be discrepancies.
Why does one say 41 generations and the other 76 generations?
Why was one written forward while the other backward?
Does the Levirate marriage tradition have anything to do with it?
You atheists CLAIM to be the smart ones but you have difficulty researching & understanding the simplest things.

Then answer your own questions.

Because when we research these things, we find inconsistencies that make the whole story self refuting yet you somehow manage to see these same inconsistencies as making perfect sense.

How do you do that?

[RiversideRedneck]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
The carnal mind is at war with God.
Seeking to suppress the truth.
Simple point to prove.
I have no desire to spend my time and energy trying to persuade certain people that there forefathers were not lizard men from Mars.
It is something that I simply dismiss as illogical.
Yet here are the atheists purposing (without any reason to purpose as an atheist), to deny and promote the non-existence of God.
Just as the Bible says they would...
With much vitriol anger and hatred.
As I said the other day, a suicide bomber would be impressed with the religious zeal many of these atheists express on this forum and all over the internet...
Atheists in general, seem to be the most intolerant and bigotted people out there.
And whatever you do, don't criticise their prime doctrine of homosexuality being a lovely thing.
That really gets the wrath of the herd going...
To be honest, though, this level of determined ignorance saddens me.

Agreed. These atheists are much like radical Islam in their tactics to "defeat" Christianity.

The funny thing is how much time they spend on God.(the same God they say they KNOW is fake...)

[blacklagoon]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
So before mankind existed, a rock could both exist and not exist at the same time in the same place and in the same sense...?
Really?
As that rock was probably also the same rock that decided that life was required, you may have an interesting theorem going on there... ;-)
As to your 3 questions.
The number of options does not indicate truth, the truth out of the options indicates truth.

Common sense dictated that through experience, a rock could not exits and exist at the time. That was easy!!!

There is nothing that would "Require" that life was necessary, especially an inanimate piece of material like a rock. There was really easy!!!!

There are actually NO truths between the three choses. I refuse to deal in absolutes. Boy, keep those really easy questions coming!!!!!

[mtimber]

blacklagoon wrote:

<quoted text>Common sense dictated that through experience, a rock could not exits and exist at the time. That was easy!!!
There is nothing that would "Require" that life was necessary, especially an inanimate piece of material like a rock. There was really easy!!!!
There are actually NO truths between the three choses. I refuse to deal in absolutes. Boy, keep those really easy questions coming!!!!!

But you said the laws of logic were man made.

If that was true then the law of non-contradiction would not have been in place before mankind existed.

Therefore a rock could both exist and not exist in the same place at that same time in the same sense.

According to your worldview.

And you think your worldview is logical?

[blacklagoon]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
Good. So you blindly follow what assuming scientists tell you?
And yet you have the nerve to accuse Christians of blindly following?
You're a hypocrite.

You really have a problem with your attention span don't you. Either that or you are completely unable to comprehend the written word. I explained this to you back on post #153260 the difference between accepting science and accepting myths.

It would appear that you are totally against any kind of education, correct? We should throw all science books away, maybe we should simply burn all books on science sine we would be reading only what they "assumed" and would be blindly following. Of course that would include all books on Geology, Astronomy, Biology, astrophysics, physics, microbiology, all of the medical sciences, oceanography, mathematics, evolutionary biology, entomology, ect. I'm sure i'm missing a great number of the sciences. What would you plan then be for our species to advance out understanding of the world around us, or don't you think that is important?

Once again it is evident that you oppose anything that deals with education. You see ignorance as a worthy trait. Your post seem to support your opinion on education and remaining willfully ignorant. Ever think of running for the school board??? Just wondering!!!

[Dave Nelson]

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Topix atheist brain patterns set to music.

Enjoy.

[mtimber]

As can be seen by Hedonist and Blacklagoon most recent arguments:

1. Absolute morality does not exist and I will use absolute morality to prove it.

2. The Laws of logic did not exist before mankind, so a rock could exist and not exist before they got here (must have been confusing for the dinosaurs).

So the point?

The truth of God, the First Cause, is self evident.

The absurdity of the contrary (as displayed by our two atheists on the last couple of pages), can also be tested logically.

When the contrary argument is presented, it is soon reduced to arbitrariness and contradictions, revealing that the contrary is in fact error.

Case closed.