[Stella LaForte]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

The following ten points absolutely destroy Atheism.

#1 Atheists have no mercy or pity for others.
Time and time again history as shown with the Nazis, the Communists, the New Deal, the Spanish Inquisition that atheists will behave in a cruel and callous manner towards thier fellow man.

Actually, Hitler was Catholic, not an atheist. The communists were not atheists either - the Communist party was their god. As for the New Deal, that was American - remember, "One nation under god"? And the Spanish Inquisition was Catholic, not atheist! On the contrary, Lincoln and FDR were atheists. Presently the presidents of Brazil, Argentina and Chile are atheists. All three countries are on the move - in fact, historians are calling it "The South American Century."

However, your admittedly poor choices of examples are not the point. There are "good" and "bad" people of each affiliation - and I'll note that atheist countries have lower crime rates than religious ones!

#2 To an Atheist a natural disaster is just a random event
Only a Christian can understand that when a building collapses in an earthquake that is the hand of God slaying sinners. Atheists are willfully blind to the unconditional tough love of God for His creation. In short Atheists lack pity for those who are killed in these disasters.

… Uh, no. When a building collapses in an earthquake, it means that there was a sudden release in energy in the Earth’s crust that led to the creation of cosmic waves. And religion has nothing to do with the theory of conscience – any human possessing one will feel pity for those victims of natural disasters, atheists and Christians alike.

#4To an atheists there is no difference between an animal and a human
To an Atheist A pig or a human, an ape or a human, what is the difference? For Atheists they are all products of random chance. If Atheists were true to their beliefs they would be running around naked and tossing feces at each other and eating other people. They lack the compassion for their fellow man to realize animals are just tools placed here for us to use as we see fit.

Humans are bipedal primates in the Hominidae family. Pigs are even-toed ungulates in the Suidae family. And they are a product of natural selection and evolution, not, as you say, “random chance.” In fact, there is no chance involved. However, pigs and humans are both animals that are slaves to their brainstems, perpetually locked in conflict with their primordial urges. Therein lie the similarities and differences. And it’s quite an unnecessarily egotistical perspective to say that animals are simply tools for our use, and an incorrect one at that. We mean no more than any other animal. We are all simply life forms.

#5 Only biblical faith offers objective standards of good and evil.
One just has to look at atheists societies like ancient Rome to see they had completely different morality than the Christian society of the West now. Rome lived by a philosophy of might makes right that gave Rome the moral superiority to invade their neighbors. Contrast that with America's war of liberation in Iraq and Mexico in 1848. Christians have the morality to know when their neighbors are evil and need to be destroyed.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS OBJECTIVE MORALITY. Morality is a myth. There is no difference between right and wrong, because right and wrong do not exist. I could lend any desired import to these terms, and who could tell me I am wrong? Concepts are ideas, fantasies; products of the imagination. There is no absolute meaning in any of it, no truth, no purport; no actuality. And this is proven by how often society’s notion of morality changes, how often they amend what is considered acceptable and what is considered taboo. In the end, all morality is is a set of directives put in place to support self- preservation. And those shift and morph and alter as needed. If the law no longer serves to uphold people’s survival, then that law is either modified or eliminated. But people don’t actually care about these things, about their notions of virtue or honour or benevolence; of good or evil. They simply wish not to perish, or to suffer.

When religion propagated foreordination, a divine decree predetermining all souls to either heaven or hell, people endeavored to engage in all manner of “morally questionable” acts, at least in relation to what today is considered improper or unethical comportment, because there existed no fear for their immortal essence. If, by this belief, all people are preselected by God to eternal salvation or damnation, without consideration of their actions, there then is no occasion for them to act in accordance to any code of supposed proper conduct. And when you have nothing with which to threaten, that is when you lose control. And control is power. The church soon realised this. If people truly believed, as they did, that to their actions there was no consequence, then when presented with the choice to lie, or steal, or cheat, or kill, they would not hesitate to involve themselves in such deeds, especially if said deeds in some way proved beneficial to their overall wellness or prosperity. The entire concept behind society is to rule and direct and contain. And if that ability to command is challenged in any way, by anything, then whatever that thing is, presenting said challenge, it must be done away with. Which is why you see today’s prevailing belief to be that your actions do indeed significantly impact your course of destination. Funny how fickle divine law can be, isn't it?

There is no such thing as conscience, of inherently knowing right from wrong. Those feelings are ingrained in us from the time of our birth, onwards. And people are cowardly creatures. They’ll do or say just about anything to save their own skin. So if you beat them over the head long enough with what you say they can and cannot do, they’ll start to believe in their subconscious mind that what you’ve said is indisputable fact, the be all and end all of universal principle. And if they believe you able to form their suffering, to cause them harm, emotional, physical or otherwise, and if they believe in your willingness to exert this capacity over them if ever they should confront or disregard what you’ve told them is and is not acceptable, well, then they are yours to control. And it’s all based on fear, all based on a primal, animalistic instinct to survive. Not off of some inner sense of integrity, piousness, or an intuitive comprehension of what is virtuous and what is iniquitous. Not on purity of heart or kindliness, but on people’s fear. Fear for themselves, for their lives, for their freedom, their health, their happiness, and for their souls.

The things people would do if they didn’t think they’d get caught! But they know they will, they’re afraid of what may happen to them, and so they live out their pathetic and meaningless existence in misery, in the death grip of a system which cares only to bridle their lives and exercise determination over who they are, where they go and what they do. And the lemmings that they are, they actually believe all that hoopla they’re fed about how freedom isn’t free and about having certain, inalienable rights.

#6 Atheists have no reason to feel pity for anyone or anything.
Sure Atheists may feel pity in their hearts of hearts but philosophically they have no reason to. Carving another human being up to them is just like carving a pig.

… Uh… no. Just no. We object to murdering those of our race as a society.

#7 Threw out human history there have never been any other gods but God.
God is the only God humanity ever had. Sure various confused pagans called God by different names like Thor, Zeus, Angra Mainyu and Kali but that has always been God. The past was not atheists, it Was Christian.

You couldn’t be more wrong.

#8 There were false gods, but they were false because they exist within the Universe, not outside it.
No atheist can show us a false god who existed outside the universe so case closed.

... What? Throughout history, all gods exist outside the universe. Brahma, for instance, in the Hindu faith.

#9 Any religion younger than Christianity is just a copy of Christianity.
Since Christianity is the Gold standard of morality all other religions just copy Christian doctrine like Islam. Atheism is younger than Christianity therefor Atheism is a mockery of Christianity.

Again, that makes no sense. So Christianity, which started in around 20 A.D., influenced paganism, which started in 1000 B.C.? What, through an interesting accident involving hyperdimensionality and time travel?

#10 Only Christianity has ever had the idea of an eternal, infinite creator God.
No one, not the Egyptians, the Meso-Americans or even the Sumerians has a infinite God. Even Atheism doesn't have an infinite creator God.

Dead wrong.

I await your rebuttals to my points Atheists.

Your wait is over.

[Lycia The Repentant]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

Your wait is over.

Actually, we're still waiting on you to respond to Brother Bobby-Joe's point #3. Until you can do that, there's simply no reason to respond to the rest of your drivel. Consider your argument crushed.

[Stella LaForte]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

Actually, we're still waiting on you to respond to Brother Bobby-Joe's point #3. Until you can do that, there's simply no reason to respond to the rest of your drivel. Consider your argument crushed.

Ah, you mean to say I wasted ten minutes of my life writing all that... What a shame, I feel I pulled out fairly good conjectures. I'd appreciate if you'd forgo the alleged nonexistent point 3 and carry on!

[Lycia The Repentant]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

Ah, you mean to say I wasted ten minutes of my life writing all that... What a shame, I feel I pulled out fairly good conjectures. I'd appreciate if you'd forgo the alleged nonexistent point 3 and carry on!

Why should I even bother? You'll just pretend my points are nonexistent like you're pretending Bobby-Joe's point 3 is.

Its truly sad that when an atheist sees something that disagrees with and completely crushes their Dawkins and science books, they instead turn to WILLFUL ignorance and blatantly ignore the evidence in front of them.

Sorry dear, but just because you don't like the evidence that disproves your monkey religion doesn't mean its not there!

[Stella LaForte]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

Why should I even bother? You'll just pretend my points are nonexistent like you're pretending Bobby-Joe's point 3 is.

Its truly sad that when an atheist sees something that disagrees with and completely crushes their Dawkins and science books, they instead turn to WILLFUL ignorance and blatantly ignore the evidence in front of them.

Sorry dear, but just because you don't like the evidence that disproves your monkey religion doesn't mean its not there!

I wish I had read this thread in its entirety before posting.
In short:

[Rev. Jim Osborne]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

I love to pick apart your arguments. They're tight enough to offer a challenge, yet still wrong enough to show you your place.

Actually, Hitler was Catholic, not an atheist. The communists were not atheists either - the Communist party was their god. As for the New Deal, that was American - remember, "One nation under god"? And the Spanish Inquisition was Catholic, not atheist! On the contrary, Lincoln and FDR were atheists. Presently the presidents of Brazil, Argentina and Chile are atheists. All three countries are on the move - in fact, historians are calling it "The South American Century."

Hitler may have been Catholic, but he wasn't the same as the Nazi party. The Nazis had a lot of atheists, pagans, and Catholics in there. So yes, Bobby-Joe is right that Naziism was at least partially inspired by atheism. As for the New Deal, that was American, but it was also traitorous. Roosevelt (whom you admit was an atheist) created the New Deal and was inspired by the atheist Joseph Stalin and copied the reforms he was doing in Russia. Finally, no one has said this is going to be a South American century. If anything, people are saying this is the Chinese century.

However, your admittedly poor choices of examples are not the point. There are "good" and "bad" people of each affiliation - and I'll note that atheist countries have lower crime rates than religious ones!

That's because they have different standards of what "crime" is. To an immoral atheist, practically anything goes. Since most immoral, criminal behavior like homosexuality, pre-marital sex, environmentalism, secularism, etc. is legal in a county, obviously they are going to have a low crime rate, technically.

… Uh, no. When a building collapses in an earthquake, it means that there was a sudden release in energy in the Earth’s crust that led to the creation of cosmic waves. And religion has nothing to do with the theory of conscience – any human possessing one will feel pity for those victims of natural disasters, atheists and Christians alike.

Cosmic waves? Even your secularist friends would disagree with you! They're called seismic waves.

Humans are bipedal primates in the Hominidae family. Pigs are even-toed ungulates in the Suidae family. And they are a product of natural selection and evolution, not, as you say, “random chance.” In fact, there is no chance involved.

If there is no chance, then it would have to be planned. So you are admitting in that intelligent design exists.

However, pigs and humans are both animals that are slaves to their brainstems, perpetually locked in conflict with their primordial urges. Therein lie the similarities and differences. And it’s quite an unnecessarily egotistical perspective to say that animals are simply tools for our use, and an incorrect one at that. We mean no more than any other animal. We are all simply life forms.

I love how you atheists like to parade around your idea that "morality is subjective" yet the idea of one animal using another as a tool is "wrong".

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS OBJECTIVE MORALITY. Morality is a myth. There is no difference between right and wrong, because right and wrong do not exist. I could lend any desired import to these terms, and who could tell me I am wrong? Concepts are ideas, fantasies; products of the imagination. There is no absolute meaning in any of it, no truth, no purport; no actuality. And this is proven by how often society’s notion of morality changes, how often they amend what is considered acceptable and what is considered taboo. In the end, all morality is is a set of directives put in place to support self- preservation. And those shift and morph and alter as needed. If the law no longer serves to uphold people’s survival, then that law is either modified or eliminated. But people don’t actually care about these things, about their notions of virtue or honour or benevolence; of good or evil. They simply wish not to perish, or to suffer.

Looks like I predicted that.

When religion propagated foreordination, a divine decree predetermining all souls to either heaven or hell, people endeavored to engage in all manner of “morally questionable” acts, at least in relation to what today is considered improper or unethical comportment, because there existed no fear for their immortal essence. If, by this belief, all people are preselected by God to eternal salvation or damnation, without consideration of their actions, there then is no occasion for them to act in accordance to any code of supposed proper conduct. And when you have nothing with which to threaten, that is when you lose control. And control is power. The church soon realised this. If people truly believed, as they did, that to their actions there was no consequence, then when presented with the choice to lie, or steal, or cheat, or kill, they would not hesitate to involve themselves in such deeds, especially if said deeds in some way proved beneficial to their overall wellness or prosperity. The entire concept behind society is to rule and direct and contain. And if that ability to command is challenged in any way, by anything, then whatever that thing is, presenting said challenge, it must be done away with. Which is why you see today’s prevailing belief to be that your actions do indeed significantly impact your course of destination. Funny how fickle divine law can be, isn't it?

There is no such thing as conscience, of inherently knowing right from wrong. Those feelings are ingrained in us from the time of our birth, onwards. And people are cowardly creatures. They’ll do or say just about anything to save their own skin. So if you beat them over the head long enough with what you say they can and cannot do, they’ll start to believe in their subconscious mind that what you’ve said is indisputable fact, the be all and end all of universal principle. And if they believe you able to form their suffering, to cause them harm, emotional, physical or otherwise, and if they believe in your willingness to exert this capacity over them if ever they should confront or disregard what you’ve told them is and is not acceptable, well, then they are yours to control. And it’s all based on fear, all based on a primal, animalistic instinct to survive. Not off of some inner sense of integrity, piousness, or an intuitive comprehension of what is virtuous and what is iniquitous. Not on purity of heart or kindliness, but on people’s fear. Fear for themselves, for their lives, for their freedom, their health, their happiness, and for their souls.

The things people would do if they didn’t think they’d get caught! But they know they will, they’re afraid of what may happen to them, and so they live out their pathetic and meaningless existence in misery, in the death grip of a system which cares only to bridle their lives and exercise determination over who they are, where they go and what they do. And the lemmings that they are, they actually believe all that hoopla they’re fed about how freedom isn’t free and about having certain, inalienable rights.

So you admit you have no morals. Thanks for proving his point!

… Uh… no. Just no. We object to murdering those of our race as a society.

Wait, NOW you have morals? Okay, I'm confused.

You couldn’t be more wrong.

No. You're wrong.

... What? Throughout history, all gods exist outside the universe. Brahma, for instance, in the Hindu faith.

Nothing can exist outside of the universe besides God. Brahma is not God and therefore cannot exist outside of the universe.

Again, that makes no sense. So Christianity, which started in around 20 A.D., influenced paganism, which started in 1000 B.C.? What, through an interesting accident involving hyperdimensionality and time travel?

Yet...yet...you will be so quick to defend your beliefs in string theory and quantum physics and say that time is relative because of Einstein's equations, blah blah blah. I love how you suddenly surrender your beliefs when it suits you.

Dead wrong.

No. YOU are dead wrong.

Your wait is over.

Still waiting.

[Stella LaForte]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

I love to pick apart your arguments. They're tight enough to offer a challenge, yet still wrong enough to show you your place.

Why, thank you. Although I assure you, I'm nowhere near as wrong as you think, for you operate under assumptions that cannot be proven - the very same thing you criticised me of doing in another post, I recall.

Hitler may have been Catholic, but he wasn't the same as the Nazi party. The Nazis had a lot of atheists, pagans, and Catholics in there. So yes, Bobby-Joe is right that Naziism was at least partially inspired by atheism. As for the New Deal, that was American, but it was also traitorous. Roosevelt (whom you admit was an atheist) created the New Deal and was inspired by the atheist Joseph Stalin and copied the reforms he was doing in Russia. Finally, no one has said this is going to be a South American century. If anything, people are saying this is the Chinese century.

Very true. However, Hitler was responsible for the Nazi party and he was a Catholic, so the views of Naziism are essentially his own, seeing as he embodied the idealogy completely. And you're comparing the New Deal with Josef Stalin's Five Year Plans, I trust. They have their similarites, they have their differences.

But my real point here was that the religious affiliation of the leader does not matter. The religions of the leaders are not a reflective of the religions of the people. Also, there are, as I said, "good" and "bad" people in each religion, so that argument is baseless.

That's because they have different standards of what "crime" is. To an immoral atheist, practically anything goes. Since most immoral, criminal behavior like homosexuality, pre-marital sex, environmentalism, secularism, etc. is legal in a county, obviously they are going to have a low crime rate, technically.

Homosexuality, pre-marital sex, environmentalism, secularism, etc. are all legal in both the United Kingdom and the United States, for an example. However, the predominately atheist United Kingdom has - by percent - a much lower crime rate than the predominately religious country of the United States. And how do you go about questioning these things as immoral? And how can environmentalism be considered criminal?

Cosmic waves? Even your secularist friends would disagree with you! They're called seismic waves.

And that, my friend, was a typo. May you please proceed and "pick apart my argument" as if I had not made that typo? I assure you, I do not believe that cosmic waves cause earthquakes. However, cosmic waves are theoretical gravitational distortions thought to cause spacequakes, for your reference.

If there is no chance, then it would have to be planned. So you are admitting in that intelligent design exists.

No random chance, that is. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.


Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.
(Also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.)

I love how you atheists like to parade around your idea that "morality is subjective" yet the idea of one animal using another as a tool is "wrong".

Looks like I predicted that.

So you admit you have no morals. Thanks for proving his point!

I'm not arguing that morality is subjective, I'm arguing that morality in the way we define it does not exist. Nothing can truly be considered "right" and "wrong." And no, I did not prove his point that Only biblical faith offers objective standards of good and evil.

Wait, NOW you have morals? Okay, I'm confused.

It is not I that have that moral opinion, but rather, it is society as a whole. Society would have you believe that to take a human life is categorically wrong. Sinful, immoral, evil. Yet even in labelling the act with such superficial and vacant words, they, in the same breath, will tell you there are indeed exceptions to the rule. Killing becomes suddenly acceptable if committed in what they deem the proper context. If, for example, two countries are embroiled with one another in war, killing not only is considered excusable, it is expected and even encouraged. Still, of course, within the perimeters they have outlined, with the weapons they have provided, just so it appears as something controlled and civil. Still, the end result remains the same. You have still taken a life. Nothing more, nothing less. Or, let us say you find yourself the target of some attack, your physical well being under threat, well, then it is alright to kill too! After all, it was either you or them. Why, they have even produced an excuse for themselves committing what has been deemed the ultimate trespass! If one executes the expiration of another, then that in turn gives justifiable cause to carry out the same upon them, the death penalty, they like to call it. Killing validates killing. When done within a certain set of boundaries, within a milieu they’ve determined proper, it no longer is referred to as murder, no, now it is self-defense, man-slaughter, enemy-fire, punishment, so on and so forth. Still, as I said, the outcome is immutable. It seems a tad hypocritical, does it not? If it is an irrefutable truth that killing is wrong, then how can it ever be right? And why then is it considered an act of evil when only people are involved? It isn’t called murder when we kill an animal outside our own species. It isn’t called murder when other animals kill each other. They may tell you those animals don’t possess the mental capacity to comprehend what death is. And that makes their demise somehow less profound then our own, less meaningful? Don’t other animals run when faced with danger too? Don’t they fight to survive the same as we? Of course they do! People don’t understand what death is either. That’s why they’re so afraid of it. It isn’t something they can contain or rule or explain away with fanciful terminology. And when confronted by it, they react as any creature would. The will to live is rooted in nothing more intricate then instinct. People are animals too, and we all are governed by the same basic principles. Not the precepts which keep managed the pretentious world we’ve created around ourselves so that we might feel some form of significance, but the order of nature! The answer is that killing is neither wrong nor right. It just is. The laws people have created, the way in which they qualify everything by assigning it a meaning, a definition, a reason; it all is for one purpose and one purpose alone. To keep them alive.

No. You're wrong.

Okay, then ignore every single other god that has ever been conceived

Nothing can exist outside of the universe besides God. Brahma is not God and therefore cannot exist outside of the universe.

The original poster said "No atheist can show us a false god who existed outside the universe." He says false god. Now, we are assuming for this post that the true god, then, is the god of Christianity, and that all others are false. I showed that there are false gods such as Brahma that, in theory, existed outside the universe in the same way that the Christian God does.

Yet...yet...you will be so quick to defend your beliefs in string theory and quantum physics and say that time is relative because of Einstein's equations, blah blah blah. I love how you suddenly surrender your beliefs when it suits you.

Ah, not at all. I was simply stating that time travel is currently impossible, because time is not a location you can travel to and fro in.The illusion that time passes is an accident of our nervous system. Time itself is invariant. It just is, as is everything else. But that wasn't even the point. Your theory that Christianity influenced all past religions is only possible with time travel. Now, may you please reference where in the Bible you found evidence of this time travel to back your proposition?

No. YOU are dead wrong.

Okay, let's use Brahma again! Hinduism too had the idea of the infinite eternal creation god. So is the god of Judaism.

Still waiting.

Yeah, and now I am. Again.

[Rev. Jim Osborne]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

I'm getting really, really tired of your plagiarism from the internet. The fact is you are so dense, you can't counter my arguments on your own. So not only are you an idiot, you're also a thief.

Any further plagiarism will result in your posting priveleges being revoked.

[Stella LaForte]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

I'm getting really, really tired of your plagiarism from the internet. The fact is you are so dense, you can't counter my arguments on your own. So not only are you an idiot, you're also a thief.

Any further plagiarism will result in your posting priveleges being revoked.

It's the same argument any atheist would present to you, and for the sake of time, I copied and pasted it. I have not done any such thing in this discussion besides that instance, and that one instance in which an argument is consistant always from one clearly defined side.

So as to avoid this, might I have the definition of that which this site deems plagiarism? If one cites where information is taken from, is it considered plagiarism here?

And I'm sure you'll find all content here to be original, so I really would like to continue this discussion. I apologise for any inconveniences.

[Billy Bob Jenkins]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

So as to avoid this, might I have the definition of that which this site deems plagiarism?

The same definition of plagiarism as anywhere: misrepresenting another author's work as your own.

[Stella LaForte]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

The same definition of plagiarism as anywhere: misrepresenting another author's work as your own.

My mistake; if I ever intend to make use of an alternate resource, I shall be sure to cite it in the future.

[Lisa H]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

My mistake; if I ever intend to make use of an alternate resource, I shall be sure to cite it in the future.

I am disappointed even more now. You have been stealing other peoples work. Is there no end to atheist lies.

[Brother Temperance]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

The communists were not atheists either - the Communist party was their god.

That's not how words work. You can't just deny that someone's an atheist just because you're ashamed of them. The Communists clearly did not see the Party as an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being ruling over the universe. They were atheists who did terrible things. Deal with it.

As for the New Deal, that was American - remember, "One nation under god"?

So everything in American history is now Christian, is it? I wish that was true, but it isn't, so you're still an idiot.

On the contrary, Lincoln and FDR were atheists.

So if FDR invented the New Deal, and FDR was an atheist, does that make the New Deal atheist or Christian? Think carefully here.

Humans are bipedal primates in the Hominidae family. Pigs are even-toed ungulates in the Suidae family. And they are a product of natural selection and evolution, not, as you say, “random chance.” In fact, there is no chance involved. However, pigs and humans are both animals that are slaves to their brainstems, perpetually locked in conflict with their primordial urges. Therein lie the similarities and differences. And it’s quite an unnecessarily egotistical perspective to say that animals are simply tools for our use, and an incorrect one at that. We mean no more than any other animal. We are all simply life forms.

So basically you agree completely with

To an atheists there is no difference between an animal and a human
To an Atheist A pig or a human, an ape or a human, what is the difference?

That's what you're saying. You think that carving up a human is the same as eating some ham, because (your words) "We mean no more than any other animal. We are all simply life forms."
Thanks for proving BJ right, you sociopathic false atheist scumbag.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS OBJECTIVE MORALITY. Morality is a myth. There is no difference between right and wrong, because right and wrong do not exist.

Again, you've proved his point about how atheists have no morals. Point 5: proved!

The things people would do if they didn’t think they’d get caught! But they know they will, they’re afraid of what may happen to them, and so they live out their pathetic and meaningless existence in misery, in the death grip of a system which cares only to bridle their lives and exercise determination over who they are, where they go and what they do. And the lemmings that they are, they actually believe all that hoopla they’re fed about how freedom isn’t free and about having certain, inalienable rights.

You hate-filled atheist misanthropes really don't like people very much, do you?

… Uh… no. Just no. We object to murdering those of our race as a society.

Let's look at what's been said here again, shall we?
"Carving another human being up to them is just like carving a pig."
"We mean no more than any other animal. We are all simply life forms."
"We object to murdering those of our race as a society."
"The answer is that killing is neither wrong nor right. It just is."
You're confirming BJ's points more and more.

You couldn’t be more wrong.

That's not an argument. Or, to put it another way: no u

... What? Throughout history, all gods exist outside the universe. Brahma, for instance, in the Hindu faith.

He was born in a lotus flower. That's hardly outside the universe, now is it?

Again, that makes no sense. So Christianity, which started in around 20 A.D., influenced paganism, which started in 1000 B.C.? What, through an interesting accident involving hyperdimensionality and time travel?

God before the beginning of the universe. They weren't influenced by Christianity, but by God.

Dead wrong.

That's not an argument. Or, to put it another way: no u

Very true. However, Hitler was responsible for the Nazi party and he was a Catholic, so the views of Naziism are essentially his own, seeing as he embodied the idealogy completely...
But my real point here was that the religious affiliation of the leader does not matter.

Let's look at that one again:

Very true. However, Hitler was responsible for the Nazi party and he was a Catholic, so the views of Naziism are essentially his own, seeing as he embodied the idealogy completely...
But my real point here was that the religious affiliation of the leader does not matter.

Pick one or the other and stick with it. At the moment, you're just making yourself sound ridiculous.

Homosexuality, pre-marital sex, environmentalism, secularism, etc. are all legal in both the United Kingdom and the United States, for an example. However, the predominately atheist United Kingdom has - by percent - a much lower crime rate than the predominately religious country of the United States. And how do you go about questioning these things as immoral? And how can environmentalism be considered criminal?

Because they go against the objective standards of morality. And why not ask Jeff Luers?

I'm not arguing that morality is subjective, I'm arguing that morality in the way we define it does not exist. Nothing can truly be considered "right" and "wrong." And no, I did not prove his point that Only biblical faith offers objective standards of good and evil.

Let's look at this argument again, and see what we can take from it:
Bobby-Joe: Only biblical faith offers objective standards of good and evil.
Idiotic atheist wop sex criminal: No, that is not true, for I do not believe in the Bible and I don't have objective standards of good and evil.
Seriously, how can you not realise how stupid that is?

The laws people have created, the way in which they qualify everything by assigning it a meaning, a definition, a reason; it all is for one purpose and one purpose alone. To keep them alive.

What about the rules of chess? How do those laws help keep anyone alive?

The original poster said "No atheist can show us a false god who existed outside the universe." He says false god. Now, we are assuming for this post that the true god, then, is the god of Christianity, and that all others are false. I showed that there are false gods such as Brahma that, in theory, existed outside the universe in the same way that the Christian God does.

No, you claimed. That's not the same thing as showing.

Okay, let's use Brahma again! Hinduism too had the idea of the infinite eternal creation god. So is the god of Judaism.

Brahma cannot be infinite, otherwise Hindus would be monotheistic, which they aren't. And the God of the Old Testament is the God of Christianity.

[WinnerNotSinner]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

It's the same argument any atheist would present to you, and for the sake of time, I copied and pasted it. I have not done any such thing in this discussion besides that instance, and that one instance in which an argument is consistant always from one clearly defined side.

Is there no end to your lies? you did exactly the same thing a couple pages back!

From page 10

There is no difference between right and wrong, because right and wrong do not exist. I could lend any desired import to these terms, and who could tell me I am wrong? Concepts are ideas, fantasies; products of the imagination. There is no absolute meaning in any of it, no truth, no purport; no actuality. And this is proven by how often society’s notion of morality changes, how often they amend what is considered acceptable and what is considered taboo. In the end, all morality is is a set of directives put in place to support self- preservation. And those shift and morph and alter as needed. If the law no longer serves to uphold people’s survival, then that law is either modified or eliminated. But people don’t actually care about these things, about their notions of virtue or honour or benevolence; of good or evil. They simply wish not to perish, or to suffer. [/FONT]

http://www.xkaw.com/Arts_Humanities/Philosophy.asp?id=1498376

It must be really annoying to not know how to think for yourself!

(Revelation 21:8, Proverbs 19:9)

[Stella LaForte]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

Is there no end to your lies? you did exactly the same thing a couple pages back!

From page 10

http://www.xkaw.com/Arts_Humanities/Philosophy.asp?id=1498376

It must be really annoying to not know how to think for yourself!

(Revelation 21:8, Proverbs 19:9)

Thank you very much for pointing out that site to me.

I wrote that.

As clearly shown here, where I originally posted it: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...9000441AAJ3Mfx

Again, thank you. I'll ask that site to either take it down or credit me.