Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion

So why choose Christianity (or any religion?) over atheism?

It is comical that almost 100% of the time I question Atheists about their atheism they respond that they haven't questioned it (AT ALL). They just assumed it as a reliable default position for Peace and love and meaning.

After I stop laughing... I then respond that I question atheism as simply another worldview that has a lot to answer for.
Is Christianity hard to believe: You bet it is. God never said it would be easy. Is Atheism hard to believe: It's basically impossible. I only have to talk to an atheist for 2 minutes before they start breaking their own rules and ethics AND morality (if they even have any?). Thankfully, they usually do have endless beliefs ---- most of them borrowed from Christianity.

When an atheist says that rape is wrong: Why?

When an atheist says that slavery is wrong: Why?

When an atheist says that war is wrong: Why?

When an atheist says that Bullying is wrong: Why?

When an atheist says that pedophilia is wrong: Why?

Then they wonder why nobody wants to vote for an atheistic President. Same goes for an Atheistic Counselor or Dr..
We all know what atheistic scientists are capable of, same goes for atheistic Pimps and Drug Lords.

The joke goes: Walk into a bar with 10 atheists --- and 10 different fights broke out... none of them over religion.

My Newspapers are filled with violence and abuse and people lying and complaining and deceiving each other...

Almost none of this content is religious. Simple humanism at it's typical daily muckery. And Atheism claims to hate religion???

I'm a Christian because the Bible carefully responds to all these issues in a fashion that I find logical and rational and loving.

Rod wrote: "So why choose Christianity (or any religion?) over atheism?

It is comical that almost 100% of the time I question Atheists about their atheism they respond that they haven't questioned it (AT ALL..."

Exactly! I watch and read a lot of content by atheists and ultimately they don't provide sufficient answers to address the important issues of life. Ask an atheist why humans should not eat each other; either they appeal to an objective standard condemning the behavior, refuting their own atheistic position, or they end up saying, "because they don't taste good!" Then they have no justification except their own preferences.

Yes, exactly.

Spot on, Rod. "Simple humanism." You couldn't be more correct. Humanism masquerades in various ways, but at its core, it's rebellious to the truth of the gospel.

Rod - I'm not sure how atheistic most scientists are although they don't automatically cede what they can't explain to the supernatural. They feel it is their duty to find quantitative explanations to complex natural phenomenon that appear inexplicable. I agree with them because any other approach is either blind faith or superstition. I am Christian, but didn't come to Belief easily. However, after much soul searching, like you, I find the triune God logical, rational, and loving. Silly science (and scientists), of course, abound, but among the seekers of truth, there is at least some awareness of mortal limitations and a slight inkling that some knowledge remains in the metaphysical and deserves some (not enough, in most cases) exploration.

Christianity is more faithful to, and a fuller explanation of the phenomenal world than atheism, and it isn't a close contest. Atheism is a self refuting philosophy, for the simple reason that it negates the possibility of agency and reason, the very tools that the atheist attempts to use to prove his own position. The atheist tries to pull the wagon in which he sits. It can't be done.

Christianity explains the existence of evil -- atheism (if it is consistent) denies the existence of evil.

Christianity explains the existence of mind, reason, free will, and intentionality -- atheism (if it is consistent) must deny all of these.

Christianity explains beginnings (life, mind, universe) -- atheism cannot.

Christianity has a foundation for and affirms objective moral law -- atheism (if it is consistent) must deny any absolute moral law. So called moral laws are reduced to personal preferences (or, more accurately, blind impersonal forces) in any and every case.

Christianity accurately insisted that the universe has an absolute beginning -- atheism inaccurately insisted -- and in some cases still insists -- that the universe is eternally self existent.

Christianity is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics -- atheism and scientism deny it, and use Just So stories to account for the obvious contradiction of reality.

Christianity accounts for the fine tuning of the universe -- atheists flippantly insist we "got lucky" -- or make up stories about infinite multiverses.

Christianity accounts for the presence of encyclopedic (to understate it) amounts of information in biology; and also accounts for the presence of complex language in biology -- atheism continues to place its faith in made-up, unconvincing narratives.

Christianity accounts for the impossible statistical odds stacked against the notion of Darwinian evolution -- atheists continue to comfort each other with simple stories.

Christianity offers hope and purpose - atheism offers nihilism and purposelessness.

Christianity offers love -- atheism must deny love's existence.

Christianity accounts for the existence of male and female (the irreducible complexity of which is logically inescapable) -- atheism makes up more stories.

Christianity offers a high view of man, a rational self-directed creation that is an object of God's love and concern, and who bears His very image, making people intrinsically valuable -- atheism says mankind is nothing more than another animal in the continuum, driven by appetite, instinct, and genetics. To quote evolutionary biologists, man is no more than a "fighting, fleeing, feeding and fucking" meat machine. The unavoidable end of such a view is that mankind is not "worth" anything. Worth obviously implying some objective assessment by a judge or estimator.

I am quite sure this list could be expanded significantly.

Well done, Ned.

Thanks Robert and Ned. Good thoughts.

As one famous atheist basically stated: "the big question is why mankind doesn't simply commit suicide sooner or later?"

Christianity gives many reasons not too. Not so simple a question for Buddhism and Hinduism. It's almost a form of embracing enlightenment for new age and the occult.

Can secular science justify NOT committing suicide at the slightest bit of pain or despair?

Rod wrote: "Can secular science justify NOT committing suicide at the slightest bit of pain or despair?"

Thanks, Rod and Wade.

Rod: that is exactly what the philosophy of existentialism attempts -- not very convincingly if you ask me. The idea is basically to overcome nihilism with passion. The illustration of Sisyphus is used. Sisyphus is supposed to find meaning by rolling the rock up the hill with all the passion and enthusiasm he can manage, thus deriving meaning from within himself. Like I said, not very convincing. Camus wrestled with this question head-on. This short explanation is worth a read.

I don't believe there's any such thing as a true atheist. There are only those who refuse to relinquish their godship to their creator, where it rightly belongs.

Is there anything more UN-scientific than proposing that everything came from nothing based on merely the natural world? Logic dictates something above nature (literally, "super" natural) as the first cause. Ned's arguments are all spot-on, but if those are for longer conversations. Atheists typically only desire "drive thru" conversations so they can lay out their Richard Dawkins talking points, then walk away. In those cases, the First Cause is where I dig in, because it's impossible to overcome with ridiculous theories like the multiverse generator.

If there is a multiverse generator, where did it come from???

You are probably right, Wade. I have yet to meet a consistent atheist, one who is willing to follow his philosophy to its logical conclusions. They really don't want to think too hard, and are content to live incoherently. I think most fall into the category of Thomas Nagel when he says the following:

“I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about human life, including everything about the human mind …. This is a somewhat ridiculous situation …. [I]t is just as irrational to be influenced in one’s beliefs by the hope that God does not exist as by the hope that God does exist.”

Nagel knows he is big inconsistent. I agree with him is a sense. It is unsettling to consider that first there is death and then judgment, unsettling to think there is a hell, unsettling to think that God is holy and His standard is perfection, unsettling to realize that Jesus calls all who would be His disciples to "die to self." Nevertheless, hope is not a strategy, and I am compelled by evidence to accept all of the above. That is why Nagel's and other's concept of God as "wish fulfillment" is simply false. I would not wish the kind of God we have. A god of my invention or fashioned by my desires would be far different.

Thanks for your comments, Ned. Back when I lived in my unbelief, I retained my own godship because I loved my sin. That's the case for all of us until we repent and turn towards God.

Virtually the entire bible gets down to this one thing - Exodus 20:3 tells us we shall have no other gods before Him. Once you accept that as truth, everything else in the bible cascades downward from this basic essential truth.

When you marry in Hebrews 11:6, which tells us it is impossible to please God without faith, you then have the world we see; one which has evidence, but no "proof" on either side of the debate.

For me and my house, we will choose to serve the Lord. It's not only true, but the "fringe benefits" are out of this world. In no other world religion or scenario do we see a God who doesn't ask us to die for Him - He died for us.

Good stuff.
Yes, it's amusing for people to attack Christianity. But I'm always aware of what they're standing on while doing so. Most are very sensitive about even pointing at it...

Now where's our Stewie?

Stuart is likely reading his "freethinkers" guide. I truly hope he comes in with something more substantial than he previously has.

I applaud him questioning Christianity--- but I've never seen a person do it properly.

I've never met a freethinker who notices their cage.

HOPE - Christianity
vs.
HOPELESSNESS - Atheism

Besides, who wants to be a fool?

Psalm 14:1 - "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

Psalm 53:1 - "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good."

I've never met a freethinker who was actually a free thinker.

Rod (msg. 12) - you sure nailed contemporary science in the gut with this one although you probably don't realize how. True science isn't concerned with morality, only fact-finding. Applied science, especially medicine, finds itself more driven by ethical concerns. It is the "new" sciences (evolution, ecology, environmental biology, etc.) that try to instill a passion play into the interaction between man, other living things, and nature. As a hard core "purist", I condemn these disciplines forever to the arts where they can be grouped with home economics and criminal justice as worthless wastes of time.

Wade wrote: "Stuart is likely reading his "freethinkers" guide. I truly hope he comes in with something more substantial than he previously has."

Well hello, I hadn't noticed this thread in which I've been mentioned.

Who or what I am doesn't really matter when we're discussing topics. It's the topic that matters.

But as the only Atheist here (I suspect) I'll chip in a bit.

Atheists generally do not say "there is no God".

Atheists simply do not follow anyone's version of "God", because no one ever offers the tiniest scrap of evidence that their version of "God" is anything other than imaginary.

And that includes the mythological Jewish deity, Yahweh.

And the mythological Hindu deity, Brahma, and all the others.

And the mythological Zoroastrian deity, Ahura Mazda etc. etc.

Atheism is not a philosophy.

Atheism is not a religion.

Atheism is not even an "-ism".

Atheism is simply without theo - any theo.

But most of us are what you may call agnostic Atheists, as we leave the door wide open for anyone to demonstrate - in any manner of their choosing - that any version of "God" is anything other than imaginary.

But no one ever does.

We only ever get referred to "scripture".

The "scriptures" were penned by humans - I don't think anyone says they were penned by "God".

But no one ever demonstrates that any version of "God" had anything to do with any of the human writings.

I don't have a free-thinkers guide.

I don't know if there is one.

Let me just emphasise that Atheists generally do not say that there is no "God".

Christians do tend to say that we do, to bring us down to their level of argument.

Atheists simply do not accept any version of "God" until someone comes up with some good old-fashioned, down-to-earth, talking-donkey-free evidence for one or more of the competing "realities" - each of which is as convinced and faith-filled, and scripture-backed as the other.

Atheists have no rational basis for their unbelief.

Atheists (or whatever you call yourself) don't answer simple questions like what is the first cause? Where did everything come from?

Atheists never can defend their unbelief. They only spew canned, hateful remarks that ALWAYS try to take the intellectual high ground. This is laughable.

The evidence presented to the atheist Stuart is always ignored. Always.

Atheists know the truth because God made His presence apparent to them. See Romans 1:18-20.

Atheists say there is no evidence, but NEVER have answers to the evidence when it's presented.

Stuart is in atheist kindergarten and needs to learn how to be a better atheist by bringing at least one original thought.

Let me ask you this, Stuart. You keep asking for "evidence", which is all around you. Would you become a follower of Christ if you found it to be true? This is one simple question that requires a yes or no answer. Would you? Would you embrace eternal life where there is no pain or suffering anymore? Would you embrace the forgiveness of your sins?

Whoops, I landed on the salient issue here: those who claim to be atheists don't feel they need forgiveness for anything. And that, my friends, is the difference between a Christian and an atheist.

Your godship will die at the grave, Stuart. Please repent of your sins and follow Christ. I'll be praying for you.

This is just more incoherent nonsense from Stuart. It runs in the family.

"Our belief is not a belief." Christopher Hitchens

I am only to happy to agree with Stuart that his assertions stem from a foundation of nothingness.

Stuart I applaud your desperate passion, but your like a pirate trying to use a system of justice to shut down an orphanage run by nuns. You're breaking your own rules.

Your battling Disney Princesses - but at the end of the day you go home to Your own Disney Princess.

If you want to take down a religion - you have to do it from the inside out. Atheistic academics and logic are a contradictory joke to Christians. Your arguments stand on nothing.

Reminds me of the atheistic university professor who said there is no objective truth- then asked the Christian apologist how to get her students to stop cheating and lying. Bhaha.

Stewie your standing on the outside trying to barge against Christianity armed with barely a feather. Keep trying...

Here's a fun atheistic flailing that fails:
Your God is homophobic...

Nature itself is homophobic. A non-reproductive species that sits in the minuscule minority is doomed already. Empirical visual scientific methods AND logic state that part A fits into part B.

People have been trying to destroy Jesus and Christianity for a long long time... NONE have succeeded!

* They tried to kill the founder of Christianity, Jesus
- - - That did NOT work!

* They tried to kill the follower of Jesus
- - - That did NOT work!

* They tried to destroy the physical copies of God's Word, the Bible
- - - That did NOT work!

* They tried to undermine Christianity with FALSE cults and religions
- - - That did NOT work!

* They tried to destroy the credibility of Christianity with philosophy
- - - That did NOT work!

* They tried to destroy the credibility of Christianity with pseudo-science
- - - That did NOT work!

* They tried to destroy the credibility of Christianity with cultural aberrations
- - - That did NOT work!
_______________________________

Stuart is likewise failing in his efforts.

NOTHING can stop the TRUTH!

Ned wrote: "This is just more incoherent nonsense from Stuart. It runs in the family.

"Our belief is not a belief." Christopher Hitchens

I am only to happy to agree with Stuart that his assertions stem from ..."

I don't know precisely what Hitchens meant there.

Perhaps it's too clever for me.

It's certainly too clever for people who can't get past believing the universe was created by their leader ... who is going to burst through the clouds at any minute with armies of angels to exterminate non-Christians.

A good explanation of Atheism is found here:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism

The last person you should ask about Atheism (or Jesus) is a Christian. You rarely get a direct, honest, on-topic answer.

Robert wrote: "Besides, who wants to be a fool?

Psalm 14:1 - "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

Psalm 53:1 - "T..."

For once I agree with Robert.

That's why Atheists like me do not say "there is no God".

We leave the door wide open for the faith communities to demonstrate with just the tiniest shred of good hard evidence that THEIR mythological superbeing/s is/are God.

Not one of them ever does.

Christians with their genocidal Jewish Yahweh never do.

Offering the human-written cult propaganda is not evidence.

That is why we are a-theist.

We are without any version of "God".

"God" may exist. But the Yahweh and others are not "God" ... no matter how faithfully you believe.

People have been trying to destroy Jesus and Christianity for a long long time... NONE have succeeded!

* They tried to kill the founder of Christianity, Jesus
- - - That did NOT work!

* They tried to kill the follower of Jesus
- - - That did NOT work!

* They tried to destroy the physical copies of God's Word, the Bible
- - - That did NOT work!

* They tried to undermine Christianity with FALSE cults and religions
- - - That did NOT work!

* They tried to destroy the credibility of Christianity with philosophy
- - - That did NOT work!

* They tried to destroy the credibility of Christianity with pseudo-science
- - - That did NOT work!

* They tried to destroy the credibility of Christianity with cultural aberrations
- - - That did NOT work!
_______________________________

Stuart is likewise failing in his efforts.

NOTHING can stop the TRUTH!

Notice that Stuart won't answer the First Cause question? Yeah, atheists hate that one. Talk about the "tiniest shred". Yeah, all of creation is something north of "tiny".

Jesus awaits your repentance, Stuart.

Wade wrote: "Notice that Stuart won't answer the First Cause question? Yeah, atheists hate that one. Talk about the "tiniest shred". Yeah, all of creation is something north of "tiny".

Jesus awaits your repen..."

Stuart is a mythologist.

Stuart leaves "first cause" questions to scientists.

Stuart loves discussing biblical "first cause" mythology.

Christians rarely want to keep the spotlight on Jesus when it comes to questions of "first cause".

They play the deflection tricks.

And talk about everything and anything other than Jesus and the Creation mythology.

Stuart wrote: I don't know precisely what Hitchens meant there.

Perhaps it's too clever for me.

It's certainly too clever for people who can't get past believing the universe was created by their leader ... who is going to burst through the clouds at any minute with armies of angels to exterminate non-Christians.

The problem is not that Hitchens' words are "too clever" to be understood, the problem is that they are incoherent babel. Hitchens is saying exactly the same thing you are saying, only more succinctly.

"Our belief is not a belief" or, if you prefer, "Our ism is not an ism," to substitute your words. Both statements are patently ridiculous in that they violate all three basic rules of reason and logic.

First, the law of identity "A is A." Secondly, the law of non-contradiction, which states that "nothing can both be and not be at the same time in the same respect." Thirdly, the principle of the excluded middle, which states that "a factual statement and its denial cannot both be true."

I realize that in the age of postmodernist deconstructionism words are supposed to morph into whatever definition anyone happens to want to give them, but that is not a game I am interested in playing. Given such a dynamic, successful communication is all but impossible, as you regularly demonstrate here. In the world of Stuart, where atheism is not atheism and evidence is not evidence, some of us still prefer reality.

Atheism has a regular usage, "A" - without, "Theos" - God, and "ism" - "a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement."

Atheism is a denial of the existence of God, and the resulting emanations of that belief. If one wants to leave room for doubt, the correct term is agnosticism. Atheism is a particular worldview, religion, ideology, philosophy, or whatever you want to call it that has distinct repercussions with regard to four basic questions of life: origins, meaning, morality and destiny. All your silly denials and word parsing do not make it otherwise.

It is of note that, right after denying that Atheism is a particular philosophy, Hitchens famously offers his own version of the Ten Commandments, which I can only presume are to be taken as universal moral precepts superior to the Judeo-Christian precepts they mock:

I: Do not condemn people on the basis of their ethnicity or color.
II: Do not ever use people as private property.
III: Despise those who use violence or the threat of it in sexual relations.
IV: Hide your face and weep if you dare to harm a child.
V: Do not condemn people for their inborn nature.
VI: Be aware that you too are an animal and dependent on the web of nature, and think and act accordingly.
VII: Do not imagine that you can escape judgment if you rob people with a false prospectus rather than with a knife.
VIII: Turn off that fucking cell phone.
IX: Denounce all jihadists and crusaders for what they are: psychopathic criminals with ugly delusions.
X: Be willing to renounce any god or any religion if any holy commandments should contradict any of the above.

If the above does not represent a religious philosophy, then what does it represent? These may be said to be tongue in cheek, but only partially so, as cultural evidence abounds that vast numbers of people do take most of them seriously, and are perfectly willing to commit violence on their behalf. At least for violations "as they see them."

That atheism is a distinct philosophy is demonstrated by the fact that 1) it is a personal identity marker and 2) it is a group/cultural/political identity marker. I could make further points, but really, this is sufficient. Were atheism not a philosophy there would be nothing around which to rally.

Yep.great post Ned.

I've never met an atheist who questioned the atheism they are standing on.

If you can't be skeptical of the thing closest to you - how can you properly be skeptical of something distant?
Like a scientist who can't dress himself or get a date. "Bill Nye?"

Ned wrote:

"Atheism is a denial of the existence of God"

I suggest that Ned knows as well as I do that he has just lied.

This is what I said above:

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

Psalm 53:1 - "T..."

For once I agree with Robert.

That's why Atheists like me do not say "there is no God".

We leave the door wide open for the faith communities to demonstrate with just the tiniest shred of good hard evidence that THEIR mythological superbeing/s is/are God.

Not one of them ever does.

Christians with their genocidal Jewish Yahweh never do.

Offering the human-written cult propaganda is not evidence.

That is why we are a-theist.

We are without any version of "God".

"God" may exist. But the Yahweh and others are not "God" ... no matter how faithfully you believe.


People like Ned are why I find you often can't trust Christians.

For an honest and comprehensive view:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism

Ned wrote:

Atheism has a regular usage, "A" - without, "Theos" - God, and "ism" - "a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement."

Utter nonsense:

Someone who recognises stories of angels and talking donkeys as make-believe and gives the whole Christianity brainwashing a miss and plays baseball on Sunday morning and barely gives anyone's version of "God" another thought, is not engaging in any sort of distinctive practice.

For a capital A Atheist like me, it's different.

It is a deliberately adopted cultural marker.

Hitchens commandments are a parody.

Atheists generally don't have club rules or commandments or scriptures or dogmas or Heaven and hell or other extortions.

And we don't believe that Dawkins was fathered by a Middle East deity.

And we don't believe that Hitchens died for our sins.

And we don't need to pretend that secular laws were inscribed by the finger of Nye on a smokey mountain.

Christianity is make-believe.

Atheism is escaping the mind and money trap of the make-believe.

Stuart said: That's why Atheists like me do not say "there is no God".


Once more I will quote Stuart himself, who evidently has short term memory problems:

And "God" as Yahweh/Jesus/Holy Ghost cannot know the future EXACTLY because they are imaginary - just like all the other gods biblicists declare to be false gods. -- Stuart

And he actually has the audacity to accuse me of lying.

Ned wrote: "Stuart said: That's why Atheists like me do not say "there is no God".


Once more I will quote Stuart himself, who evidently has short term memory problems:

And "God" as Yahweh/Jesus/Holy Ghost ..."



Let's try this very carefully ...

I am not saying "there is no God"

I AM saying that the biblical Yahweh and others imaginings are not "God"

There may be "God" - but the God concept of the Bibles is as mythological as any other sky-dwelling, planet-flooding, virgin-impregnating superbeing.

Let's just make sure we've got it clear.

I am NOT saying there is no "God".

I AM saying Yahweh is NOT God.

The idea of "God" was around thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of years before Jewish people imagined their imaginary Yahweh.

Christians say that Atheists say there is no God

It's a foolish Atheist who says that.

Very few of us do.

We are atheists because we are without any version of Theos.

If people want to pin labels, we are ALSO agnostics because we leave the door wide open for Yahweh or Jesus or Krishna flutter in and present the evidence that they exist anywhere other than in the imaginations of believers.

Do I need to repeat that I am NOT saying there is no God ...?

Just in case my clear wording gets twisted and misrepresented again

And if I do make a typo - my position is very, very clear here.

Now about the independently verifiable evidence for Yahweh existing and fathering Jesus, please Ned ...?

And if Robert is reading, where's that evidence for 1600 years of biblical "scripture" ...?

I'm sure lying by omission is a sin ...

And Roddie, my old pal, I do question my Atheism all the time.

I constantly ask myself why I don't accept the belief that the universe was created by Ahura Mazda.

And I constantly ask myself why I don't accept the belief that the universe was created by Brahma.

And I constantly ask myself why I don't accept the belief that the universe was created by Allah

And I constantly ask myself why I don't accept the belief that the universe was created by the biblical Elohim

And I constantly ask myself why I don't accept the belief that the second biblical creation myth by Yahweh Elohim is not a contradiction of the first creation myth

And I constantly challenge myself to accept as God's own truth that the first human was created from mud by Yahweh in 4004 BCE.

But by clinging to the human weakness known as "faith" and not having the strength to break away from the psychological bonds of my social group, I remain clinging to my delusions and I howl and spit and divert attention onto anything other than a questioning of my delusions ... and I huddle securely within the group.

And it's the rest of the world that is always wrong.

Stewie what's wrong with genocide? What's wrong with slavery? What's wrong with rape?

What objective standard are you applying? We Christians know - but how do you?

Stewie it's not so much that you question atheism, but that you question YOUR worldview (which happens to be atheistic).

Explain why and how you exist?

Science very much dated man and creation back to about 4004. Not preferring it is your problem and bias. It's mostly an emotional issue for you.

Why can't you see that Genesis has only 1 creation account, then a zoom lens into it??? It's not rocket science- simply read the story.

Rod wrote: "Stewie what's wrong with genocide? What's wrong with slavery? What's wrong with rape?

What objective standard are you applying? We Christians know - but how do you?"

Hi Roddie - I'm going to forgive that thrown a diversion in right here.

And I'm going to look at it anyway.

Genocide - well obviously nothing's wrong with genocide.

It's biblically sanctioned.

Both the Elohim and Yahweh had flood myths where they drowned everyone who wasn't on the magic boat.

And Yahweh exterminated a whole bunch of Egyptian guys when he sent the Angel of Death

And Yahweh ordered the ethnic cleansing of Canaan.

And Jesus is about to burst through the clouds at any moment to slaughter billions of non-Christians.

From Genesis to Revelation, in God's own Word, genocide is fine.

Slavery is biblically OK too - think of the Hivites and think of the biblical reasons given for American slavery of the Sons of Cain - and the glorious Conquest features here too.

And rape - well think of the 400 virgins of Jabesh Gilead and the Hivite virgins and all the other war prizes that put ISIS down as Sunday schoolers.

If you consider these to be immoral, you need to take your moral compass outside the biblical writings.

But if your moral compass is still - supposedly - inside the Bibles, then you need to do what most Christians and use your human common sense to filter out the ones that are just plainly absurd, or you just don't like anymore because you're not going to stone your new wife because she had sex with other guys before she met you, and you really would like to take her to McDonald's for a cheeseburger on the Sabbath while she's menstruating.

Christians use their human value systems to cherry-pick the bits of the biblical writings that suit them.

Atheists, generally speaking, just use their human value systems.

Which is what the writers of the biblical "laws" did.

But they said that the laws came from "God" to keep the simple people under control.

And it works

You failed. Again. Please read the question slower.

No surprise that you're not changing anyone's mind here. Please keep trying - you're proving my point nicely.

this is very similar to the Nuremberg trials: How does a group with adjustable emotional standards judge another group of it's evil?
(What standard did the WWII allies use to judge the Nazi's?)

stewie wants some proof - yet he's given us nothing.

We Christians have a book from God that doesn't change. The phases of God's plan have changed slightly. But loving your neighbor and protecting your family AND TRUTH is not adjustable.

Atheists have no 10 commandments. They don't even have God's 2 commandments: Love God, Love your neighbor.

Atheists have: ... and ... (just blank space). all they have is live (maybe?) and then die (definitely). Anything in between is adjustable and purely emotional.

Stuart is fond of the word genocide, as well he should be, since it is a new word that had to be coined to describe the level of atrocity committed by atheists and its subgroups of secularists and Darwinists in the twentieth century. The bible, however, knows nothing of it. Biblical genocide is just one of the myriad myths, and impositions of modern thought onto the biblical text, spread by atheists to make themselves feel better. Nazi affinity for the atheistic work of both Darwin and Nietzsche is well known and well documented. Nietzsche himself predicted that great atrocities would be committed in the wake of the "death of God." Likewise Karl Marx, who considered dedicating his Das Kapital to Darwin, an honor which Darwin declined. No, the stinking, rotting albatross of genocide belongs around the neck of Stuart and those like him, who provide philosophical justification for nihilist thought.

As Ludmerer noted, the idea that the hereditary quality of the race can be improved by selective breeding is as old as Plato’s Republic but:

‘ … modern eugenics thought arose only in the nineteenth century. The emergence of interest in eugenics during that century had multiple roots. The most important was the theory of evolution, for Francis Galton’s ideas on eugenics — and it was he who created the term “eugenics” — were a direct logical outgrowth of the scientific doctrine elaborated by his cousin, Charles Darwin.’ 13

Nazi governmental policy was openly influenced by Darwinism, the Zeitgeist of both science and educated society of the time.10 This can be evaluated by an examination of extant documents, writings, and artefacts produced by Germany’s twentieth century Nazi movement and its many scientist supporters. Keith concluded the Nazi treatment of Jews and other ‘races’, then believed ‘inferior’, was largely a result of their belief that Darwinism provided profound insight that could be used to significantly improve humankind.14 Tenenbaum noted that the political philosophy of Germany was built on the belief that critical for evolutionary progress were:

‘ … struggle, selection, and survival of the fittest, all notions and observations arrived at … by Darwin … but already in luxuriant bud in the German social philosophy of the nineteenth century. … Thus developed the doctrine of Germany’s inherent right to rule the world on the basis of superior strength … [of a] “hammer and anvil” relationship between the Reich and the weaker nations.’ 14

As early as 1925, Hitler outlined his conclusion in Chapter 4 of Mein Kampf that Darwinism was the only basis for a successful Germany and which the title of his most famous work — in English My Struggle — alluded to. As Clark concluded, Adolf Hitler:

‘ …was captivated by evolutionary teaching — probably since the time he was a boy. Evolutionary ideas — quite undisguised — lie at the basis of all that is worst in Mein Kampf -and in his public speeches …. Hitler reasoned … that a higher race would always conquer a lower.’20

And Hickman adds that it is no coincidence that Hitler:

‘ … was a firm believer and preacher of evolution. Whatever the deeper, profound, complexities of his psychosis, it is certain that [the concept of struggle was important because] … his book, Mein Kampf, clearly set forth a number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those emphasizing struggle, survival of the fittest and the extermination of the weak to produce a better society.’

Then there is Stuart's affinity for the word "misogynist," which he guiltily attempts to shift to God's neck. Last time I checked, it is those of Stuart's persuasion who now regard the very word "female" as an insult and who insist that such distinctions are bigoted relics of the past.

Nietzsche despised religion in general, but upon Christianity he poured his unbridled fury:

"I call Christianity the one great curse, the one enormous and innermost perversion, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are too venomous, too underhanded, too underground, and too petty." (Nietzsche in "The Life of Nietzsche," Faru Forster Nietzsche, 1921, p. 656)

It was Nietzsche, the dark prophet, the son of a Lutheran pastor, who pronounced the death of God and saw that His death had already begun to,

"....cast its first shadows over Europe," and though "the event itself is far too great, too remote, too much beyond most people's power of apprehension, for one to suppose that so much as the report of it could have reached them," still its advent was certain, and it was men like Nietzsche who were "the firstlings and premature children of the coming century," the century of the "triumph of Nihilism." (Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age, Eugene Rose, p. 44)

Nietzsche was the first apostate Christian philosopher to gaze fully upon man's loss of faith and its terrifying consequences. With no living God to obstruct his vision, the nihilism he saw was agonizing. In "The Gnostic Religion," Hans Jonas provides a full-scale study of the heretical world of pre-Christian and Christian era Gnostic nihilism together with its modern variant--- Nietzsche's Nihilism.

Jonas writes that while ancient Gnostic man is thrown,

"...into an antagonistic, anti-divine, and therefore anti-human nature, modern (Gnostic) man (is thrown) into an indifferent one." (p. 338, emphasis added)

Whereas the ancient gnostic conception is still anthropomorphic despite the nihilism, hostility and demonic, its modern counterpart with its' indifferent nature, its' completely godless, soulless, spiritless nature, represents the "absolute vacuum, the really bottomless pit."

In one breath Stuart says he does not deny the existence of God, and that "Christians say that Atheists say there is no God" (and claims they lie when saying this) in the next he says this:

That is why we are a-theist.

We are without any version of "God".

As though there is no contradiction from one sentence to the next. Stuart and those like him want to play semantic games. They deny God when it is convenient, when it is inconvenient they claim to "take no philosophical position." They feign this because they think it relieves them of any burden of proof. Completely disingenuous.

If I say that I do not believe in the moon landing and that there is no evidence for it, all the while calling others stupid and ridiculing them for their belief in the moon landing, I am not relieved of my burden of proof simply by calling my belief an "unbelief." The burden of proof is mutual -- as any honest observer can plainly see.

We live in a supernatural existence and realm. Science still explains Zero origins: neither matter or life.

Once again - Christianity is the only game in town.

Logic IS a form of proof and evidence. A 3 year old can be an eternal skeptic: it's that easy. You must understand both extremes of a position to get beyond your biases.