Is There Anything God Can't Do?

[The Luke]

Necrosis,

Good points, and some great informative posts... but remember to avoid McWay's semantic traps here.

He is couching the argument in his terms, reject them.


Atheism is NOT a belief, it is a lack of belief... so the violent acts of an atheist can not be attributed to atheism any more than they could be attributed to said atheist's similar lack of belief in any god.


Did Hitler commit atrocities because he didn't believe in god?

Or did Hitler commit atocities because he didn't believe in Satan? (a fervent zealous Satanist is NOT an atheist)

Each is equally valid... each is equally disregarded by atheism... each is equally NOT believed.


So was it Hitler's lack of belief in Jesus?
Or his lack of belief in Wotan? Or his lack of belief in Horus? Or Krishna? Or Attis? Or Tammuz? Or Dionysus? Or Hercles/Heracles? Or Setanta? Or Hesus? Or Tezcatlipoca?


Claiming atheism compels anyone to do anything is akin to blaming McWay's rudeness on his belief in Atheismo.

He doesn't believe in Atheismo... he's just a self-righteous ignorant-know-it-all asshole.


The Luke

[Dos Equis]

i was specifically referring to the immoral acts of said atheists. Sure people can meet, that are atheists, what does that have to do with anything? What does atheist magazines have to do with anything, i fail to see your point. Group meetings are likely for companionship, there is no readings, perhaps they talk about how ridiculous god is, i dont know.


Perhaps atheists enjoy reading like minded material, i do. However, nothing i do in my life is because of my atheism, there is no direction offered from it.

The logic that you can do something in the name of atheism is illogical.

Give me a specific example if you will please, i was referring to something else, but i would rather counter a specific argument and how that is in the name of atheism. You cannot kill people in the name of atheism because there is no tenet which states anythign that can be seen that way. Sure people can say, well no god=i can kill, but no where does atheism state that and that is not a logical connection. The bible on the other hand has specific instructions, get my point?

I actually did give you specific examples. To expand on one:  atheists have several national organizations.  Here are a few:

American Atheists:  http://www.atheists.org/  They have an annual national convention, a magazine, speakers, etc.  They even sell atheist buttons, mugs, and pins:  http://www.atheists.org/store/

There is Atheist Alliance International, which "is an umbrella organization of groups and individuals in the United States and around the world committed to promoting and defending reason and the atheist worldview."  http://www.atheistalliance.org/

There is "The Center for Atheism (CFA) was established by New York City Atheists as a separate and independent national organization to propose, develop and be a catalyst for new national activities supporting the objectives of atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers, skeptics, secularists and separation-of-church/state advocates."  http://centerforatheism.org/

I could give you about ten other specific examples.  You really think these atheist organizations are not actually organized and operating in the name of atheism?  

[Necrosis]

I actually did give you specific examples. To expand on one:  atheists have several national organizations.  Here are a few:

American Atheists:  http://www.atheists.org/  They have an annual national convention, a magazine, speakers, etc.  They even sell atheist buttons, mugs, and pins:  http://www.atheists.org/store/

There is Atheist Alliance International, which "is an umbrella organization of groups and individuals in the United States and around the world committed to promoting and defending reason and the atheist worldview."  http://www.atheistalliance.org/

There is "The Center for Atheism (CFA) was established by New York City Atheists as a separate and independent national organization to propose, develop and be a catalyst for new national activities supporting the objectives of atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers, skeptics, secularists and separation-of-church/state advocates."  http://centerforatheism.org/

I could give you about ten other specific examples.  You really think these atheist organizations are not actually organized and operating in the name of atheism?  

sure, but atheism has no central doctrine or book, no moral code, nothing, it is simply a disbelief. Now there are various forms of atheism, militant atheism has evolved somewhat in response to the atrocities of relgion, with that i agree. However, i do not see your point in any of this, those examples still fail to show how atheism can be used as a doctrine or schematic to accomplish something. It is a disbelief, anything those people do is opinion, same with dawkins, there is no book to go to, to get scripture or authority, no rules to atheism, no commandments, no central figure to govern it, it ascribes no moral code, says nothing about right or wrong, up or down.

It cannot, unless someones own beliefs and opinions besides atheism are underpinned. Simple as that. Dawkins believes relgion poisons the mind, that is breeds hate and violence, that it hides the truth. Atheism itself says nothing about any of this, it is simply dawkins who is an atheist providing reasoning for his worldview, which i agree with somewhat.

atheism=lack of belief in god, thats it. To say that means this or that is a personal and subjective assumption. To say that is means god does not exist so rape is fine is an opinion, atheism says nothing about this. It implies nothing, it implies nothing just as afairism implies nothing other then one has no belief in fairies.

[YngiweRhoads]

Necrosis,

Good points, and some great informative posts... but remember to avoid McWay's semantic traps here.

He is couching the argument in his terms, reject them.


Atheism is NOT a belief, it is a lack of belief... so the violent acts of an atheist can not be attributed to atheism any more than they could be attributed to said atheist's similar lack of belief in any god.


Did Hitler commit atrocities because he didn't believe in god?

Or did Hitler commit atocities because he didn't believe in Satan? (a fervent zealous Satanist is NOT an atheist)

Each is equally valid... each is equally disregarded by atheism... each is equally NOT believed.


So was it Hitler's lack of belief in Jesus?
Or his lack of belief in Wotan? Or his lack of belief in Horus? Or Krishna? Or Attis? Or Tammuz? Or Dionysus? Or Hercles/Heracles? Or Setanta? Or Hesus? Or Tezcatlipoca?


Claiming atheism compels anyone to do anything is akin to blaming McWay's rudeness on his belief in Atheismo.

He doesn't believe in Atheismo... he's just a self-righteous ignorant-know-it-all asshole.


The Luke

Not to speak for MCWAY, but I believe he meant to infer that due to the atheists lack of morals, as per MCWAYS's interpretation of obtaining morality, he can directly relate Atheism as being the cause for peoples' heinous acts. Not that these people committed these acts in the name of Atheism. That's hogwash, of course, and I do agree that Hitler was not an Atheist as he referenced god and Christianity both publicly and privately, and was endorsed not only by Atheists but by German Christians as well. The one thing he most definitely was, was a psychopathic fuckwad.

Here's a little tidbit regarding morality and Hitler's acts.

We can make many sound arguments against the Nazis' moral system, one of which is the amount of human suffering it produces. If religious theists respond by asserting that we have no objective reasons to prefer that humans not suffer, then what they are saying is that they don't personally care if humans suffer unless ordered to by their god — and that's hardly a perspective that can recommend their moral position over anything else. If a religious theist really needs something more than the suffering of people to want to end that suffering, this doesn't speak well of their ability to empathize with other human beings.

The problem with making such an argument to a defender of divine command theory is that such people typically assume that only a perfectly independent source of moral standards is valid — hence, no argument from human experience will ever succeed with them. They are, in effect, impervious to any counter-arguments on this issue. They can't accept that the basis for your moral system is any superior to the basis of a Nazi moral system because neither basis creates absolute obligations and neither basis is absolute or objective. That your moral system leads to greater happiness and the Nazi moral system leads to greater suffering will be deemed irrelevant — an important fact to keep in mind.

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismatheistsmorals/a/AbsoluteMorals.htm

Necrosis does make several good points with regards to Atheism, morality and any subjective assumptions regarding the intent, or lack-thereof, of Atheism.


Atheism is illogical without evidence anyway imho, and leaves one open to MCWAY's semantic meanderings, which are annoying as heck. Even Dawkins admits to being agnostic, though not in the literal term. He states, 'On a scale of 1-7. With 1 referring to Theists and 7 referring to Atheists, he would be a 6.9'. All the while still calling himself an Atheist. Of course, he still thinks religion is rubbish, but he doesn't preclude the existence of first cause, however unlikely. Now I'm meandering...haha!

MCWAY does come across as a asshole who can't admit when he's wrong, but I like him anyway.





*GRRRRRR...lost half my post trying to post on this thread. GetBig needs a major overhaul of it's database or needs to move/add servers*

[Dos Equis]

sure, but atheism has no central doctrine or book, no moral code, nothing, it is simply a disbelief. Now there are various forms of atheism, militant atheism has evolved somewhat in response to the atrocities of relgion, with that i agree. However, i do not see your point in any of this, those examples still fail to show how atheism can be used as a doctrine or schematic to accomplish something. It is a disbelief, anything those people do is opinion, same with dawkins, there is no book to go to, to get scripture or authority, no rules to atheism, no commandments, no central figure to govern it, it ascribes no moral code, says nothing about right or wrong, up or down.

It cannot, unless someones own beliefs and opinions besides atheism are underpinned. Simple as that. Dawkins believes relgion poisons the mind, that is breeds hate and violence, that it hides the truth. Atheism itself says nothing about any of this, it is simply dawkins who is an atheist providing reasoning for his worldview, which i agree with somewhat.

atheism=lack of belief in god, thats it. To say that means this or that is a personal and subjective assumption. To say that is means god does not exist so rape is fine is an opinion, atheism says nothing about this. It implies nothing, it implies nothing just as afairism implies nothing other then one has no belief in fairies.

My point is:  your view that "you can't do something in the name of a non-belief" conflicts with the actions of atheists.  People don't typically become highly organized around a core belief and then do nothing (except Congress).  These people are having annual national conventions where they talk about their non-belief in God.  They publish magazines that talk about their non-belief in God.  http://www.atheists.org/magazine/  I've always found that kind of thing peculiar. 

[MCWAY]

jesus, you have no idea again what you are talking about. Hitler didn't do anything in the name of atheism, he was religious, read mine kampf (spelling is certainly wrong here). Again, he states numerous times in his diary per se that he is religious, had relgious symbols inscribed on uniforms etc..

We went over this before, on another thread. Hitler having religious symbols on his uniforms means absolutely SQUAT.

Madonna wore a cross around her neck during the 80s. Did that make her a nun or a deaconness? I don't think so.

Your "flavor-of-the-month", Richard Dawkins, was once Espicopalian. Does that mean he's a Christian now?

And, as you tend to forget, Hitler STARTED as a Christian, but as he gained power and got closer to WWII, he made it clear that he wanted Christianity DESTROYED "root and branch". He wanted the swastiska (the government) to replace the Cross as Germany's salvation.

Do the math. If Hitler wanted Germans to worship the government, instead of the Cross, and HITLER runs the government, guess who he wants to be the object of worship (ultimately)? HIMSELF!!!

Regardless, he did not and could not do anything in the atheism, so much as him having a mustache makes mustaches evil. You have  no argument. Atheism is a lack of belief, the burden of proof is on you guys and i see none. So, even if hitler declared im an atheist, there is no god (pretty strong statment, most atheists would say there is no evidence, not a definitive statement when really asked), it would have nothing to do with him killing. Even if he said there is no god so that means i can kill as i please, that is not a doctrine of atheism, that is his personal opinion, he is a sociopath.

As stated earlier (a point you have trouble refuting and that tends to irk you), because of his lack of belief in God, guess who was to become (in his mind) the ultimate object of worship: HITLER, himself.

The doctrine of atheism is demonstrated quite clearly in Hitler's action. His "fluid" morality ALLOWED him to justify his actions, that he was the supreme being, the end-all-to-be-all. In fact, he felt that he and his people were the "master race". With no belief in a deity (especially that of those pesky Jews), Hitler deduced that he could do what he wanted, when he wanted.

However, lets look at religion it states that people who work on sunday should be stoned or the sabbath, so it has logical in roads to violence. Thus, you can do something in the name of theism but not atheism.

If i believed in fairies and had a book saying that anyone who doesnt believe in fairies should be killed, that is a logical in road. If i was an afairist and killed people, that would not have a logical connect that is the connection you are trying to make and it has been rebutted over and over, its a fallacy, an irrational argument that is easily disproved.

As for you concern on morality, you think there is an absolute morality god, i dont. You think that something external is needed to keep people in order, i dont. What does the evidence say? you are wrong. Atheists are the most moral groups, the more secular/atheistic a nation the more peaceful and equal it becomes. The more religious, darfur for example, the more violence terror and immorality. Also, if morality was absolute then i should agree with gods acts in the bible since he made me and i am endowed with this moral compass he created. The fact is i dont,millions of others do not leading me to believe this is not the source of morality. Animals show morality, something you keep avoiding. Morality is more evolved in humans and continues to progress, this is why certain acts are no longer deemed correct, its not fluid like you state. Its not that tommorrow i would think rape is fine, its a natural progression towards improvment, some people lack morals hence the issues.

morals are based on logic and reason as already explained to you, those with more of these constructs are morally superior per se. Hence atheists with the higher iqs then religious folks tend to be more moral. You see gays as immoral and sinful, i see them as people who are allowed to live there own lifes and do as they please as long as it doesnt hurt anyone. There is nothing wrong with gayness, it exists in nature, again showing its a normal variation on sexuality. You have a bigoted approach, an approach of repression and hate, i condone love, peace, acceptance and common rights for everyone. Who is more moral? there is no rational reason for anyone to ridicule gay people in this world not one.

you said you would kill your kids if god told you to, i would tell god to fuck off and do it himself if he wanted it done. I don't think killing kids for any reason is moral, you have justifications that it is, i deny infanticide and you defend it, who is more moral?

Yet, you would kill kids (minus any divine provocation), as long as you had the luxury of using modern weapons that make the killing impersonal. If I'm not mistaken, I asked you some time ago, exactly what was to be done about certain people, committing certain atrocities about which you were fuming, when "diplomatic solutions" done for extensive periods of time were ineffective.

[MCWAY]

My point is:  your view that "you can't do something in the name of a non-belief" conflicts with the actions of atheists.  People don't typically become highly organized around a core belief and then do nothing (except Congress).  These people are having annual national conventions where they talk about their non-belief in God.  They publish magazines that talk about their non-belief in God.  http://www.atheists.org/magazine/  I've always found that kind of thing peculiar. 

Don't forget about those "un-churches", particularly those in California.

Atheists, gathering amongst each other and patting each other on the back, giving each other pep talks about their constant angst about someone who supposedly doesn't exist.

And they call Christians nuts!!!

[MCWAY]

Necrosis,

Good points, and some great informative posts... but remember to avoid McWay's semantic traps here.

He is couching the argument in his terms, reject them.


Atheism is NOT a belief, it is a lack of belief... so the violent acts of an atheist can not be attributed to atheism any more than they could be attributed to said atheist's similar lack of belief in any god.

Of course, it can. With no belief in God, the atheist deems himself as the highest moral authority and with that "fluid" morality, he can pretty much justify anything he wants.

Again, that's why the body counts of atheists like Stalin make the Crusades look like spitball fights. And that's why atheists keep breaking their non-believing necks TRYING TO DISTANCE THEMSELVES FROM THESE MEN.

Did Hitler commit atrocities because he didn't believe in god?

Or did Hitler commit atocities because he didn't believe in Satan? (a fervent zealous Satanist is NOT an atheist)

Each is equally valid... each is equally disregarded by atheism... each is equally NOT believed.

And, as a result, boy genius, Hitler PUT HIMSELF as the deity of worship. He wanted the swasticka (not the Cross) to be Germany's salvation (and that of the world).

In other words, as stated numerous times, atheism (put in practice) is simply man worshipping HIMSELF.

So was it Hitler's lack of belief in Jesus?
Or his lack of belief in Wotan? Or his lack of belief in Horus? Or Krishna? Or Attis? Or Tammuz? Or Dionysus? Or Hercles/Heracles? Or Setanta? Or Hesus? Or Tezcatlipoca?


Claiming atheism compels anyone to do anything is akin to blaming McWay's rudeness on his belief in Atheismo.

He doesn't believe in Atheismo... he's just a self-righteous ignorant-know-it-all asshole.


The Luke

I don't make traps. I post facts and back them with SPECIFICS, unlike you.

You run your mouth then get cut off at the knees when the facts come to light. Then, you whine and complain and/or you run (tail neatly tucked between legs) and hide, until your wound-licking is complete.

[big L dawg]

[YngiweRhoads]

We went over this before, on another thread. Hitler having religious symbols on his uniforms means absolutely SQUAT.

Madonna wore a cross around her neck during the 80s. Did that make her a nun or a deaconness? I don't think so.

Your "flavor-of-the-month", Richard Dawkins, was once Espicopalian. Does that mean he's a Christian now?

And, as you tend to forget, Hitler STARTED as a Christian, but as he gained power and got closer to WWII, he made it clear that he wanted Christianity DESTROYED "root and branch". He wanted the swastiska (the government) to replace the Cross as Germany's salvation.

Do the math. If Hitler wanted Germans to worship the government, instead of the Cross, and HITLER runs the government, guess who he wants to be the object of worship (ultimately)? HIMSELF!!!

As stated earlier (a point you have trouble refuting and that tends to irk you), because of his lack of belief in God, guess who was to become (in his mind) the ultimate object of worship: HITLER, himself.

The doctrine of atheism is demonstrated quite clearly in Hitler's action. His "fluid" morality ALLOWED him to justify his actions, that he was the supreme being, the end-all-to-be-all. In fact, he felt that he and his people were the "master race". With no belief in a deity (especially that of those pesky Jews), Hitler deduced that he could do what he wanted, when he wanted.

You know something historians don't?

No one knows Hitler's true religious convictions. There are assumptions and speculation but that's as far as it goes. Your drawing your own conclusion as to another person's motives and inspiration and stating this as fact. There is just as much speculation that he was a deist, if not a theist.

[MCWAY]

You know something historians don't?

No one knows Hitler's true religious convictions. There are assumptions and speculation but that's as far as it goes. Your drawing your own conclusion as to another person's motives and inspiration and stating this as fact. There is just as much speculation that he was a deist, if not a theist.

You know Hitler's religious convictions (or lack thereof) quite well. Again, that's why you and so many other atheists continue to contort yourself to distance yourself from this guy.

Hitler stated, in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, that he wanted Chrisitanity destroyed "root and branch". And, for some strange reason, I don't recall him invoking Allah, Buddha, or even the prince of darkness (not Ozzy Ozborne, folks).

Besides, I thought you weren't posting here no more.

[YngiweRhoads]

You know Hitler's religious convictions (or lack thereof) quite well. Again, that's why you and so many other atheists continue to contort yourself to distance yourself from this guy.

Hitler stated, in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, that he wanted Chrisitanity destroyed "root and branch". And, for some strange reason, I don't recall him invoking Allah, Buddha, or even the prince of darkness (not Ozzy Ozborne, folks).

Besides, I thought you weren't posting here no more.

Changed my mind about posting when the scripture quoting ceased.  Glad you care. I'm not an atheist either, which I've stated previously.

Hitler wanted both Christianity and State Atheism abolished but supposedly believed in a God, just not the God referred to in Christianity. Hitler never once referred to himself as an Atheist, not that that means much as his statements and actions were rife with contradictions. Read up on it a bit and you'll find that there are many assumptions as to his religious convictions but no substantial proofs to unequivocally designate Hitler as belonging to any religious/non-religious group save his own warped convictions.

[MCWAY]

Changed my mind about posting when the scripture quoting ceased.  Glad you care.

Hitler wanted both Christianity and State Atheism abolished but supposedly believed in a God, just not the God referred to in Christianity. Hitler never once referred to himself as an Atheist, not that that means much as his statements and actions were rife with contradictions. Read up on it a bit and you'll find that there are many assumptions as to his religious convictions but no substantial proofs to unequivocally designate Hitler as belonging to any religious/non-religious group save his own warped convictions.

I've read about it already and went through this discussion with Necrosis some time ago.

Plus, when did belonging to a group become mandatory to be an atheist (notwithstanding Beach Bum's comments on such gatherings of non-believers and the "un-churches" I cited earlier)?

[YngiweRhoads]

I've read about it already and went through this discussion with Necrosis some time ago.

Plus, when did belonging to a group become mandatory to be an atheist (notwithstanding Beach Bum's comments on such gatherings of non-believers and the "un-churches" I cited earlier)?

You're drawing your own conclusions. No one know Hitler's true religious convictions. To assume that you do merely weakens your argument.

[MCWAY]

You're drawing your own conclusions. No one know Hitler's true religious convictions. To assume that you do merely weakens your argument.

We have folks here, claiming that he was a Christian. Yet, I don't hear you claiming that their arguments are weakened.

As for mine, we have Hitler's actions and statements. We know his desire to have his government (and himself) deemed as the focal point of "worship" (for lack of a better turn).

[YngiweRhoads]

We have folks here, claiming that he was a Christian. Yet, I don't hear you claiming that their arguments are weakened.

As for mine, we have Hitler's actions and statements. We know his desire to have his government (and himself) deemed as the focal point of "worship" (for lack of a better turn).

My posts earlier would disqualify the claims of Hitler being a Christian as well, obviously. If I remember correctly though, Hitler's actions were brought into this thread by you asserting he was an Atheist. Which I why I posted as I did. No one knows what went on in Hitler's head and to argue the point is an exercise in futility.

[Necrosis]

My point is:  your view that "you can't do something in the name of a non-belief" conflicts with the actions of atheists.  People don't typically become highly organized around a core belief and then do nothing (except Congress).  These people are having annual national conventions where they talk about their non-belief in God.  They publish magazines that talk about their non-belief in God.  http://www.atheists.org/magazine/  I've always found that kind of thing peculiar. 

if they form to oppose relgion, that is not atheism, that is a different cause. It's been explained, what these people are doing is opinion, and personal values that i may not share. Atheism has no values, has nothing to say, what people ascribe to it is merely personal views and values.

I can see the need to increase atheism however, i believe all the evidence points to it creating more peaceful and civilized unions. Atheism is better for the world imo. However, the dummies will need something to lean on and that is the part that worries me.

[Dos Equis]

Don't forget about those "un-churches", particularly those in California.

Atheists, gathering amongst each other and patting each other on the back, giving each other pep talks about their constant angst about someone who supposedly doesn't exist.

And they call Christians nuts!!!

That might be the most bizarre of all.  They're called "humanist centers" right?  They're set up to mimic church services.  I wonder if they actually preach sermons too? 

[Dos Equis]

if they form to oppose relgion, that is not atheism, that is a different cause. It's been explained, what these people are doing is opinion, and personal values that i may not share. Atheism has no values, has nothing to say, what people ascribe to it is merely personal views and values.

I can see the need to increase atheism however, i believe all the evidence points to it creating more peaceful and civilized unions. Atheism is better for the world imo. However, the dummies will need something to lean on and that is the part that worries me.

You're not making sense Necrosis.  If atheism "has no values, has nothing to say," then what are they talking about at their annual national atheist conventions?  Are the magazines filled with blank pages?  What about the atheist churches?  Do they all just sit around and stare at each other?   

[Necrosis]

We went over this before, on another thread. Hitler having religious symbols on his uniforms means absolutely SQUAT.

Madonna wore a cross around her neck during the 80s. Did that make her a nun or a deaconness? I don't think so.

Your "flavor-of-the-month", Richard Dawkins, was once Espicopalian. Does that mean he's a Christian now?

And, as you tend to forget, Hitler STARTED as a Christian, but as he gained power and got closer to WWII, he made it clear that he wanted Christianity DESTROYED "root and branch". He wanted the swastiska (the government) to replace the Cross as Germany's salvation.

um false, read mein kampf, he states over and over again his religious beliefs. Madonna wearing a cross in a video could be for fashion, or have something to do with the video, numerous motives could be behind that. Hitler however, making sure every soldier had chrisitian symbols on their uniforms clearly shows his intent. Would you like the quotes from the book again, in hitlers own words. Regardless it does not matter.



"As stated earlier (a point you have trouble refuting and that tends to irk you), because of his lack of belief in God, guess who was to become (in his mind) the ultimate object of worship: HITLER, himself.

The doctrine of atheism is demonstrated quite clearly in Hitler's action. His "fluid" morality ALLOWED him to justify his actions, that he was the supreme being, the end-all-to-be-all. In fact, he felt that he and his people were the "master race". With no belief in a deity (especially that of those pesky Jews), Hitler deduced that he could do what he wanted, when he wanted."

computer fuckage again. I have no trouble refuting that point, show me were in atheism it says man is the supreme being, has fluid morality, and should be worshipped? Lets say hitler was an atheist, him believing he should be worshipped and that other races should be killed has nothing absolutely nothing to do with atheism. Nothing. He is a moral inbred, You cannot make the connection, its one your opinion, two nothing to do with atheism. You are making an illogical and absurd conclusion, IE "there is no god, therefore all things are fine and man will do what he wants, nothing is stopping him". This is obviously false as we view atheistic societies, prisons and academics were atheists have more moral scrupels then dick sucking ted haggard. On top of that you would have to admit if you take the stance you do that god is the only thing keeping you from killing others and eating babies, something i find disgraceful and sick to be honest. Your tired argument rebutted several times over. the end.


if you think morality is not fluid and not evolving then should kids be stoned who work on sunday?

I mean god said this, so its absolute and not subject to change, do you agree with this? that death for working on the sabbath etc.. should be the penalty, especially in innocent kids?



"Yet, you would kill kids (minus any divine provocation), as long as you had the luxury of using modern weapons that make the killing impersonal. If I'm not mistaken, I asked you some time ago, exactly what was to be done about certain people, committing certain atrocities about which you were fuming, when "diplomatic solutions" done for extensive periods of time were ineffective."

um no, nice assumption. There is a huge difference from accidentally or indirectly killing kids and civilians in battle from ordering the death of kids, all of them, making them targets as per the bible. Fail to see the difference, you probably do since you can't comprehend simple arguments and fail to understand when an argument lacks logic. Certain said people should be put in jail, fined, luxuries taken away, etc etc... im sure the babies werent committing said atrocities unless these were super babies now were they? So even if war is indicated, killing the kids who are innocent makes no sense and is called infanticide, something that is babaric and ridiculous.

[Necrosis]

We have folks here, claiming that he was a Christian. Yet, I don't hear you claiming that their arguments are weakened.

As for mine, we have Hitler's actions and statements. We know his desire to have his government (and himself) deemed as the focal point of "worship" (for lack of a better turn).

Hitler stated numerous religious cites, mainly from christianity, he changed his mind alot could be do to the neurodegenerative illness he had

I would readily admit he was an atheist, it still doesn't reflect atheism.

[MCWAY]

um false, read mein kampf, he states over and over again his religious beliefs. Madonna wearing a cross in a video could be for fashion, or have something to do with the video, numerous motives could be behind that. Hitler however, making sure every soldier had chrisitian symbols on their uniforms clearly shows his intent. Would you like the quotes from the book again, in hitlers own words. Regardless it does not matter.

We went through this before. We know exactly WHY Hitler did what he did, regarding those symbols. And, we have HIS WORDS, regarding what he wanted to do with those who followed Christianity. That was, of course, stamping it out, "root and branch".

You can't seem to make up your mind here. One minute, you want to blame Hitler's "Christianity", the next you're blaming his actions on the clap or some other STD.

All of this is to dodge the simple fact that Hitler's de facto atheism was the driving force behind his nefarious actions.

computer fuckage again. I have no trouble refuting that point, show me were in atheism it says man is the supreme being, has fluid morality, and should be worshipped? Lets say hitler was an atheist, him believing he should be worshipped and that other races should be killed has nothing absolutely nothing to do with atheism. Nothing. He is a moral inbred, You cannot make the connection, its one your opinion, two nothing to do with atheism. You are making an illogical and absurd conclusion, IE "there is no god, therefore all things are fine and man will do what he wants, nothing is stopping him". This is obviously false as we view atheistic societies, prisons and academics were atheists have more moral scrupels then dick sucking ted haggard. On top of that you would have to admit if you take the stance you do that god is the only thing keeping you from killing others and eating babies, something i find disgraceful and sick to be honest. Your tired argument rebutted several times over. the end.

YngiweRhoads covered that in several of his posts (particuarly in certain links of his).

My conclusion is hardly absurd. Furthermore, this childish rant of yours just proved my point. Why are you using Ted Haggard to hurl an indirect insult if homosexuality isn't wrong, as you've maintained numerous times (ironically enough, that's the NUMBER ONE method in which folks on this site insult others, by calling them gay)?

Once again, YOU HAVE NOT mentioned your standard of morality. And, until you do, you have no footing on which to claim you allegedly have more "moral scrupels".

That's what I've been asking you FOR WEEKS. On what do YOU based your standard of "right" vs. "wrong"? Who's making the rules here?

I mean god said this, so its absolute and not subject to change, do you agree with this? that death for working on the sabbath etc.. should be the penalty, especially in innocent kids?

Please tell me you're joking!! One, with the death of a certain guy from Nazareth, that penalty (a maximum one, at best), is covered.

Two, nothing in Scripture give such a penalty for children. Hence, your rant is but more comedic skeptic outrage

um no, nice assumption. There is a huge difference from accidentally or indirectly killing kids and civilians in battle from ordering the death of kids, all of them, making them targets as per the bible. Fail to see the difference, you probably do since you can't comprehend simple arguments and fail to understand when an argument lacks logic. Certain said people should be put in jail, fined, luxuries taken away, etc etc... im sure the babies werent committing said atrocities unless these were super babies now were they? So even if war is indicated, killing the kids who are innocent makes no sense and is called infanticide, something that is babaric and ridiculous.

What do you think happens when you drop bombs on people? It kills (or at least, wounds) EVERYBODY WITHIN RANGE of the explosion: Man, woman, boy, girl, infant, dog, cat, sheep, goat, cow, etc.

And, for those pro-"choice" folks who happen to be atheists, they're the last one to be talking about infanticide.

As a matter of fact, thanks to a butt-load of political bribery and tomfoolery, American tax-payers dollars (if they weren't before) are now going to fund infanticide, AS WE SPEAK. What do you think partial-birth abortions, which are/have been legal, in THIS COUNTRY in the 20th/21st century, are?

[Necrosis]

We went through this before. We know exactly WHY Hitler did what he did, regarding those symbols. And, we have HIS WORDS, regarding what he wanted to do with those who followed Christianity. That was, of course, stamping it out, "root and branch".

You can't seem to make up your mind here. One minute, you want to blame Hitler's "Christianity", the next you're blaming his actions on the clap or some other STD.

All of this is to dodge the simple fact that Hitler's de facto atheism was the driving force behind his nefarious actions.

What LMAO? hitler was all over the place, so your one quote trumps all the evidence and other quotes we have??? seems logical? the logical conclusion is that hitler is a crazy guy, sociopathic, psychotic, murderous lunatic. You are insane if you think his de facto atheism was the driving force for the slaughter of other humans. Reading that statement makes me lulz, its so illogical my brain hurts.

"YngiweRhoads covered that in several of his posts (particuarly in certain links of his).

My conclusion is hardly absurd. Furthermore, this childish rant of yours just proved my point. Why are you using Ted Haggard to hurl an indirect insult if homosexuality isn't wrong, as you've maintained numerous times (ironically enough, that's the NUMBER ONE method in which folks on this site insult others, by calling them gay)?

Once again, YOU HAVE NOT mentioned your standard of morality. And, until you do, you have no footing on which to claim you allegedly have more "moral scrupels".

That's what I've been asking you FOR WEEKS. On what do YOU based your standard of "right" vs. "wrong"? Who's making the rules here?"

logic and reason are the standard for which morality is measured, it has been said over and over. You cannot accept anything other then god so arguing with you is like banging your head against a wall, your mind is made up and nothing will deter you. Society, logic, reason, relationships etc.. all make the rules, morality is evolving as expected. We are more moral then we were 100 years ago, and will continue to progress. People like you who think homos are evil are likely to be phased out, hating others because of their life choices is hardly more.

"Please tell me you're joking!! One, with the death of a certain guy from Nazareth, that penalty (a maximum one, at best), is covered.

Two, nothing in Scripture give such a penalty for children. Hence, your rant is but more comedic skeptic outrage"

OK MCWAY

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death.  Such evil must be purged from Israel.  (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

 You should not let a sorceress live.  (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death.  (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death.  (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness.  (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)

    2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death.  They are guilty of a capital offense.  (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever.  It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy.  Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy.  Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community.  Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest.  I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.'  (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)

THATS anyone baby, anyone, kids die for doing shit on sunday, moral as fuck.


"What do you think happens when you drop bombs on people? It kills (or at least, wounds) EVERYBODY WITHIN RANGE of the explosion: Man, woman, boy, girl, infant, dog, cat, sheep, goat, cow, etc.

And, for those pro-"choice" folks who happen to be atheists, they're the last one to be talking about infanticide.

As a matter of fact, thanks to a butt-load of political bribery and tomfoolery, American tax-payers dollars (if they weren't before) are now going to fund infanticide, AS WE SPEAK. What do you think partial-birth abortions, which are/have been legal, in THIS COUNTRY in the 20th/21st century, are?"

you are being willingly ignorant, god ordered all the infants to be killed, infanticide. The us or anyone bombing somewhere are not targeting kids, big difference. If i was a general and bombed iraq and then said go in after and kill all the babies and kids who are alive, wouldn't that be fucking sick? The fact that warfare back then would limit innocent victims, and god still wanted the kids killed shows his character=hitler. For one, the baby is not alive, you have a different deal altogether here. Most abortions are on fetuses with no neurological development to speak, feel no pain, have no thoughts etc.. Comparing infanticide of living children to abortion is like comparing raping a living person to necrophilia.

I wont get into this argument with you as you are using your diversion tactic as always, confounding the argument with new topics, skewing the argument, and cherry picking. Not to mention willingly ignoring points, creating the best strawmen and failing in general.

GOD ORDERS THOSE WHO WORK ON A FUCKING DAY TO BE KILLED, KILLED? lol, fucking insane you defend this non-sensical bullshit. You live your life by this shit? you work on sunday? if so be a good christian and put a 22 to your dome.

[SupplementGuy]

Hey Nec, unless you actually understand the Bible you should really not speak. All you are doing is taking a quote here and a quote there and fitting it to your argument without any sense of context or historical understanding. BTW, the sabbath is no more since Christ relieved us from it, and even it were, exactly what 'work' would an infant do to break the sabbath? Your arguments make absolutely no sense at all.

SG

[The Luke]

Hey Nec, unless you actually understand the Bible you should really not speak. All you are doing is taking a quote here and a quote there and fitting it to your argument without any sense of context or historical understanding. BTW, the sabbath is no more since Christ relieved us from it, and even it were, exactly what 'work' would an infant do to break the sabbath? Your arguments make absolutely no sense at all.

SG

What if a doctor works on the Sabbath... on an emergency case?

What if he's an abortion doctor... but it's an emergency abortion?

You religious people really are a delusional bunch.


The Luke