Jack the Bodiless

Nice work, David!

Though I can't resist the urge to step on those twitching fingers...
Christian theism is the explicit support of the values expressed in a rather large book, the Bible.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in invisible, omnipotent fairies.

You don't seem to have grasped that yet. For instance:
They are also aLeprechaunist atrocities. This is what a lack of belief in leprechauns does to people! They are also aFlatEarthist atrocities, and aElvisLives atrocities...

Let me ask you a direct question, Farseeker. You are also an aLeprechaunist, right? And an aFlatEarther also?

If so, then why haven't YOU decided to punish your fellow aLeprechaunists and aFlatEarthers for their crimes? When will YOU bring these people to trial?

You seem to be utterly incapable of grasping the simple fact that we do not have the means to put the world to rights! Do you really think that we would CHOOSE not to try the people responsible for such things?

Apparently, the answer is "yes". Therefore you are a moron. I see no reason to be civil to anybody who is behaving like this.

You also don't seem to understand the difference between omnipotence and non-omnipotence. Your argument seems to be:

1. My God is omnipotent.
2. Bad things happen.
3. Therefore my God is responsible for (at least) letting them happen.
4. Oops. This makes my God look bad.
5. Atheists say my God does not exist.
6. Bad things still happen.
7. Therefore, if they are right, the omnipotent Atheist God is making/letting these things happen.
8. Therefore he's just as bad as my God.

It isn't WE who choose to believe in an invisible sky-daddy who has the power to fix everything but strangely refuses to do so. It isn't WE who have to come up with ridiculously contrived explanations for this failure.

Nor do WE have to defend the text of a "holy book" which specifically states that various acts of cruelty and genocide are a good thing. We believe that "shit happens", but we don't worship an entity who claims to be actively making shit happen.

hastalavista2u

--And guess what? He may not be through yet!

..."Come near,you nations,to hear;and heed,you people! Let the earth hear,and all that is in it,the world and all things that come from it.
"For the indignation of the Lord is against all nations,and His fury against all their armies;He has utterly destroyed them,He has given them over to the slaughter.
"Also their slain shall be thrown out;their stench shall rise from their corpses,and the mountains shall ne melted with their blood.
"All the host of heaven shall be dissolved,and the heavens shall be rolled up like a scroll;--"
(*Isaiah-34:1-4*)

"I will punish the world for it's evil,and the wicked for their iniquity;I will halt the arrogancy of the proud,and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible."
(*Isaiah-13:11*)

"And at that day,the slain of the Lord shall be from one end of the earth even to the other end of the earth. They shall not be lamented,or gathered,or buried;they shall be as dung on the ground."
(*Jeremiah-25:33*)


Well,it sure looks like HE means business!
BTW,I got this from a cross reference study,so I guess these are all referring to those same "prophetic" events to come?


Have a good one,
Lido

[ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: Theitist ]</p>

FarSeeker

Peccatum tacituritatis

By Wizardry, posted April 10, 2002 08:02 PM SIDE NOTE:
The Other Michael, posted June 29, 2002 07:33 PM Typical. You accuse me of misrepresentation, then allow statements like that go uncorrected. All humans have value, why else would God love us, Why else would Jesus die for us. First Pandora accuses Christians of being vain: “What level of vanity and over inflated ego do you have to believe that you are so special?” Then she accuses us of being uncaring: “I think it appalling how much time and money is wasted on religion. Why build a church when you could build a hospital?” Now you accuse us of saying everyone is worthless. Is there any integrity on this site?

Romans 5:8
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Strange how “dogmatic” evolutionists are about it being, “our way or the highway.” &lt;smirk&gt;
/SIDENOTE

Jack the Bodiless: Well, Atheists say there is no evidence for God, thus there isn’t one. I saw no evidence that you rejected the Humanist position that abortion was morally acceptable. I adopted your logic -- you should be proud -- but if it is wrong you have only yourself to blame. The Atheists who post on this thread have had ample time to clarify their stand on abortion, as they haven’t expressed revulsion to this form of infanticide, I made what I feel was a reasonable conclusion. When Wizardry said:

Wizardry posted April 10, 2002 08:02 PM You did not speak up and say you were one of them. If I erred, I apologize. Anyway, all indications are that Atheists who oppose abortion are statistically insignificant.
Besides, remember Atheists on this site have made similar mistakes without rebuke.

So, clarify Jack, are you pro-abortion, or pro-life?


Okay, Wizardry posted (and DP agreed on June 29, 2002 10:19 AM) he (or society) could establish his (its) own moral code that would be acceptable, yet society has decided to murder babies. You claim you don’t support it; strange. So why have you turned your back on millions of unborn babies? Atheists have damned Christianity for doing nothing to stop Nazi Germany’s Holocaust; now you do nothing to save the babies here and now, shouldn’t you be condemning yourself?! Of course “society” has spoken, so you can’t disagree with them can you? Truly, you have a corundum.

Add on to that, “Free Inquiry” magazine has taken the position that if you don’t support abortion then you support “The Hanger” of back alley abortionists. That is how Don Addis expressed it in that magazine and it represents a larger number of Atheists than you do. By their measurement, You’re an evil, evil person.

But I think it is a more important point is that you have not expressed revulsion over the legalized murder of the unborn and partially born. Can you reason the evil of this: The ultimately innocent child, one in the womb, is horrendously killed in such inhuman ways by humans, while people worry about beached whales and snail darters? This infanticide is done in the U.S., where most of you live. This is what I am talking about when I say you can’t develop your own morality -- after “starting” with the Judeo-Christian system, you have failed on your home turf, with your own team. And what Dr. Peter Singer is suggesting is only the next step down this road.

“American Society” currently claims prenatal abortion, a form of infanticide, is moral and legal. Dr. Singer and and others want to make postnatal abortion legal. Your precious reason doesn’t seem to have led them to anything you said it would. If you could not stop Margaret Sanger and convince society that abortion is wrong, how will you stop Dr. Singer?

Wizardry: I have been waiting to hear your reasons, but I think you only have opinions that disagree with Dr. Singer. The fact remains that Dr. Singer retains the Chair of Bioethics at Princeton and is a published author. If your ideas and reasons are so much better, why isn’t your ethics book selling; why aren’t you at Princeton? He is, so guess whose opinion holds more weight in the world.

This all boils down to the fact that you are condemning God for doing something you are allowing, if not supporting, right now.

FarSeeker: Your view of the massacre of the Egyptian firstborn is at least exaggerated. My older brother is the firstborn in my family, he’s also over 40, and as you provide no support for your argument, I can safely say you don’t have the foggiest idea how many were babies. And there is no evidence that it was specifically targeted at young innocents.
----
Jack: Let us address the specific verse I was referring to:
Exodus 11:4-5
So Moses said, “This is what the LORD says: ‘About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the slave girl, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well.

Nope, nothing there directed at “all the little ones.” How could you make such a mistake? Firstborn refers to the first born in a family, not necessarily to little children.

Yeah, right. When you take the Israelites out of Egypt, you take them out of history; then you have a great big hole in middle east history. On the other hand, you’re moaning about a non-existent being committing a non-existent crime. Is you reasoning also non-existent too?

Matthew 13:24-30 Ezekiel 18: 21-23 Another Atheist I have argued with complained that God could have saved a great deal of suffering if He had only killed Adam and Eve when they first sinned. This idea was rational to that Atheist. If killing Hitler as a youth would stop the Holocaust would you kill him?

Is that a hint of Anti-Semitism I am hearing from you? Didn’t Hitler consider the Jews to be dangerous people? Read the Bible yourself and listen less to the propaganda repeated to you by Atheists. This is God the Father of Jesus, and the OT, the Bible of Jesus we are talking about. How do you get from a God that enjoys killing, a “mean, evil, twisted SOB,” to Jesus Christ? I’m sorry, but the course of history does not support your accusations.

FarSeeker: One must ask ones self how some "self-styled ‘priests’ " of some "of Bronze Age goat-herders" who advocated, taught, and supposedly practiced the atrocities you point out could have developed morals that you tacitly admitted were "good starting point." Good fruit does not come from bad trees.
---
"Silence gives consent."
Oliver Goldsmith,

I shall assume that your silence gives consent.
ATTRIBUTION: Plato (c. 427-347 B.C.), Greek philosopher. Cratylus, 435 B

The Marxists claimed the same thing, but, in truth, use force and indoctrination. Calling children names in class is not “opening minds”

Your dogmas of the nonexistence of God and that man can set his own morals (which you have failed to prove on this thread) is leading to an establishment of an Atheist state supported religion under the false title of “humanism”. This is to be done with the attitude of a “rabid fundamentalist.” That is the indoctrination of children into the religion of Atheism under the disguise of humanism, which is an establishment of a state religion of Atheism. The most popular Atheist publications do not support your statements.

Who begets whom? Christians have turned Atheist, Atheists have accepted Christianity, etc., otherwise there would be no Atheists. Your dogmatic faith in the superiority of your beliefs blinds you to that. Once again you show Atheism’s common bigotry.

If they meant schools, they would have used terms like “educational institutions.” This is an ill-considered dodge Jack. These documents were written by intellectuals, the words they used were VERY carefully chosen to convey what they meant. Check out the full updated HM 1: <a href="http://www.jcn.com/manifestos.html" target="_blank">http://www.jcn.com/manifestos.html</a>

This leaves no doubt that they are talking about State control of churches. Also it should be noted what was said in the HM 1 opening:

I just remember the “voluntarily” actions that were done in other Atheists’ countries, and the "equitable distribution of the means of life" of the humanists in the Soviet Union, PRC, Cambodia, etc. Don’t try to claim they weren’t Humanist countries, Paul Kurtz quotes notable Soviet Philosophers stating that Communists and Soviets “are undoubtedly the most consistent Humanists.” (”Is Everyone A Humanist,” The Humanist Alternative, Prometheus Books). It’s a maneuver to grab power. Who decides what is equitable? Obviously the Atheists in control. As to your insulting question, as a Christian I oppose suffering in general. But history has shown humans do not always hold this opinion, whatever religion they held (that includes Athism).

All of which was developed in a Christian environment (Paine was a deist, which Secular Humanism rejects), not under Atheism, not under Confucius, not under some guru or in a mosque. The Bible had more influence on the Constitution than Paine’s tract did, study some of Baron de Montesquie (Robert Wernick, “The Godfather of the Constitution,” Smithsonian Sept. 1989, and Baron de Montesquie, The Spirit of Laws, trans. Thomas Nugent). Or take John Adam’s word for it: he wrote that the American government was “grounded on reason, morality, and the Christian religion.”

FarSeeker: So, that piece of paper says that Soviet citizens had religious freedom. I’m sure we all know that that isn’t true, so in what direction did this change go? From what was said, to what was meant. Atheists have NO love of other religions. Universally, when they take power, they suppress other religions

Do you claim that no Atheist on this site considers Christians a rival political force? Atheists can be dictatorial in oligarchies too.

Why is it that Christianity is blamed for everything bad (but none of the good) that someone calling themselves “Christian” does, and Atheism is innocent of all bad acts of its adherents, but receives praise for everything good? While Christ’s teachings oppose such things as the Crusades and the Inquisition, Atheism does not. Your opinion may reject what the totalitarian dictators did, but they reach their conclusions the same way you did, thru their reasoning. And since DP has said that being an Atheist is no guarantee one will come up with good ideas, it is no guarantee that you have any good ideas either.

Remember what Atheists have said before: they don’t believe in evil. Therefore what the totalitarian dictators did was not evil under Atheism. One has to reason that these things are wrong under Atheism, but then if one reasons that they are right, well, that’s okay too. The only difference is your opinion, and do you remember what was said about those in the movie “Platoon”?

I am not implying that no Atheist is democratic. I am implying that no Atheist is Christianity friendly. They may be comradely and put up with us, but I know of no Atheist would raise a finger to help a Christian in a Soviet Gulag, or Chinese prison, or even stop the PRC from destroying a Christian’s house (no one’s going to stand in front of that tank Rick).

What does Iran and Saudi Arabia have to do with Christianity? This is just another “hot button” to push to prejudice yourself and your readers against Christians. I prefer to use the United States as an example of a theist-controlled nation, as seemingly does Bill Snedden: Oy, not the Inquisition again. That was a political act without any basis on what Jesus Christ taught. On the other hand nothing Stalin, Mao, Deng, Pol Pot, or others did was contrary to rational Atheism.

I think you are failing to do any thinking on your own when you talk about the Crusades. You repeat the word like some mindless mantra that will drive Christians away. Let us do a modern analogy to understand what led to the Crusades:

Let us say the “Shining Path movement” of South America overthrows a country there. They then use the resources to attack the next. Slowly they advance north. Panama first, and eventually Mexico sends representatives to the U.S. to beg for aid and military intervention to stop these Atheists. From your stand on the Crusades, I can see that you would not raise a finger to stop the Shining Path Atheists until they were pointing a gun at your head. The Pope did not share your military disregard.

This is the equivalent of what happen with the Crusades. The rising tide of Islam rushed in on the Eastern Roman Empire, which was unable to stop it. Constatinople appealed to the Rome’s Pope for help. The little dirty secrets that you wish to keep hidden is that 1) Islam invaded as far as France and the Balkans before being stopped and thrown back. Think of what your society would be like if Islam ruled Europe and the Americas. That is what you are asking for when you condemn the Crusades. And 2) The Crusades drew out of Europe many -- if not most --of the violent, stupid leaders and those who found glory in violence, leaving the (relatively) more intelligent and peaceful people behind. 3) The Crusades jump-started the Renaissance (travel expands the mind).

Oolon Colluphid
Actually, if you cared to read what I wrote, that is what I was saying was possible. [B}Remember what you are doing: accusing God of murder. I am simply supplying a reasonable doubt that requires you to provide the evidence of the murder.[/B]
Experts in the 1800’s use for reasons to reject the NT history the “facts” that Pilate was not mentioned anywhere outside the Bible and Josephus (which could have been written in -- a common accusation of Atheists when they can’t deal with the evidence). Later evidence was found to prove Pilate was a historic figure. Repeatedly the “experts” have made claims about how the Bible could NOT be true because it said this or that existed, but there was no outside corroboration. Then later the evidence would be found, proving the “experts” failed to understand why “lack of evidence for equals evidence against,” is a fallacy. Sadly you haven’t learned this.

In short, I don’t have any evidence any more than Michael Shermer has for his gambler fallacy on pages 263-4 of his book _Why People Believe Weird Things_. As you allow him to hold faith in his beliefs, you’ll just have to do the same for me.

As for the ad hominem, what is this whole thread about if not such an argument?

[ August 17, 2002: Message edited by: FarSeeker ]

[ August 18, 2002: Message edited by: FarSeeker ]</p>

Vorkosigan

The rising tide of Islam rushed in on the Eastern Roman Empire, which was unable to stop it. Constatinople appealed to the Rome’s Pope for help.

No doubt this is why forces under Godfrey actually attacked the Imperial Palace in Constantinople, and of course, another crusade ended up sacking Constantinople. Let's not forget, there were crusades against Christians (see the Albigensian Crusade, for example).

The little dirty secrets that you wish to keep hidden is that 1) Islam invaded as far as France and the Balkans before being stopped and thrown back.

A little history, please. The incursion into France took place a couple of centuries prior to the first crusade, and was a reconnaissance rather than an invasion. The Arabs stopped at the Pyranees.

What triggered the First Crusade was Manzikert, one of history's decisive battles. And that took place in Anatolia, not in the Balkans. The Muslim forces reached as far north as Nicea.

Think of what your society would be like if Islam ruled Europe and the Americas. That is what you are asking for when you condemn the Crusades.

This kind of thinking is just plain silly. First, a brutal, violent, intolerant religion DID rule Europe and the Americas. Second, Islamic instransigence today is in part a reaction to world dominance by the Christian west. Who knows what would have happened if Christianity had not existed and enlightened forms of Islam prevailed worldwide!

And 2) The Crusades drew out of Europe many -- if not most --of the violent, stupid leaders and those who found glory in violence, leaving the (relatively) more intelligent and peaceful people behind.

This is simpleminded naive social Darwinist ostrich guano. It assumes (1) that non-Crusaders were not violent (hilarious); (2) that only stupid people went on an invasion that would possibly bring wealth and power to many; (3) that short-term event like the Crusades could have some kind of serious demographic effect on society.

Additionally, you are refuted by facts. Thousands of ordinary religiously-minded folk went. Try looking up The People's Crusade or Peter the Hermit. Who died at Civetot?

3) The Crusades jump-started the Renaissance (travel expands the mind).[/b]

Trade would have been just as good. And the Renaissance began 3 or 4 hundred years after the first crusade. Hardly a jump start....

Vorkosigan

David M. Payne

As I continue out of the fundie forest, I spot another of FS’s arms, clutching a few quotes!
Followed by this:
Most disappointing, a fabricated quote, placed in my mouth by FS to buttress the truth of what he says. Speaks eloquently of your methods. You have lost my respect, and this thread has proven it’s point to those with open minds long ago. So, not so gallant knight after all, unless you have something of worth to say I leave you to your crude devices, deceptive miss-quotes, smoke and mirrors, and biblical nonsense. Your rhetoric is pointless and boring, and your behavior is offensive to me.



David

FarSeeker

Hey, sorry. Mea Culpa for putting in inaccurately, I've now corrected it.
The idea was based on the following post. While you didn't "say" it, you agreed with the Wiz's point.

David Payne
posted June 29, 2002 10:19AM
Actually what it all means is that I was up late typing it all up and made an editing error. But it's too bad I can't seem to get you down off that high horse your on. That corner I was backing you into before you quit would have made things interesting.

[ August 18, 2002: Message edited by: FarSeeker ]</p>

FarSeeker

David Payne To paraphrase: I would rather be descended from simians than be a man possessed of the gift of reason and see fit to used it only for ridicule.

Hey, if I ever need a spin-doctor, I’ll be sure to call you DP. Paraphrase: Now, lets see if I have this right; (A) Islamic terrorists from the Middle East killed thousands. (B) Islamic terrorists from the Middle East = Christianity, (C) Therefore Christians killed thousands? Spare me DP, th terrorists killed in the name of the head of the cult of personality, Mohammed, etc. not in the name of Christianity or even theism, period. It’s a dumb rant and it doesn’t work any more, get over it.

Last time I checked, 1) Neither are those who commit evil (we’ll come back to that) omnipotent. So what man starts man should be able to stop. Atheists claim they could rule the world without God’s interference (typical adolescent whine, “Why don’t you leave me alone and let me make my own decision!") and now you are complaining because He isn’t. On the other hand I don’t think God wants to control anyone any more than the police or judges (generally) in the US “want to control” you. 2) You can apply the rule of law and treat people equally under it (this means stop spreading false propaganda about those you hate). 3) The existence of God is a better-supported conclusion than His nonexistence. 4) It will last until a short time after Atheists take power and void the First Amendment.

Bob’s a thief. A pickpocket to be more accurate. (A little inside joke DP)

And yet man (especially Atheists) continues to find it so rationally useful. Have you ever thought that perhaps that Being of unlimited power and knowledge knows more that you do? I remember a story where monsters are chasing a little guy, and he is looking for his friend, a dragon, to help him. When the little guy falls and is cornered in front of a rock, the dragon sticks his head up over the rock and says something to the monsters like, “Aren’t you boys are a little ways from home?” As the monsters run away, the little guy turns to the dragon and yells in exasperation, “Why didn’t you burn them?” To which the dragon replies, “why use an Ace when a duce will do?” Perhaps God is simply allowing you to screw up so badly that when He returns even the most ignorant person won’t want you in control.
It could be similar to allowing children to fail instead of hovering over them all the time. They learn more from their own mistakes that way.

Wizardry posted March 31, 2002 10:39 PM Yet Atheist controlled countries practiced this particular act with particular aplomb, and they haven’t suffered any serious collapse. China is still going strong, and likely to get stronger.

Actually, I was thinking of both, i.e. an extremely hard puzzle to crack.

That is your prerogative, but I think your concept of evolution is flawed at best. By the claims of its adherents, evolution cannot perceive the future, nor plan for it. Thus it is unlikely to choose a larger brain over a larger muscle. Nature has nearly always chosen every other enhancement over larger brain size in animals. Even where this is not true (sea mammals like porpoises and whales) intelligence and sentience has not been shown to increase with brain size. The drain the brain puts on the resources of the human system is absurdly high. Especially when improving instinct and senses would be a better bargain.

Actually, I view myself as more of a bull in the China shop here. I upset you nice little world view and try to make you think through all the assumptions you have made. Perhaps you will build them out of stronger stuff next time.


DP
Jack the Bodiless Except I have from a “rational Atheist,” with whom you have fail to disagree, that Atheists don’t believe in evil, so you sentences makes no sense: “We don’t even believe in evil.” (Wizardry)


Jack the Bodiless Right, you’re so close to actually understanding a crucial point it’s startling that you were able to miss it. The values are expressed in the Book, not in the little pieces you extract from that context.

Atheism is a theological position that allows its holder to believe anything as long as the believer is willing to call it “rational.”

I’m not an “aLeprechaunist, aFlatEartherist, or aElvisLives[ist].” According to my dictionaries those words don’t even exist. Neither do I fail to grasp your dull point; I simply reject it. You see, I call myself what I am, not what I am not. In that way I am a positive person (as opposed to negative). If you do not have the means to put the world to rights, then stop screwing it up and get out of the way so that some of us capable, optimistic people can.

I have been lied to and insulted by Atheists. Yet I keep trying to reason with them, and somehow all this gets me hated even more.

1. Man is not omnipotent… in doing evil.
2. Ergo, Man commits stoppable evil,
3. Man can stop evil, (isn’t that is why you want to destroy religion,? Or do you want to destroy religion for some other “reason&#8221
4. Evil still exists,
Ergo man does not want evil to stop?

You simply adopt a plan to eliminate evil and follow it. Use your brain.

Owl posted April 03, 2002 08:36 PM Which explains why Atheists want to void the 1st Amendment, which’s the only way you can make the world safe.

Owl posted April 03, 2002 08:51 PM Such a reasonable and caring solution. Strangely proposed without dissent.

Every time you state the Atheists are reasonable caring people, you let posts like this go unchallenged.

Thomas Metcalf

I'm coming in a bit late to this thread, but it seems to involve two main questions.

1. Do some atheists have a foundation for morality?

2. Ought God not have killed as many living things as He did?

I think the answer to 1 is "yes." This is evident both in theory and in practice. There are several secular systems of morality; utilitarianism, for example, requires no theism. Atheists can recognize that an environment in which laws are frequently broken is more dangerous than an environment in which laws are frequently followed.

In practice, no one has been able to demonstrate a strong correlation between atheism and immorality. On the contrary, there exist sufficient data, in my opinion, to confirm a correlation between religiosity and immorality. I can post some information in a followup if anyone's interested.

As for 2, prima facie, the answer to any "ought x not have killed as many people as (s)he did" question is "yes." In the case of God, Who need not ever kill anyone to accomplish one of His goals (unless the goal is itself killing someone), the answer is even more obviously "yes." He did indeed murder thousands of people in the Bible, and there is good reason to believe He killed thousands of animals as well.

The only real response I've seen to this point is that atheists kill people and animals too. First, I've seen abortion cited, but abortion is quite easy to defend -- briefly, the reasons that killing is bad do not apply. I can elaborate. Second, it's been pointed out that atheists are not always vegetarians. The response is that these atheists have no way to accomplish their goal -- eating meat -- without making it likely that an animal is killed. God, as an omnipotent being, ought to have quite a few ways to avoid the suffering and deaths of thousands of animals. In addition, this is merely an instance of the tu quoque fallacy; if Smith does x, that does not mean it is morally justified to do x.

I conclude that not only are atheists at least as morally good as theists, but God should indeed be blamed and chastised for His mass murders recorded in the Bible.

I might also add in closing that even if atheism promoted pervasive and severe immorality, this would not change the fact that there is no good reason to think that God exists, and plenty of reason to think that He does not.

FarSeeker

The issue is not whether Atheists came imagine, generate or think up some system of morals. The question is whether they can maintain the right ones. You are forgetting that every group of people that ever existed had a set of morals, even the Huns, the Mongols and the Nazis, although I hope you wouldn't accept or pratice their morals. The other question is can you force your morals on others who haven't agreed with you and who don't accept yours.

You can make that claim only if you are ignorant of history. In what has been called the dangerous and violent faith of Christianity we have had several communist sects (the Shakers for example), and never did they reach the level of dictatorial violence reached in Atheistic and Atheist controlled countries. Oh, that is unless you are claiming that since mass murder by the state was moral in Atheist controlled countries, they weren’t actually doing anything immoral.

On the other hand I have already posted the statement from an Atheist who was happy to be living in a Christian controlled free society. And I don't see you complaining about living in the U.S.

Then again you admit His existence. Or if you deny His existence then your argument is incoherent.

Of course you can defend it, it's a form of murder you support. Sadly, while there are Atheists who claim that they do NOT support abortion on this thread, I find it unlikely they will take this time to even disagree with you, but I might be surprised.

Actually, Atheists don’t have to eat meat, ask any vegetarians. They don’t have to use wood, ask any “tree hugger.” But then you are using a tu quoque argument against God. Your morality does not consider tortuous death in the womb to be a suffering death, despite your human limitations in all areas of knowledge and authority. God on the other hand does know the whole truth.

As I believe I mentioned before, an Atheist I read wondered why God just didn’t kill Adam and Eve and prevent all the suffering that followed, yet when God does judge and execute people for evil, you condemn Him for that. That is an Atheist double standard.

There is sufficient evidence to support the existence of God. Atheists simply "special plea" it away.

Thomas Metcalf

You are talking about the actions of a few atheists, who also happened to be evil, which is not the issue here. We're talking about atheists versus theists in general. The theist has no better justification for morality than the atheist does, because the theist simply dogmatically accepts that God's morality is the correct one. Multiple studies indicate a negative correlation between theism and morality.

"God" here refers to a character in the Bible. I do not believe in God as a real entity, just as a character. Please do not waste our time with these.

Here are the reasons murder is bad: people miss the victim, the victim's contribution to society is prevented, the victim does not get the chance to enjoy life. Abortion does not suffer from any of these. Few to no people will miss the victim of an abortion, and if one attempts to use the latter two to argue against abortion, one ought to have as many babies as possible. This is surely not the case.

I never said atheists had to eat meat or had to use wood. But they do if they accomplish their goals. God does not need any instrumental evil to accomplish His goals. Please show me explicitly how I have used a tu quoque fallacy. I claim that God has the power to prevent any gratuitous suffering, but gratuitous suffering exists nonetheless. Therefore, a morally perfect God does not exist.

I'm sorry, but I find this exceedingly weak. I don't care what other atheists think. They're rather different. God does not need to condemn people to accomplish His goals, but He does anyway -- so He is immoral. Either that, or it is His goal independent of anything else that humans are condemned, so He's still immoral.

I don't think there is. And I think the general consensus among top apologists is that there isn't. But even independent of their opinions, it's rather easy to refute most of the arguments I've seen. Cosmological arguments and teleological arguments fail to provide the secondary and tertiary stages necessary to confirm the god of Christian theism, ontological arguments make a mistake in their conception of how we decide whether something exists, evidential moral arguments suffering from the Euthyphro dilemma, the fine tuning argument makes an illicit conclusion of "not chance" from pure improbability, the argument from miracles or resurrection suffers from Hume's anti-miracles argument, and the argument from religious experience does not come close to telling us why we should trust this experience.

But feel free to try.