Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Mike Adams :: Townhall.com Columnist
Fourth Letter to a Secular Nation
by Mike Adams
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


One of the toughest things about reading Sam Harris’ Letter to a Christian Nation is deciding when he is expressing total ignorance as opposed to total dishonesty. When he accuses Christians of spending more energy “opposing abortion than fighting genocide” I lean towards the latter explanation.

Informed readers know that the distinction between abortion and genocide is blurred by the fact that 512 out of 1000 black pregnancies ends in abortion. It is also blurred by the fact that 37% of all abortions are of black babies though blacks comprise only 12% of the population. Christians are more likely than atheists to oppose abortion. This is because we have always been more outspoken against racism than our atheist counterparts.

It is also clearly dishonest for Sam Harris to say that Christians “are more concerned about human embryos than about the life-saving promise of stem cell research.” I have never met a Christian who opposed stem cell research. Every Christian I know supports adult stem cell research because it has produced 73 clinically proven applications – many of which are outright cures of known diseases. But we oppose embryonic stem cell research because it has never produced a cure of any sort and does not appear to be on the brink of doing so.

Just a few weeks ago, the nation was shocked over reports that a Yale University student had intentionally impregnated herself and induced abortions on several occasions. Specifically, it was asserted that she did so in order to use the blood of the aborted fetuses as part of a display of “art.”

Is it any less depraved to intentionally create and kill life in order to obtain research monies? It is difficult to trust that their motives are humane given their failure to produce anything of use to the medical profession.

It is very difficult to take Sam Harris seriously when he declares that “both Catholic and Protestant churches have a shameful record of complicity with Nazi genocide.” Obviously, whatever sins of omission the churches may have committed in the past with regard to Nazi genocide are now being atoned for by Christian opposition to Planned Parenthood’s genocide against black America. And we are opposed in our efforts by none other than Sam Harris.

Of course, both relevant concepts - the “sin of omission” and “racial equality” – are derived from the New Testament (James and Galatians, respectively). Instead of using Christian concepts to attack Christians, Harris should consider converting to Christianity altogether.

Among Harris most underwhelming observations is that “Countries with high levels of atheism are also the most charitable in terms of the percentage of their wealth they devote to social welfare programs and the percentage in aid they give to the developing world.” Of course, this statement is not accompanied by any references. And we all know that this is what he really means: Nations tending towards socialism also tend towards atheism.

But there is an interesting slight of hand, here. Socialist nations obtain funding for large social welfare programs not through “devotion” that could be deemed “charitable.” They obtain funds through taxation enforced at the point of a gun. Those who do not contribute are not deemed to be “uncharitable” but, instead, “criminal.”

This point cannot be lost as we analyze Harris’ crass statements about the behavior of Christians in the aftermath of the 2004 tsunami that killed several hundred thousand: “(M)any conservative Christians viewed the cataclysm as evidence of God’s wrath. God was apparently sending another coded message about the evils of abortion, idolatry, and homosexuality.”

I don’t know any Christians who thought God was sending a coded message when the tsunami struck. Perhaps some televangelist said something to the effect but, if so, I am not aware of it. Like most Christians, I ignore televangelists. But what I do know is that my church took up an offering for the victims. And several members of our church went overseas to help the victims. I have no recollection of any help coming from any atheists I know. And I know a lot of atheists – most of them giving only when the government forces them to do so.

I believe the most revealing statement in Harris’ little book comes on page 54: “It is time we recognized the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved.” Perhaps I consider this statement to be so revealing because I was once an atheist.

During that dark time of my life I gave nothing to charity. I did no volunteer work. Instead, I railed against the political establishment and demanded radical changes that would move the country drastically further to the left. I demanded radical leftist tax and welfare schemes that I knew would never be accepted by a majority of the American people. But by making those arguments I was able to deceive myself into thinking I was a superior moral being. There was no real chance I would have to deal with the consequences of my ideas.

I see a similar self-deceit and narcissism in the writings of Sam Harris. And I know there is only One solution.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to receive Mike Adams' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Andrew Carnegie
Darwinian theory has no implied directionality. Hitler's ideas about race actually have a lot more in common with those of one esteemed American philanthropist, Andrew Carnegie. You can look it up.

p.54
"It is time we recognized the boundless narcissism and self-deciet of the saved. It is time we acknowledged how disgraceful it is for the survivors of a catastrophe to believe themselves spared by a loving God, while this same God drowned infants in their cribs. Once you stop swaddling the reality of the world's suffering in religious fantasies, you will feel in your bones just how precious life is-and, indeed, how unfortunate it is that millions of human beings suffer the most harrowing abridgements of their happiness for no good reason at all."

Ken
AndyR: "Ken, you obviously haven't read [Mein Kampf] because nothing in there is based on evolutionary principles."

>Excuse me, but I just went back and looked at it minutes ago, and it most certainly is based on evolutionary principles. <

Ken I seem to remember you being involved quite recently in a similar discussion under another column. It was established that Hitler was doing artificial selection, which is not Darwinian natural selection but rather the opposite.

Isn’t intelligence the capacity to learn from ones mistakes?

Stuart

Anderson
I don't really care about Luther, or what religion Hitler had. It doesn't make me see Protestants or Christians in general any differently.

It's the Christians here who claim that there is great significance in the basis of Hitler's ideas. I'm only pointing out that he quotes a lot from Luther, refers a lot to God, and never mentions Darwin, natural selection or evolution.

Personally, as I said, that doesn't make me see Protestants or Christians in general any differently. I'm just saying that if Christians here who truly believe there is great significance in the BASIS of Hitler's ideas, then it doesn't lie in Darwin.

For non-believers and secular cowards
All of you posters who expressed your beliefs in the false pursuit of secularism, stand by. No Christian alive today needs to apologize for any other Christian in the past. All past Christians have answered to their maker who has judged them accordingly. The past is full, full of misdeeds, and horrors. Those deeds were committed by people, not religion.

The false arguements presented here by those who are secular in belief do so because they are cowards of the highest order. They write from the internet anonymously, afraid of those who believe, and they seek comfort in those who have been indoctrinated in the same thought.

I have seldom observed so many irrational arguements posted in one column claiming fact. Dr. Adams is correct, as he was in his prior columns on this subject.

Luther etc
Ken: "Some people on this thread have claimed he was influenced by Martin Luther."
Andy: "Martin Luther himself wrote a book called On the Jews and their Lies from which Hitler quoted. And Luther publicly said that "All Jews should be driven from Germany.""
Ken: "I'm aware of that."
Andy: "Great, cos you denied it before."
[eg you said it was claim only of 'some people on this thread']

So do you think that Hitler's liberal quotes from Luther show that he was influenced by him or not?

BTW, Still waiting for any examples of Hitler quoting Darwin at all, or mentioning evolution.

Darwin
"Hitler and Nazi ideology held that race was sacred. Darwin's evolutionary theory was about much more than simply inheritance and "survival of the fittest" (a term that was coined by the economist Herbert Spencer to DEFEND CAPITALISM in 1851, but then latter became associated with Darwin's theory of evolution).

Darwin took away the scared view of race and species, he showed that there were no significant distinctions between races and between species. Hitler viewed his eugenic policies as being rooted in ancient practices, not evolutionary theory, and he viewed the extermination of natives in America as a model for his actions in Europe."

Darwin
"Darwin was an abolitionist whose scientific work refuted the commonly held racist beliefs of his time and opposed already existing eugenic concepts. It is, in fact, evolution that overturned the widely held belief in the divine superiority of the "white race".

So-called "scientific racism" emerged around the same time that Darwin published his theory of evolution, but from a completely different group of people and for completely different reasons.

In the mid-1800s both American slavery and European imperialism were coming under increasing criticism. During this time the idea of white supremacy became popular among those seeking to justify slavery and imperialism.

Prior to Darwin, and after Darwin by opponents of evolution, biology was a theologically based field. The primary "scientific racists" were creationists who believed that science supported Biblical scripture, and that scripture supported slavery and the domination of one group over another.

Darwin showed that:

People cannot be classified as different species
All races are related and have a common ancestry
All people come from "savage" origins
The different races have much more in common than was widely believed
The mental capabilities of all races are virtually the same and there is greater variation within races than between races
Different races of people can interbreed and there is no concern for ill effects
Culture, not biology, accounted for the greatest differences between the races
Races are not distinct, but rather they blend together

KEn
"Excuse me, but I just went back and looked at it minutes ago, and it most certainly is based on evolutionary principles. "

Then you don't understand evolutionary principles. Briefly summarise what you understand them to be.

AndyR
"Ken, you obviously haven't read [Mein Kampf] because nothing in there is based on evolutionary principles."

Excuse me, but I just went back and looked at it minutes ago, and it most certainly is based on evolutionary principles. You just can't face reality. Can you cite a portion of the book that's based on Christianity?

"The KKK argued against evolution as they knew it undermined their beliefs."

I'm not familiar with the KKK, but I've known many other racists who have based their views on evolution.

"Darwin argued AGAINST racism"

So did Jesus. So did the apostle Paul. That hasn't stopped you from blaming the Holocaust on Christianity.

Etc
http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/darwin_nazism.htm

"Nazis claimed that many Christians of the 20th century had become corrupted by liberalism, but that Positive Christianity was active in supporting and defending its core principles, instead of bowing to the liberalism of the
day. Nazi documents repeatedly use calls to religion to support their ideology and policies. They did seek out religious justifications, both Christian and non-Christian, for their policies.

Faith was, again and again, touted as the foundation of Nazism. One of the very first actions of the Nazis when they came to power was to wage a campaign against atheism."

"We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."
-Adolph Hitler, 1933 Berlin Speech

Mein Kampf
Ken, you obviously haven't read it because nothing in there is based on evolutionary principles. He doesn't mention Darwin, evolution, survival of the fittest - none of that.

Darwin argued AGAINST racism, and the whole concept of separate races. He was a passionate abolutionist.

The KKK argued against evolution as they knew it undermined their beliefs.

AndyR
"Great, cos you denied it before."

Where did I deny it? Don't lie about me, please.

AndyR - You want citations?
To be more specific, read Mein Kampf, volume 1, chapter XI, entitled "Nation and Race." Hitler's whole line of argument is based on evolutionary principles. You either have not read this, or you are intellectually dishonest.

AndyR
"Cite please - he did no such thing. This is where you are falling down."

Read Mein Kampf (which you obviously have not).

Ken
"I'm aware of that."
Great, cos you denied it before.

"Yet Hitler also cited natural selection as justification for his actions."
Cite please - he did no such thing. This is where you are falling down.

"Go back and read "The Descent of Man.""
I have read it. Unlike you.

Mike and God'
NO doubt here that Mike and God are on the best of terms. God even shares his accounting methods for dealing with human tragedy with Mike. Here's proof: "Obviously, whatever sins of omission the churches may have committed in the past with regard to Nazi genocide are now being atoned for by Christian opposition to Planned Parenthood’s genocide against black America." Mike's kidding, isn't he? No, he probably isn't. How are the Christian churches atoning for two millenia of persecution of the Jews? Did god share that with Mike too?


Any doubts? Take a look at:

http://www.ushmm.org/research/center/church/persecution/

Try this:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_pers1.htm


Or this:

http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/HistoryJewishPersecu tion.htm



This one's really good!

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/mine/timeline.htm

This has text, and is a multi-chapter item. Read some of it, if you have a strong stomach:

http://www.zionism-israel.com/his/judeophobia.htm

Christians have a great deal to answer for, but so few really know it.

AndyR --- one more thing.
"I've made neither of these two claims."

Yet you cite Richard Dawkins in support of both claims. Citing Dawkins to justify contempt for Christians is like citing Hitler to justify contempt for Jews. It does nothing for your credibility.

AndyR --- by the way...
I'm not willing to believe something just because Richard Dawkins said it. Where's his documentation?

AndyR
"Darwinism gives NO support to racism of any kind."

Go back and read "The Descent of Man."

I'm aware of the misdeeds of the Catholic church and of Martin Luther. Unlike you, I don't pretend that these things never happened. Many crimes have also been committed in the name of evolution, yet you are in denial about that. Why the double standard?

"Martin Luther himself wrote a book called On the Jews and their Lies from which Hitler quoted. And Luther publicly said that "All Jews should be driven from Germany.""

I'm aware of that. Yet Hitler also cited natural selection as justification for his actions. Why are you willing to blame Luther and exonerate Darwin? You clearly have a double standard.

Richard Dawkins on Hitler / Darwin
"Where do we think the toxic anti-Semitism of Hitler, and of the many Germans whose support gave him power, came from? Anti-Semitism has been rife in Europe for many many centuries, positively encouraged by most Christian churches, including especially the two that dominate Germany.

The Roman Catholic Church has notoriously persecuted Jews as "Christ-killers". While, as for the Lutherans, Martin Luther himself wrote a book called On the Jews and their Lies from which Hitler quoted. And Luther publicly said that "All Jews should be driven from Germany."

Now, to the matter of Darwin. The first thing to say is that natural selection is a scientific theory about the way evolution works in fact. It is either true or it is not, and whether or not we like it politically or morally is irrelevant. Scientific theories are not prescriptions for how we should behave.

Darwinism gives NO support to racism of any kind. Quite the contrary. It is emphatically NOT about natural selection between races. It is about natural selection between individuals."

Ken
"Survival of the fittest. I said that earlier. Can't you read?"

Yes, you said that. But you seem to have no idea what it means, or how it's supposed to relate to Hitler.

"Do you deny that Hitler based his philosophy of a "master race" on evolution?"
Yes

"On what did he base it, then?"
What exactly what his "master race" philosophy? It wasn't a philosophy - he just thought that Aryans were a race (which is debatable) and that they were the best race (even more debatable). That's nothing to do with evolution.

"Some people on this thread have claimed he was influenced by Martin Luther. Others say it was the pope. So Hitler was both Catholic and Protestant? Give me a break!"
I've made neither of these two claims.

AndyR
"Can you summarise these principles?"

Survival of the fittest. I said that earlier. Can't you read?

"Admit it, you're comparing one thing you know nothing about with another thing you know nothing about."

Do you deny that Hitler based his philosophy of a "master race" on evolution? On what did he base it, then?

Some people on this thread have claimed he was influenced by Martin Luther. Others say it was the pope. So Hitler was both Catholic and Protestant? Give me a break!


Ken
"That's a cop-out. Hitler thought he could improve on evolution by eugenics. His whole theory was still based on evolutionary principles."

Can you summarise these principles? Which principles exactly did Hitler base his 'whole theory' on? And what exactly was his 'whole theory'?

Admit it, you're comparing one thing you know nothing about with another thing you know nothing about.

Heinz
"I used to be a minister and Bible student. I even studied Biblical Greek and was able to translate."

Then you should have paid more attention in class. You committed a major hermeneutical fallacy known as "proof-texting." If you were ever a serious Bible student, you've probably heard this saying: "A proof-text taken out of context is a pretext."

By the way, what does your previous study of Greek have to do with this discussion? We were talking about a verse in the Old Testament. The Old Testament was orginally written in Hebrew, not Greek.

"I have read the works of most apologists and biblical scholars"

Then why don't you offer a better rebuttal?

"the "context" argument is a cop-out."

No, it's not. You would know that if you were ever a serious Bible student. I wish I had a dime for every atheist who has told me that he "used to be a Christian/minister/Bible student." I'd be set for life. With all due respect, you've given me more than enough reason not to take your word for it.

lonestar
"After all Hilter wanted to design the master race of supermen. But evolutionary theory--random selection, natural selection, common descent--does not involve design."

That's a cop-out. Hitler thought he could improve on evolution by eugenics. His whole theory was still based on evolutionary principles.

talent
"How many posts has this guy made Arguing about the word faith?"

None, I have agreed with your definition.

"NOTHING AMIBIGOUS...Only the user of the word faith can determine the intent of the word he uses as it can be applied in many different ways."

Hard to follow. First it's not ambiguous, now it is. You keeping digging yourself deeper into the moron hole of your imagination with these self-contradictions and straw men.

"Take this statement by Ronald Reagan as an example of the meaning as given in the Book of Hebrews 11:1. “We should always remember that our strength still lies in our faith in the good sense of the American people." Now can any of us see with the eye good sense by the American people? Course we cannot see it with the eye, but only with the eye of understanding."

Why sure we can, we can hear it in our reasoned words, we can see it in the world we build around us, we can hold it in the wealth we generate, we can see it and know it in all the things that have made America great. And I agree with Reagan, we put faith in, trust in, hope in our continuing to make America great, but we cannot know that, we cannot see into the future, thus it remains faith, trust, hope.

"And lonestarblues says the bible cannot use it this way.... Idiotic as it is, that is what he has said to me about faith for about a year now."

And yet you can't point to where I've done that. So again you box with imaginary idiotic shadows, lies you make up, and beat yourself up doing so. Sound and fury.... Is your faith so weak?

Great article, Mike
Excellent article, Mike. Keep up the Good Work. You will be Rewarded.

Sam Harris didn't have a chance.

thanks, Doug
Doug says: What if
there were a black woman living in the Chicago projects, so poor that she and her small son sleep on the floor under a single moth-eaten blanket after chasing the rats out of the room? And what if she became pregnant again? I'm sure Will and Sam Harris would advise her to have an abortion. Well, guess what? She didn't. She gave birth. Her second son started his own business when he was seven. He was a millionaire at age 14. She now lives in a nice house, paid for, courtesy of the son she didn't abort. She doesn't lift a finger for money; he sends her a bundle every month. Think I'm making all this up? The young man's name is Farrah Gray. Google him. His mother passed a very difficult test, and has been richly rewarded for doing so.
___________________________________

Of course, the example Doug gives is one of the more dramatic ones, but the examples that are more convincing are the ones that Planned Parenthood and the other abortionist butchers want to suppress, where the mother is pressured to have an abortion but resists and has her baby, who then grows up to be a more or less productive member of society--and those cases are much more numerous than the dramatic ones.

Cia, we CAN seriously assert that...
Cia says: A fertilized egg != a born human
You can't seriously assert that a small cluster of cells comprising an embryo is in any way the same as a human being who has been born and actually lives in the world.///WE DO SERIOUSLY ASSERT THAT THAT SMALL CULUSTER OF CELLS COMPRISING AN EMBRYO IS IN EVERY WAY, EVERY WAY, THE SAME AS A HUMAN BEING WHO HAS BEEN BORN AND ACTULLY LIVES IN THE WORLD. INDEED WE CAN AND DO ASSERT JUST THAT.\\\\

What's next, outlawing the "spilling of seed," because, you know, it could potentially be human life? Why stop at a fertilized egg?///YOU CAN DEVOTE YOURSELF TO OUTLAWING THE SPILLING OF SEED IF YOU WANT, WE HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO. Hang on, the Best is yet to come.\\\\\

Talent scout
So in essence any one who doesn’t agree with you is wrong and anyone who calls you to support you broad statements is stupidly wasting time. That is a pathetic attitude for an adult to take on a blog. That is no different from some of the liberals who come here just looking for a fight.

When you were in school and got an answer wrong on an exam, did you call yourself a liar?

Lon, Adams' use of genocide is correct
Lon writes: pathetic
I tend to see a lot to criticize in the writing of Sam Harris. How is it that Adams can't do better than to criticize him by misunderstanding what the meaning of the word "genocide" is. Giving black women more control over the number of babies they carry to term is simply not genocide by any sense of the word. And not surprisingly, the black population is not shrinking with respect to say the white population as would be happening if this was a genocide.
_________________________________

If abortion were only allowing black women control over how many babies they carry to term, then maybe you would have half of an argument about the application of the word genocide to black women killing their babies. But that is not the case.

Planned Parenthood and the other abortionist butchers have a methodical plan to exterminate minorities, and the black women, and men, are the most easy minority to convince that libertine sex is fine and then we'll (abortionists) dispose of the baby. Especially now with the rejection of LBJ's nonsensical Great Society/War on Poverty and recent welfare reform, where poor, ignorant black women, by having more babies, received more in their monthly welfare check.

Genocide is very accurate as applied to the abortion industry's efforts in exterminating minorities, and blacks especially.

Where are the blacks? Other than Bishop Harry Jackson, Rev Jesse Peterson, Alveda King, Star Parker, Day Gardner, and two or three others, nowhere to be seen. Apparently the Je$$e Jacksons and the Al $harptons like the lib/lefty/feminist adulation (read manipulation) too much too apply their "Christian" principles in the case of the abortion of their black brethren. And, worst of all, prostitution is involved: That lib/lefty/feminist adulation comes ONLY as a result of DELIVERIN' DA VOTES!!!!

nighty, everyone knows you are a flamer
nighty-night in the behind says: Subject: Sorry Mike, this is a "christian nation"
You christians always say so. Can't go back on your word.
________________________________

nighty, everyone knows you are a flamer and flamers are confused about the complementarity of the human genitalia, a very basic aspect of humanness, so how can anyone take your comments seriously?

will/Will: Harris is not a flamer
will/Will says: ...

(will's note: Absorb that. With recent advances in cloning, practically every cell of yours that you daily slough off could be considered an embryo of sorts. Scratch some skin on your arm right now. Slough off millions of potential babies - babies that might have lived - through cloning.)

...
________________________________

will/Will, you flamer, you swisher: You are so desperate to support and promote the lib/lefty/homosexual/homosexualist/feminist/Darwinist/secularist/humanist/atheist/etc lines that you make a complete fool of yourself and nobody can pay attention to a homo who is confused about the complementarity of the human genitalia.

You are forcing, contriving in translating "...almost every cell in your body is a potential human being..." to accepting Harris' "Every time you scratch your nose, you have committed a Holocaust of potential human beings." He can say nonsense like that and get away with it because he is not a flamer like you. You can't because everyone knows that flamers are already confused.

Talent
"I do not know if you are one that attacks Adams personally or not, so I might have made a false insinuation in saying you are like Andy."

Er, where did I attack Adams? I didn't. You, on the other hand, posted this piece of reasoned debate:
"So stupid in one life time? To make such asinine statements as some come here and make like this by Andy?"

... in reply to quite an innocuous post from me:
"Don't these people have millions of followers? If Obama made a statement that he was going to 'ignore televangelists', there'd be a rash of pieces on TH castigating Obama for his arrogance."
Asinine? You're quite a rude chap, Talent.

Ok Mike R
I do not need another stupid argument to waste time with.
Have it your way and I will have it mine.

The evidence of things not seen
Take this statement by Ronald Reagan as an example of the meaning as given in the Book of Hebrews 11:1

“We should always remember that our strength still lies in our faith in the good sense of the American people"


Now can any of us see with the eye good sense by the American people?
Course we cannot see it with the eye, but only with the eye of understanding.

Surely we all can find something the American people have shown good sense in.
But it cannot be seen with the eye.
And is the meaning of the word Faith as used in the Bible.

And lonestarblues says the bible cannot use it this way.

Cause the word faith has other meanings, therefore the Bible is wrong to use this word at all.

Idiotic as it is, that is what he has said to me about faith for about a year now.


Talent scout
No, you missed it again.

“Not really. AndyR does have a point. Dr. Adams frequently gets a pass on statements that if make by a liberal such as Obama, would have created uproar.”

For there to be an error or lie, Dr. Adams would not have made any statements that would cause uproar if made by a liberal such as Obama. In this column, Adams insinuates that televangelists aren’t Christians. I am saying that if Obama made that same insinuation using the exact same words, the writers and bloggers of TH would react strongly. That of course is an opinion. If you disagree, say why. Remember, I said liberal and used Obama as one because no one could mistake him for a conservative. Yes, he should be under scrutiny because he is running for president. I am not holding Dr. Adams up to that standard. This is more of a generalization.

Remember, when you are balancing your checkbook, if you make a mistake in your math, it is an error, not a lie.

Mike. this is not true
MikeR writes:
8:37 AM EST
Subject: Talent scout
Not really. AndyR does have a point. Dr. Adams frequently gets a pass on statements that if make by a liberal such as Obama, would have created uproar.
-----

I missed nothing of what you said here, as its clear.

O said show me an article Mike has ever written someone like will or Andy does not come on and attack his person.
I have not see it yet, so this is not true.
Its a lie regardless if its an intentional one or not.

If some statement is not true, that leaves it wrong, and is the same thing as a lie.

Intent does not matter, as many people make false statements out of a sincere mind and heart.

I do not know if you are one that attacks Adams personally or not, so I might have made a false insinuation in saying you are like Andy.

Ok, I can admit I am wrong if I am, but am unclear as to what all you have said about Adams.

If you have never attacked the man, I am wrong.
And my insinuation is a lie, an unintentional lie, like you just done with the above.


Because I love words
I want us to look at the word moron.
Does it have a meaning in the dictionary?

It really is a word that has a meaning and I choose it for the reason of being honest.

I see lonestars argumental attitude about the word faith as moronic, as he struggles to be amibigous.
While I am striving to clear the air in the Bible use of the word faith, and not his interpretation of how this word can and cannot be used.

To imagine he can control how all are to use this word faith, is as stupid as it gets.
So to disambiguate I am forced to call this idiotic argument he makes moronic.

Its 100 percent moronic, and is the best choice of words I can think of to convey my intent, to explain how stupid he can be at times.
And his continual arguments he dreams up to go on and on about the word faith and his demand that it cannot be used in any way but as he allows it to be used.
And for me, such an attitude can only be by a moron.
Its the dumbest argument he has made with me.
And will not take the Bibles own definition in the use of the word Faith.
Saying the Bible has no right to use the word faith that he has not approved of.
Now to me, that is the argument of an IDIOT.
So now he will go on and on about ad hominem and abuse the meaning of that word also.

There are little morons and big morons.
The big morons are the ones who make such arguments as he does and thinks of himself as wise.
Truly the argument of a very big moron.

Meaning #1: state unambiguously or remove ambiguities from

Talent scout
You completely misunderstood my comment. Try re-reading it slowly and without the predisposition to oppose it. As for agreeing with Adams, I said nothing against him ion this thread and I was very complimentary on his 6/2/08 commentary. No one has lied to you. You are mistaken because you are not taking time to think. Why do you rush to accuse some one of intentionally telling a falsehood? What is the false hood that you claim I made?

I like to read Mike Adams
MikeR writes:
8:37 AM EST
Subject: Talent scout
Not really. AndyR does have a point. Dr. Adams frequently gets a pass on statements that if make by a liberal such as Obama, would have created uproar.
----
He speaks of subjects that interest me, not persons.

I have yet to read any of his articles that someone like you or Andy does not come to and arrack the man, and ignore what his point is all about.

As far as Obama goes, he is running for the highest office in the land, making himself a public person.
Open for examination of who he is.
I have never heard a single statement from this man YET, that has an ounce of SUBSTANCE to it.
He is so full of bs, that everything about him causes an uproar, but talking about televangelists will not sway any person alive to gain his vote.
Well except for the idiots who accept this guys person and that is all that matters to them.

Show me any article Mike Adams has written free of personal attacks on him.
None exist and we all know it, so you just lied.


Talking to lone star is like this
Imagine you standing on top of the ground and lonestar is down in a hole way beneath ground level.
He asks you to tell him what you can see up at your level.
You begin to tell him you see an oak tree, and he immediately says that impossible, cause he cannot see it.

Only the user of the word faith can determine the intent of the word he uses as it can be applied in many different ways.
Now if a person decides the speaker does not know why he used the word faith, and knows better then the speaker himself as to his meaning, then how is it possible to communicate with such a person?
You cannot communicate anything with such a moron.
His ears is closed so he can open his mouth, the only thing he wants heard.

Here Ronald Reagan uses the word faith, and nothing is ambigous in his meaning as its clear as a bell if one understands English.


“We should always remember that our strength still lies in our faith in the good sense of the American people"

Can anyone in their right mind say RR is ambigous and unclear in what he means with the word faith here?
Only to a moron


How many posts has this guy made
Arguing about the word faith?
Then has the unmitigated gall to claim he is not arguing?
That is dishonest, and can never be reasoned with to come to an understanding of anything that allows communication between two people.

---


talent writes:
"Because the word faith is pliable,...!"




lonestarblues 7:34 AM EST
Right, because it has many definitions, it is ambiguous.
----
ts:
On and on he goes and never stops.

In any sentence when any sentence has the word faith used in it, one has to understand what the word means as the writer of the sentence is speaking about.
The only ambiguity comes from an intentional argument for arguments sake.

Now is it possible for any man to make a statement that a confused person cannot argue with?
NO.
No man alive can stop any person from going on and on with his arguments.

If there are many applications for the word faith, then the only possible way to understand which definition of that word the speaker or the writer is using it for, is to accept their definition as they use it.




When the writer of Hebrews used the word Faith, the writer of the book explained the definition of his use of the word.

In plain English, he gives the definition.

Here it is explained
Heb 11:1 -
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.



Now faith
Not yesterdays faith
Not tomorrows faith
Not old faith
Not new faith
BUT NOW FAITH

Its the EVIDENCE OF THINGS NOT SEEN.
The writer has explained his use of the word faith right here.
NOTHING AMIBIGOUS
The only ambiguity is .......from a moron?
You judge it








It just defies Common Sense...
...The killing of your offspring for your own selfish purposes.

Talent scout
Not really. AndyR does have a point. Dr. Adams frequently gets a pass on statements that if make by a liberal such as Obama, would have created uproar. This is a point I have raised in the past. Consider Adams’ most recent shot at Coulter. Certainly many people clearly disagreed with him, but he was not subject to the same castigation I would have received had I made the identical comment.

More importantly, as I mentioned earlier, Dr. Adams does not consider some televangelists to be Christians. In that manner he can honestly say that “[he doesn’t] know any Christians who thought God was sending a coded message when the tsunami struck’ when there have been many such statements made in the past.

talent
"Because the word faith is pliable, and can be used in working for a home or for the Kingdom of God believing it possible to obtain, he has filtered the word OUT of its plain English definition cause its used in the bible too!"

Right, because it has many definitions, it is ambiguous. But you seem to be arguing the different uses mean the same thing. And that is what I said earlier, so all you've done is argued now with yourself. Now we're saying the same thing. Yet you're still going on arguing and name calling, all sound and fury over nothing.

"Faith is not limited to mean make believe as this moron insists, lol."

I didn't say it meant that? Again, you seem to be arguing against the moron of your own imagination. Why do you do that?

"attitude"

To quote you about yourself: "No matter how one tries to do that, all he gets for his effort is more and more tangential arguments,as the last posts show."

"BUT does NOT mean make believe."

I agree. So who exactly are you arguing with? You're like a boxer losing a fight to his own shadow.

talent
"Whats to argue about people having a hope for their own home?"

I haven't argued against people wanting a home. Again, you seem to be arguing against the moron of your own imagination. Why do you keep making things up to argue with?

"If it were not possible to own a home, then its impossible to have any faith one can do that."

Right, but faith is required because it may not happen, it may happen and fail, it may not come true. Are you saying the same could apply to your faith in God? That your hope of salvation may or may not come true? I think the answer must be yes. For that is what faith is about, and why faith is required. If you knew you'd own that home free and clear, you'd have not need for faith. I own my home, I have no need for hoping I will.

"So simple one would never believe a person above 10 years old would argue about."

So why are you arguing then with a 10-year old's name calling? I'm not arguing with what you say, I'm agreeing. That is what faith is. Are you arguing because you believe faith is something more than you can explain with analogies?

talent
"I believe sincerely he is a moron due to his endless questions of silly arguments as the ones he just made."

I haven't asked you any questions. You seem to be arguing against the moron of your own imagination.

"He just cannot accept the dictionary definition of faith,and leave it at that...."

I did accept the dictionary definition. Again, you seem to be arguing against the moron of your own imagination.

"I say let him have it, and leave him with it."

Have what? You've given nothing. You've ranted and raved for almost a dozen posts about nothing for we are in essential agreement on what faith is. Believing without knowing, hoping without having, it cannot establish truth.

"Nothing is any more logical than the desire to own ones own home."

Owning property can be logically argued as an essential right but desire itself is not logical.

"Gillions of examples and evidence to have the faith a person can do the same thing for himself."

Nice analogy, but it doesn't explain faith in God.

"And only a moron could possibly make statements that are moronic, and is not my fault if I point it out how stupid it is to say what he does here."

Except you haven't done that. So your claim is moronic.

"One might think I am in some bad mood"

Not at all, you're always like this. The moment someone disagrees with you, challenges what you say, you start in with the name calling like a little boy on a playground. It's really unimpressive.

"No thoughts to them, just boneheaded statements without thought."

If that were so why have you spent nearly a dozen posts discussion the issue? Your actions speak louder than your words.

talent
"No need to respond To lonestar."

And yet there you go again contradicting yourself by responding.

"No matter how one tries to do that, all he gets for his effort is more and more tangential arguments"

I've stuck to discussing what is faith.

"Speak of the American dream, and he has to bring up some failure, lol."

Exactly, for while you want to discuss dreams, I want to discuss reality, and the reality is, hoping for something does not accomplish what working for something will, and not even that guarantees success.

"To call him a moron is being kind, hardly ad hominem."

Since it seems to be your only argument, it once again only reveals the weakness of your argument.

"Ad Hominem is attacking his motives"

So now you make up definitions for that? Ad hominem is attacking the messenger in attempting to win an argument. You have no argument on the meaning of faith, for we essentially agree on what it is, it is believing without knowing, it is hoping without having, for it cannot establish truth. So instead you try and attack me. And I say try, because it is ineffective and only shows the weakness of your argument and, I might add, the weakness of your faith. Someone strong in faith is able to have a reasonable discussion with someone lacking that same faith. There are literally 100s here whom I've met capable of that, and you are not among them.

How does anyone get

Televangelists
"Like most Christians, I ignore televangelists"


AndyR 4:47 AM EST
Don't these people have millions of followers? If Obama made a statement that he was going to 'ignore televangelists', there'd be a rash of pieces on TH castigating Obama for his arrogance.
------

So stupid in one life time?
To make such asinine statements as some come here and make like this by Andy?

That has to be the second dumbest statement on this thread

Different subject

Faith
"If you hear someone say something you agree with, you show faith, and is all this word means in its common use to communicate an attitude of ones person."


AndyR 3:14 AM EST
I don't think that's what people mean when they talk about a religious 'leap of faith'.

------
I am not talking about what people use the word to mean.
I am speaking of what it does mean.
The Bible furnishes its own definition for the word also, the faith it speaks of.

You or anyone can make up any definition you care to, it means nothing to its meaning in the Bibles use of the word for what it intends to mean.

Like I already explained how both the law and the bible use the word in the same meaning, as in good faith.
Meaning an honest and truthful testimony.
And precisely:


good faith
Function:
noun
Date:
1755

: honesty or lawfulness of purpose

Televangelists
"Like most Christians, I ignore televangelists"

Don't these people have millions of followers? If Obama made a statement that he was going to 'ignore televangelists', there'd be a rash of pieces on TH castigating Obama for his arrogance.

AndyR--Fallacy of Four Terms
Opening Comment: It's "Norman" with an "r."

"Noman" was either an honest slip of the keyboard, or a not-very-clever quip. Could be either one, I suppose.

(Be that as it may, next time think "William of Normandy," if that helps. I can't say that I'm proud of my Frankish name, but there it is.)

*******************

You have committed a variant of the fallacy of four terms. You did so in conflating the views of "Christian" nations and individual Christians.

If that's not clear enough, and you'd rather not look up the fallacy and work through your logical error independently, I'll be glad to explain it to you. Please let me know.

**************************
Now, let's try this again. We were talking about the beliefs of INDIVIDUAL Christians, not countries--which are naturally a mix of different faiths, and include any number of people who identify with a faith without taking it seriously.


Anyone who is a Christian must accept the following, at a minimum:

1. Jesus' divinity.
2. The authority of Scripture as a divinely inspired document.


People who meet these quite minimal criteria do not, in my experience, differ widely on the questions of abortion, capital punishment, and homosexuality. Saying over and over that they DO only undermines your case. (Hint: This is the part where you present EVIDENCE that contradicts my claims.)

If you have any studies, surveys, or even personal anecdotes that provide evidence to the contrary, I'd be glad to see it. I promise to respond to any such evidence--as opposed to repeated restatements and reformulations of a question-begging thesis--with due reflection and courtesy.

Remember: We're talking about people, individuals--not countries. It's not cricket to move the target while the arrow is in mid-flight.


Faith
"If you hear someone say something you agree with, you show faith, and is all this word means in its common use to communicate an attitude of ones person."

I don't think that's what people mean when they talk about a religious 'leap of faith'.

"Yet it was the school boy who said, Faith is believing what you know ain't so". --Mark Twain

Also: "Physicist Bob Park explains this difference in a way even the most devious casuist should understand. The Oxford Concise English Dictionary, he notes, gives two distinct meanings for faith:
1) complete trust or confidence, and
2) strong belief in a religion based on spiritual conviction rather than proof." A scientist's "faith" is built on experimental proof. The two meanings of the word "faith," therefore, are not only different, they are exact opposites"

Noman
"I have explained why bible-believing Christians do not, in fact, disagree widely on abortion, homosexuality, or capital punishment."

And yet, for all your explanation, the fact remains that they do disagree widely.

Most Christian countries don't practice capital punishmment, yet USA does, but even then it varies by state.

If Christians here had a consensus on abortion then it would either have been banned years ago, or there would be no-one arguing against it.

Likewise, percentages for and against each advance in gay rights is usually between 40 and 60 percent.

So to claim consensus of opinion is nonsense. All groups claim the bible is their guide, just like how Baptists, Catholics, Protestants, Anglicans, CofE, etc all use the same book.

So to go back to my original point - Christians can't claim they have a better handle on 'objective morality', as their interpretations of the bible is subjective.

To believe in a person, an idea or thing
Is to have faith in that person, or that idea, or that thing.

Just because the Bible is written in the English language does not make the word faith a religious term.

It is NOT just a religious term, but it is a word that describes belief about a subject.
Be it that subject is a person, place, idea or thing.

If you hear someone say something you agree with, you show faith, and is all this word means in its common use to communicate an attitude of ones person.

His spirit is his attitude, and spirit was used in 1600 hundred England before the word attitude has now replaced its common use to describe a persons driving motive.

attitude

1. A state of mind or a feeling; disposition: had a positive attitude about work.
2. An arrogant or hostile state of mind or disposition.

A frame of mind affecting one's thoughts or behavior: outlook, position, posture, stance. Attitude/good attitude/bad attitude/neutral attitude.
Inter-changeable with the word spirit.

But in 1st Century Greek, the word attitude did not exist.

The word used was "pneuma" to describe one's outlook, his attitude.
In Hebrew the word for attitude, or spirit was nshamah.

Now the word faith was translated from both Greek and Hebrew also, and means what the dictionary says its means still today.

Hebrew -faith= emuwn
Greek- faith= pistis

Now Paul used this word saying Faith in God had been unrevealed before Jesus Christ, and if faith just means to make believe,then Paul is the one who just preached make believe is fine.
BUT does NOT mean make believe.

Galations 3:23 -
But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

The word faith occurs 229 times in the New Testament, and maybe twice in the old.

Not a single time is it used to talk about "make believe" but about believing the Promise and the Word of God and in His revealing of Himself through the Man, Jesus Christ.








I said:
When faith comes from the substance of hope, its simply means its an expectation from faith that what you hope for will happen."


Guess who says:
Exactly, it's not based on logical proof or material evidence.
-----
Nothing is any more logical than the desire to own ones own home.
Gillions of examples and evidence to have the faith a person can do the same thing for himself.

And only a moron could possibly make statements that are moronic, and is not my fault if I point it out how stupid it is to say what he does here.

One might think I am in some bad mood in using the word moron for this mans statements, but it is not, I am laughing he says such stupid thing as the above.
No thoughts to them, just boneheaded statements without thought.
Whats to argue about people having a hope for their own home?
And working toward seeing this hope become a reality?
And having the faith they can obtain a home of their own if they will hold on to their hope and trust they will find a way through working for that.
If it were not possible to own a home, then its impossible to have any faith one can do that.
So simple one would never believe a person above 10 years old would argue about.

Because the word faith is pliable, and can be used in working for a home or for the Kingdom of God believing it possible to obtain, he has filtered the word OUT of its plain English definition cause its used in the bible too!

lol

Faith is not limited to mean make believe as this moron insists, lol.





No need to respond
To lonestar.
No matter how one tries to do that, all he gets for his effort is more and more tangential arguments,as the last posts show.

In fact its of more value to spin around and around chasing a tail, like a dog, than to spend time trying to reason with him.

Speak of the American dream, and he has to bring up some failure, lol.

To call him a moron is being kind, hardly ad hominem.

Ad Hominem is attacking his motives, and have never done that.
But he simply does not know anything in the meaning of words he uses himself.

I believe sincerely he is a moron due to his endless questions of silly arguments as the ones he just made.

He just cannot accept the dictionary definition of faith,and leave it at that, but works around that to continue arguing complete moronic bs.
And is why I sincerely believe he is a moron.
Saying this our of kindness, not offense at his stupidity, which he alone will bear.

I say let him have it, and leave him with it.



talent
"When faith comes from the substance of hope, its simply means its an expectation from faith that what you hope for will happen."

Exactly, it's not based on logical proof or material evidence.

"Its how people buy their first house, they first have hope, to buy one, then have the money that gives them the FAITH to BUY IT."

Without knowing what the future holds. We cannot see the future.

"And makes their hopes come true."

Tell that to my neighbors who just lost their house and life savings. It doesn't always come true, except maybe in dreams or Hollywood movies.

"Like the American Dream, based in HOPE, and faith one can have it."

Sounds liberal to me. Faith alone doesn't earn you your American or any other dream, you have to go out and work for it.

Note what you yourself have done to faith. You've reduced its definition to materialism, in the form of a house.

"No one has said hope establishes truth."

Exactly. Glad you now agree, amazing it took you four, five posts to get to the heart of what I said. And you have no argument with it. A whole lot of sound and fury....

"I wish lonestar well"

And I wish you well on your search for truth.

talent
"This definition fits for why I have faith in Jesus Christ and not idiots, like one here who argues this word alot."

You've the one arguing about the word. I said it is belief, I agree with you, it is belief. Believing, not knowing. For if you knew, you would have no need of faith.

"No better examples, so I will not address him, but about him, cause he cannot be reasoned with."

And the ad hominem continues. As defined earlier, a good example of trolling.

"Why waste time with this sort of statement to try and show him his error?"

Already into your third response to a few of my words, and you haven't managed to do that yet.

"Nuts to say both definitions are the same as lonestarblues does."

Oh, now, that's a fine argument!

"I am sorry there is morons in existence"

Feeling sorry for yourself now? Stop whining.

talent
"I have to ignore lonestarblues"

And yet you don't, for one, two, three, four posts you carry on an argument against arguing that's self-contradictory and self-defeating.

"Any person alive is welcome to define what faith means all he wants to, but he will never be able to communicate with a single person when he refuses to understand he has no power to define anything in the world but his own beliefs, let alone a to demand only he knows what faith means."

So why do you do that? Define faith the way you want to? And demand only you know?

"Its hilarious of the self delusions he carries with pride, a really ignorant man, but one who sees himself as wise, lol."

The ad hominem you make up out of whole cloth reveals a weak argument.

"Thats faith right there, to express an idea on any subject, that you truly believe."

Actually it's normally called expressing an opinion. But, right, you follow the Humpty Dumpty theory of language: "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean...."

"Words have power to do nothing more than create a mental image, and one that communicates an idea."

Like your concept of God? A series of analogies and metaphors. But then you believe it: "And they do it by faith in the words they repeat."

"Now I cannot imagine why anyone in their right mind would believe a person like lonestarblues over Jesus Christ."

I can't imagine that either. So why do you make it up?

"Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing."

Belief, as I said, and you have said no different. Confidence nor hope changes the fact that it is belief, and that cannot establish truth. You've spent half a dozen posts dancing around that one simple fact, without ever addressing it squarely--until just at the end, we'll all see.

AndyR--Correction
". . . so this is NOT simply an a priori claim."

MMC

AndyR
Late returning to the thread.

I have explained why bible-believing Christians do not, in fact, disagree widely on abortion, homosexuality, or capital punishment. The reason is that the Bible speaks to these issues directly, and quite clearly.

I write this as one who professed Christ 24 years ago, so this is simply an a priori claim. It is an a posteriori claim, based on extensive experience with Christians of many different denominations.

They are of course "Christian" denominations that regard the Bible as not divinely inspired. If you want to count them, then you have a point. Otherwise, you have simply repeated your earlier conclusion (viz. that Christians differ widely on the three aforementioned issues), which earns you the distinction of committing the fallacy of petitio principii, or "begging the question."

You offer no factual support for your claim, and ignore an opposing argument (mine) in favor of simply repeating yourself. On the other hand, I have directly addressed your claim, and have made an argument containing both factual and rationalist elements in order to counter it.

So, I'm making an argument, and treating you and your claim courteously (even while respectfully expressing my strong disagreement), while you are, in essence, telling me that I should get out more--and then repeating yourself.

So then, which of us is the more rational?

By extension, which of our worldviews is the more rational?

Food for thought.

Heinz
Stalin as pope?! You are a winner in our contest of dumbest posts. #117 must be the stupidest post ever recorded on TH. Cia is right behind you in the the contest of post with the least substance. AndyR stop hating yourself. Lonestar, you can still be saved.

Sorry if an honest use of words
Requires the full use of the English language to express thoughts that are heart felt, even if thought of as offensive.
I know of no other words to express what the word idiot or moron expresses as only it can.



------
Hebrews 11:1
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."


When faith comes from the substance of hope, its simply means its an expectation from faith that what you hope for will happen.
Its how people buy their first house, they first have hope, to buy one, then have the money that gives them the FAITH to BUY IT.
And makes their hopes come true.
Like the American Dream, based in HOPE, and faith one can have it.





lonestar writes:
Hope does not establish truth either. Your argument is just one of special pleading.

For if confident belief or hope established truth, anyone could claim personal truth, and that leads to moral relativism.
---0

No one has said hope establishes truth.
No one.
People have false hopes, and will never come true.
Only the Hope in Truth will bring it into existence, whatever hope that is, that is founded in the belief of some truth.
Like having a hope and a dream to own your own home, quite possible.
And a hope that has brought it into reality for millions, and if they had never had this hope, would never have any reason to believe they can have one.
Having NO Faith its possible.
I wish lonestar well, and wish he would study words and what they mean better than he does,
I have both faith and hope he can overcome his ignorance with a simple study of the meaning of words.



Why is it a waste of time?

No better examples, so I will not address him, but about him, cause he cannot be reasoned with.
Being convinced of his own false assertions.
------



lonestarblues 6:06 PM EST
talent
"lonestarblues just uses definition 2"


lonestarblues writes: 6:06 PM EST
Same as definition 1. Confident belief does not establish truth anymore than plain old belief does. You can play semantic games, but you can't get around that.
-----
ts
Now he says that both definition 1 and 2 are the same definition.
Why waste time with this sort of statement to try and show him his error?
I do it for readers, not him as its useless.

#1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.


# 2.Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence

Now imagine a witness on the Stand in a Court of Law, who has sworn to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Taking the definition as in # 2 and this witness makes wild eyed and irrational statements.
How many on the Jury will lay aside their own reasoning abilty to just have faith he tells them the truth?
LOL, its hilarious.
Nuts to say both definitions are the same as lonestarblues does.

Definition 1 and definition 2 are very clearly different definitions.

But to him, who thinks he has some power over defitions, he sees himslef as wise. lol
I am sorry there is morons in existence, but just accept it as part of the world, and he defines nothing but himself as one by making such stupid statements.

To believe the words of any man
Takes faith.
All speech is words placed together to create.
All words that address any subject.

If all men could not speak or use sign language, he cannot communicate his thoughts.

Everyone who posts on this thread is using words to tell us all what they believe in.

Thats faith right there, to express an idea on any subject, that you truly believe.
They really believe what they say is true, and do that by faith in their own selves and their own intelligence.

Words have power to do nothing more than create a mental image, and one that communicates an idea.
Now I cannot imagine why anyone in their right mind would believe a person like lonestarblues over Jesus Christ.
Unfathomable to me.
Or any person who has ever lived on the earth, why anyone accepts the words of one person and not another.
And they do it by faith in the words they repeat.
No different than the faith one places in the Words of Jesus Christ.

The word idiot exists cause there are real idiots in the world.
Does anyone not have any faith in that statement and would deny that idiots exist?
You not believe in idiots?
All men do cause they will use that word to describe who they see as an idiot.
I use it for lonestarblues alot, its so accurate.
He comes with the same stupid arguments about what faith means and does not mean, dismissing the dictionary as the common definition.

faith (fath) pronunciation
n.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

This definition fits for why I have faith in Jesus Christ and not idiots, like one here who argues this word alot.
Wanting to have some power to define it for me or any other man, is just stupid.




MuscleDaddy
I don't even know what the "Rott" is (does this make me a bad liberal?)

Mike Adams has done a series of these "Letters from a Christian Nation" columns, and as it happens, I own this book (and also Sam Harris's "The End of Faith"), so I was able to readily quote.

BTW, Sam Harris writes about the problems we find ourselves in tolerating all forms of religious fundamentalism (including islam). I assumed he was a liberal, but he strongly supports the idea (if not GWB's style & handling) of the war on terror.


Oh, and NICE moniker, MuscleDaddy.

I have to ignore lonestarblues
As talking to him is like a dog chasing its own tail.

No matter what is said about the Bibles own definition of the word Faith, he knows better.

I just did not want Rudy to try and understand this man, as he is probably one the dizziest on the board.

Any person alive is welcome to define what faith means all he wants to, but he will never be able to communicate with a single person when he refuses to understand he has no power to define anything in the world but his own beliefs, let alone a to demand only he knows what faith means.

Its hilarious of the self delusions he carries with pride, a really ignorant man, but one who sees himself as wise, lol.

talent
" If a man sits on a Jury
Does he have to throw reason out to listen to the trial and decide guilt or innocence?"

Why would you even ask such an absurd question?

"Neither does a Christian toss out reason to believe the evidence of Jesus Christ has given to all men, and especially to all who will listen to the evidence and then find God is His Witness."

Of course not. Yet, reason is not faith, faith lies outside reason.


So is your argument that truth is established by a jury? Juries have been known to find the innocent guilty and the guilty innocent. Juries are comprised, after all, of men and women, who are just as human and fallible as you and I.

The analogy cannot be stretched as far as you would wish. It snaps like a rubber band. It stings your fingers.

Analogies tell us what we know or can know, not what we cannot know.

talent
"lonestarblues just uses definition 2"

Same as definition 1. Confident belief does not establish truth anymore than plain old belief does. You can play semantic games, but you can't get around that.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Hope does not establish truth either. Your argument is just one of special pleading.

For if confident belief or hope established truth, anyone could claim personal truth, and that leads to moral relativism.

And talent is ignorant of this.

Sam Harris?
Apparently because Sam Harris appointed himself some type of expert we're supposed to care what he thinks?? Ladies and gentlemen, Sam Harris is a hack. Whether he is a self appointed 'expert' on human genetics, philosophy or anything else he is entirely unqualified to speak about, it doesn't change that fact.

I have decided that I am the King of the Universe!! All must pay homage to me and forfeit their wealth unto me. No, wait, I'm Napoleon. Hey, no I'm an ameoba.

Who gives a rats a$$ what Harris thinks? I'll bet Harris doesn't even believe half of what he thinks. The letter was probably ghost written for him and he's too stupid to understand the context of the letter. Pity the man. He is overwhelmed by his own over inflated self importance.

Blind men cannot see…


“It is time we recognized the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved.” –Sam Harris


What a good statement to illustrate the complete blindness of the natural man to the things of God for ‘the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned’ [1 Corinthians 2:14].

Mr. Harris fails to mention that lost men, as opposed to saved men, presume that the testimony of Jesus Christ is false. They sit in judgment over His revelation and are unconvinced of its truthfulness. He does not meet their expectation of God. His Gospel is not good news to them. His message of freedom from the slavery of sin is of no concern. They feel no such bondage. They freely do as they will. Life is good so they think. Such is the deceitfulness of sin.

What does a dead man know of life? Even so, what can the spiritually dead know of being born of the Spirit. The veil of blindness is removed in Jesus Christ. The same God who commanded light to shine out of darkness has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. God clothed Himself in flesh and became of no reputation to redeem all the covenant people with His own blood.

The justice and mercy of God are resolved in Christ. Yes, we boast, but our boasting is not in ourselves. Our confidence rests in Him who is risen from the dead and ever lives to make intercession for us. No longer is sin our master for He made us to hate our sin and released us from its captivity.

Will we exchange the eternal wisdom of God revealed in the Gospel for the foolishness of man’s wisdom that denies the design of the world in which he lives? God forbid!

If a man sits on a Jury
Does he have to throw reason out to listen to the trial and decide guilt or innocence?

Course not.
Neither does a Christian toss out reason to believe the evidence of Jesus Christ has given to all men, and especially to all who will listen to the evidence and then find God is His Witness.

If we can receive the witness of any man, we most certainly can receive the Witness God GIVES once any man does what God has Commanded men to do.
Believe His Word! And God will Make Himself Known, and only you will know it when it happens.
No eye has seen it.

1Co 2:9 -
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

God visits the HEART first, through FAITH in HIM.

The understanding of the least of His Wisdom can take YEARS.
And is all too HIGH for the fools who mock it or do not believe it.

1st Chapter of the Book of Job
Gives the picture and the knowledge that satan is also where the children of God are.
And had the exact same liberty to speak as did the angels of God.

He came with a different purpose into the presence of the Lord though, as he found no joy on the earth having convinced himself no man was immune from his influence over Gods influence.

He was bored, shiftless and disgusted with man kinds weakness.

He came into the presence of the Lord to accuse exactly like a prosecuting attorney.

The Lord pointed out Job as being a righteous man, and satan accused God of favoritism, shielding him from evil that satan wanted to bring on the man Job.

Now why did God allow satan to do that?
He had a reason, and its also the same reason Christians are tried, by fire.

Through Job's trial by fire, Job proved himself self-righteous.
Which he repented of when God showed him his own faults, which Job had no knowledge of this secret fault of his own heart.
Just like ALL men.
And I could show this with David, with Moses, with Abraham and all the men we Christians and Jews look to as examples for Faith in God.




Will,...
Late getting here - didn't you (rather unsuccessfully) try those asshat "every cell is a baby" arguements over @ the Rott?

What, are you recycling for TH?

How 'Green' of you!

Parasitic Worm! Parasitic Worm! Parasitic Worm!

I want the Parasitic Worm arguments and I want them now!

- MuscleDaddy

Ken
"If you'll read Mein Kampf, you'll see that Hitler's concept of a master race was based on evolutionary principles, and on Nietsche's idea of the "superman.""

How can that be, Ken? After all Hilter wanted to design the master race of supermen. But evolutionary theory--random selection, natural selection, common descent--does not involve design. To juxtapose the two ideas is not construct an oxymoron, or to engage in scientism.

Rudy, trust the dictionary
Definition of the word Faith, if you cannot find it to trust the Biblical Definition.
I do not have any idea what language lonestarblues speaks, but it is not English.
Here it is in English as defined by the Dictionary.

faith (fath) pronunciation
n.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

lonestarblues just uses definition 2.
And is not the Bible Definition, which Definition is the right one for Faith in Jesus Christ.

Heb 11:1 -
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

The Biblical definition of FAITH is IDENTICAL to the definition as used in a Court of Law.
No Crime was seen by anyone on the JuRY.
They are presented the EVIDENCE OF A CRIME, AND A CHARGE AGAINST A PERSON.
They must decide Guilt or Innocence by FAITH.
Good Faith, that they arrive at due to the presentation of EVIDENCE.
Causing them to believe one thing or another, by FAITH.
Cause they never seen the crime happen themselves.
This is IDENTICAL TO BIBLICAL FAITH.
And lonestarblues is IGNORANT OF.

Citations?
Interesting when I read bigoted articles that blame "the atheists" for every bad thing in the world can never provide any citations; not one real world example of an atheist behaving as an early messanger implied:

"The atheist's primary goal should be to get as much pleasure for himself as possible. He should favor very small gov't, including laissez-faire capitalism, so he can take advantage of us dopes who follow laws and ethics - both of which are just "social constructs." Get away with whatever you can without getting caught. Doing nice things for others should only be a means to obtain greater returns from them."

Want to provide an example of a REAL WORLD atheist behaving that way? Kind of like when you here Combat 18 accusing "the Jews" for every atrocite in the world an coming up bigoted little comments like that. the always whine about "the Jews" but can never give an example of A Jew.

Imagine a Boxing Arena
And two heavy weight champions fighting it out.

Madison Square Garden is the shadow of the true fight for all men.

We are all in this battle and have no say on being a part of.
Our entry into the world at birth set us up for a draft into one army or another.
One army supports evil, the other good, and the battle rages in every human being on earth.

The Battle Fronts are found at every level and on every subject known to man.

The line is already drawn in the sand separating good from evil in every single subject man kind is aware of.

Men can have a plan and keep it hidden from others, and do not understand God can do the same thing and is doing it right now today, this very minute.

A Church is the Boxing Ring in the Battle of Good and Evil.
And many Church's today have been knocked out of the fight, and have been hit so hard by evil, they think the fight is all over.
And evil wins.
Yes even church's recognize the power of evil over their own lives, all the while they pay lip service to God.

Dead to the fight, and have submitted themselves to the world, laying aside their weapons of warfare against evil, and joined the army of satan.
Which is then used as propaganda against God, but moves Him not.

LeftRudyRight
"Maybe my confusion is with the definition faith, but I thought that the whole idea of faith was belief in something that cannot be proved? I normally stay away from posting on columns focusing on religion, but I know that you do so often so I feel comfortable posing this question to you."

I think you raise the number one most important question here. Simply put faith is not reason, believing is not knowing. In short, faith cannot establish truth, hope, perhaps, but not truth. For if it could establish truth, and God could be known, and proved, thus reasoned, you would have one of (a) man defining and limiting God,which is absurd; or (b) moral relativism--his faith establishes truth just as hers does and the other guy's even though their truths differ; or (c) as you say, no faith at all, since you would have replace faith with reason, believing with knowing, and no longer need faith and thus couldn't be saved. That to me is the paradox of faith. I don't think you'll get good answers.

Ken
"Hitler based argument for a master race on survival of the fittest."

Sigh. I give up Ken. You obviously have no idea what survival of the fittest means.

Thanks Mike!
Very good analysis. However, some atheists do not want to really open their minds because it might spoil their desired lifestyle.

Rudy writes:
I'll admit that part of the reason that I don't more participate more in organized religion, is, what I perceive to be, its somewhat exclusive nature.
-----
ts:
You find no argument from me about this side of religion.
But is why I look to God and place my Faith in Him above religion.
I have seen every thing imaginable around a church house and religion.
Just as ungodly as seen in a neighborhood bar.
Evil exists every where, by the Liberty from God, so far.
Solomon dealt this this question too.
"I went to the place of righteousness, and evil was there".

Its God's sifting the real from the phony, cause one will have to really love God and have faith in Him alone to overcome evil in the church or the street.











for Ken
>>"I understand it Ken - NOW TELL ME THE CONTEXT THAT MAKES THIS OK."
No, you don't understand, or you wouldn't keep asking such a silly question.

Reply: A silly question? You started the whole "context" thing.

>>"Frankly I am sick and tired to the "context" argument."
That's because people like you love to create straw men by quoting the Bible out of context.

Reply: I used to be a minister and Bible student. I even studied Biblical Greek and was able to translate. I have read the works of most apologists and biblical scholars - the "context" argument is a cop-out. Just like at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M0nHCoseKI

Ken
Surely murder is either wrong or it isn't, regardless of whether God says so or not. I'm sure one could make a case either way for it being a 'natural law', but I don't see why the say-so of God would affect that.

As for what's the point without God and an afterlife - I enjoy my job, helping others, spending time with my family, art, literature, food etc. Why do these things require an afterlife or deity to be made meaningful?

AndyR
"Hitler may have used the idea that 'kill all of a race and there won't be any more of them', but that's not Darwinism."

Hitler based argument for a master race on survival of the fittest.

You claim that's not Darwinism, yet several atheists have argued that Hitler was motivated by so-called "Christian" beliefs. Some have argued that he was influenced by Martin Luther. Others say he was influenced by Roman Catholicism.

So Hitler was both Catholic AND Lutheran? Yeah, that makes a LOT of sense (I'm being sarcastic).


Ken
"If you'll read Mein Kampf, you'll see that Hitler's concept of a master race was based on evolutionary principles"

With respect, have YOU read Mein Kampf? It's not based on evolutionary principles at all. There are no 'principles' in evolution in the sense of 'moral principles', any more than there are in gravity or soil erosion.

Hitler may have used the idea that 'kill all of a race and there won't be any more of them', but that's not Darwinism.

Ken
"So you're saying that cannibalism is a justifiable reason for murder?"

Animals tend to eat other species of animals. Most animals that WE eat tend to get sick if they eat their own kind. eg Hoof and mouth disease being spread by farmers feeding pigs feed made from pigs.

So there aren't many examples of cannibalism in nature. However, seeking food is seen by most humans as justification for eating other animals.

knight
If you'll read Mein Kampf, you'll see that Hitler's concept of a master race was based on evolutionary principles, and on Nietsche's idea of the "superman."

lonestar
"So you're arguing that morality is relative? Relative to your beliefs? Your concept of God?"

Now you're the one who's straw-manning. If there is no God, who determines what is moral?

I've debated natural law before (I believe I've debated it with you, but I can't be sure). When I've asked people to define natural law, the answers have been little more than tautology.

"But these questions are vital to man, perhaps the only important question. So I discuss."

But if there is no God and no afterlife, why are these questions important? Shouldn't we just live "every man for himself"?

Demo
"...the religion of leftist, secular humanism in the form of ... Nazism"

Eh? So Nazism is now not only secular, but it's also humanist and leftist? Now I'm wondering whether it's Nazism you are ignorant or those other three things.

Humanism is about capital punishment and genocide? And I thought we were supposed to be 'soft on crime'...
Leftism is about extreme nationalism, building up the military and putting gays in concentration camps? People on TH are always telling me lefties hate their country, oppose the military and hug the gays?
Secularists deck their armies out in belt buckles proclaiming 'God is with us'? News to me.

lonestar
"See above, you are an agnostic theist, I am an agnostic atheist. Agnosticism does not distinguish us."

What kind of word game is this?

lonestar
"Now come on, don;t straw man what I said."

I didn't straw man anything.

"I said the basis of morality is the same for you and me."

How so? My morality is based on my belief in God. If you don't believe on God, then on what is your morality based?

Ken, 2
"My argument is this: without faith in God, morality does indeed become a matter of opinion."

So you're arguing that morality is relative? Relative to your beliefs? Your concept of God?

"Yet I've never met anyone who truly believes all morality is subjective"

I have, there are those who argue morality is not objective but subjective, not absolute but relative. But to argue that that is true, objectively, absolutely, is to argue against oneself, it is a self-defeating argument.

"Humans simply aren't wired to think that way. I believe that's because we're made in the image of God."

The image part is reason, which after the fall, to use religious metaphor, includes knowledge of good and evil, which is needed to make moral choices in our actions toward one another.

But, now, if moral law, what down through the ages, as a tradition older than any religion, has been called natural law, if this law is objective and absolutely true, then it must be true regardless of the question of God. It must transcend, as criteria, even God, for God to judge His creation good.

We share the same moral code, I venture, just that you answer the God question with belief, and I don't.

But these questions are vital to man, perhaps the only important question. So I discuss.

will
"Maybe Ken means that folks like him (other evangelicals) would rape and pillage were there no god, but I can honestly say this does not apply to me."

Like most atheists, you have way too much confidence in your own so-called goodness.

Ken
"According to the definitions you provided, an atheist is one who denies the existence of God"

Or one who disbelieves, a nonbeliever. To argue is can mean only what you want it to mean is special pleading.

"You say that you neither believe nor disbelieve (assuming I understood you correctly)."

Not exactly. I neither believe God exists nor do I believe He does not exist. I disbelieve both His existence and His nonexistence. I am a nonbeliever.

"Thus, in my mind, that makes you more of an agnostic than an atheist."

I had hoped you would carry on from my comments rather than repeat your assertion. See above, you are an agnostic theist, I am an agnostic atheist. Agnosticism does not distinguish us.

me "Atheism is not the basis of anything. How can lacking faith be the basis of anything?"

you "Precisely my point."

Except I'd made the point two, three posts ago in discussion with you. So I'm glad you finally understand and we agree, atheism is nothing and as such cannot be the basis of anything.

me "But I would venture the basis of morality I take as foundation is the same as yours, just that you answer the question about God and I leave it open."

you "So you're saying that your morality is based on nothing? That doesn't make much sense."

Now come on, don;t straw man what I said. I said the basis of morality is the same for you and me. Is your morality based on nothing then? The straw man is absurd.

"Please know that I raise all these questions in good faith. I've debated you before, and I think you're an honest non-believer..."

And I am sincere and appreciate your sincerity--your good faith. You're right, I have nothing against your faith. If it's good for you, helps you lead a more moral life, then that is good.

heinz
"I understand it Ken - NOW TELL ME THE CONTEXT THAT MAKES THIS OK."

No, you don't understand, or you wouldn't keep asking such a silly question.

"Frankly I am sick and tired to the "context" argument."

That's because people like you love to create straw men by quoting the Bible out of context.

Ken
Put simply: you don't know what you're talking about. There's nothing about Darwin in Mein Kampf, and Hitler owes a lot to Martin Luther's "On The Jews and Their Lies".

But go ahead and deny that exists, Ken. When you do, I'll post the link to the text and watch you scream at me.

heinz
"Animals kill for nourishment...not quite the same is it."

So you're saying that cannibalism is a justifiable reason for murder?

"This is a sick and twisted verse in the context of a violent society."

Are you judging that society because their morals are different from yours? By what objective standard do you judge them?

sjt18
Please cite an objective source of morality from a theistic standpoint. No, "god" is not an objective source.

will
I only have one question: are your parents and grandparents also atheists?

Demo
"You must lead a rather uninteresting life free from inquiry or educated opinion."

That sounds more like a commandment than an observation.

If global warming is your only example of lefty science denial then we can agree to disagree right now. Just two observations though:
1. All the commentators on TH who argue against it also argue against evolution.
2. Even ExxonMobil recently admitted that its support for lobby groups that question the science of climate change may have hindered action to tackle global warming.

TS- Good, Honest, and Fair Answer
Thanks for your reply. I probably should have phrased my first question a little differently. I understand that there is more to being a Christian than recognizinhg that Jesus Christ is alive. I guess I was trying to make the connection between faith and knowledge in God's existence and, despite not phrasing the question well, you still pointed me in the right direction.
I'll admit that part of the reason that I don't more participate more in organized religion, is, what I perceive to be, its somewhat exclusive nature. I don't begrudge Christians, whether they be Catholic, Protestant, etc, for feeling that theirs is the pathway to God. What bothers me is when others are automatically condemned for having any difference of religious opinion, be it denomonation or religion (Islam, Judaism, etc). So I guess that leads me to another question. Does God judge us more by our actions or our method of worship? Should an atheist or Buddhist who lived a just, moral, and good life be condemned while a Christian who lives in sin, yet born again and repenting on his death bed, is entitled to eternal salvation? Sorry for straying from the topic, but I figured I'd take a shot since you answered my first question.

Mr. Reason's logical conundrum
On June 3 at 3:14AM EST, Mr. Reason (aka "www.reason.com", perhaps the most articulate apologist for atheism on this forum) ridicules believers by posing the following rhetorical question: "Christians are more likely to oppose slavery? I wish I could randomly assert facts and not feel like an idiot..."

But on June 3 at 12:40PM, he backtracks and contradicts his earlier assertion when he admits: "I have read Thomas Sowell's brilliant article on slavery. I concede that the people who ended slavery were largely Christian." It appears that Mr. Reason invites readers to speculate as to whether he meets his own definition of idiocy.

Mr. Reason also claims that both Christians and atheists derive moral awareness from their "evolutionary" heritage, and that believers are either too lazy or unsophisticated to understand this latest nugget of scientific research from the "cutting edge of evolutionary psychology." We're looking at "a lot of work (and) years of study" he blithely opines. (Those who fear the Lord might observe that such carnal-minded men devote so much time attacking God to be of any real service in combating genuine evil. But then again, simple-minded believers are not on the "cutting edge", so what do they know.)

Mr. Reason's appeal to authority, and his other logical fallacies, supply ample proof to validate the scriptural admonition in Romans 1:22 about haughty and sophist purveyors of secular education: "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."





It is a mine field here--
This is a very interesting thread. It seems also to be a mine field of arguments.

Personally, I respect people on their character, not their particular religion or non religion. Yes, I know that their religion also can possibly influence their "character".
A man much wiser than me told of the time he and others witnessed a bad accident and all the people who saw it ran to help. They offered everything from transfusions to money, you name it. Interesting, as the man told me, not one of the accident victims ever asked the the people giving aid what their religious affiliation was.

for Ken
>>Not necessarily. Animals kill each other on a regular basis. If humans evolved from animals, then killing is a natural instinct.

Reply: Animals kill for nourishment...not quite the same is it.

>>If it's all about "survival of the fittest", then the fittest would survive.

Reply: I cringe when Christians try to talk Evolution. Survival of the fittest is not what Darwin meant. He wrote of species adapting to their physical environment and survival being associated with the development of competitive advantages, as described above. By "fittest" he meant best suited (i.e. "most fit") for their particular physical setting. He did not mean "strongest."

>>"Then tell me Ken, tell me and quit playing games: In what context is it okay to smash babies against rocks???"

Ken: You're the one playing games. I never said it was okay to smash babies against rocks. I said you cited that verse out of context. What part of that don't you understand?

Reply: I understand it Ken - NOW TELL ME THE CONTEXT THAT MAKES THIS OK. Is it because they were Babylonians? Is it okay to smash Iraqi babies? You won't say. Frankly I am sick and tired to the "context" argument. This is a sick and twisted verse in the context of a violent society.

I want people to look at Ken's
views on morality.

Ken believes that if we all woke up tomorrow morning, and everyone believed that there were no god (meaning, if the idea that christian gods & muslim gods and mormon gods, etc., were man-made & invented) that CHOAS would ensue. That this "news" would automatically give people license to kill and maim and steal and rape and do whatever they wanted.

I profoundly disagree. I have, in fact, lived with no god since adolescence, and I believe in a common morality, I believe that the U.S. Constitution is a fine, honorable document (and philosophy) upon which to base a government, that all men are created equal; I believe the golden rule of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you (which is in the christian Book of Matthew, a wholly man-made product).

Maybe Ken means that folks like him (other evangelicals) would rape and pillage were there no god, but I can honestly say this does not apply to me.

Let me add to this part Rudy
LeftRudyRight writes:


Maybe my confusion is with the definition faith, but I thought that the whole idea of faith was belief in something that cannot be proved?
-----
This is not the meaning of faith at all.
The words "make believe" are not interchangable with faith.

Its a mis-application of the meaning of the word.
Faith is having evidence of things not seen with the eye.
Like the love you have for your children that swells in your own heart and no man can see.
Love is unseen just like any spiritual value except in the actions of the person who is in the spirit of a thing.
When he wants to make love to his wife, he acts like it, and she can see that spirit as plain as day.
This spiritual quality of humanity is not even addressed by science or any subject but religion.

Its why religion is here to stay cause it recognizes a truth that only religion addresses to find an answer for.

Science just addresses the natural world that can be seen by the eyeball, obviously or under a microscope.

Good Faith is a legal term, meaning the statement is made in all honesty in the truth and nothing but the truth.
Same thing with Faith in God, believe-abiltiy.
Is God Faithful?
Try Him and see for yourself.
I have already and now own my own Faith in Him and no man can ever take from me.
Given to me by God
God is reality itself.


Demosthenes
I'm not saying you can't try to reconcile a theist or deist belief with scientific knowledge. I'm trained as an engineer, so I have a pretty good knowledge of what our present boundaries of science can and can't explain.

I'm simply saying that I've considered and studied Biblical religion and that I don't accept its claims. I never said anyone else couldn't believe in it, or that everyone had to agree with me. I just want to be able to live my life without someone else trying to write their beliefs into laws that restrict my freedoms.

I have no particular love of the State, nor do I espouse a leftist political ideology. If I had to classify myself, I'd probably say I'm libertarian. In my eyes, the State exists to safeguard the rights of its citizens, and not for any inherent purpose of its own.

Moral Law and Punishment
I believe god wrote his laws (the foundation of morality) in order to protect us. Most punishments by god are mearly the natural courses and conclusions a sinful life will lead to by the destruction of ourselves and the ones we love.

Heinz
"For example, murder cannot be moral, because if it were a universal law, everyone would be dead, and murder would no longer be possible."

Not necessarily. Animals kill each other on a regular basis. If humans evolved from animals, then killing is a natural instinct. If it's all about "survival of the fittest", then the fittest would survive.

"Similarly with stealing. If stealing were a universal law, the concept of personal property would become meaningless, and stealing would become impossible."

If it's all about survival of the fittest, then what's wrong with the strong stealing from the weak?

"Then tell me Ken, tell me and quit playing games: In what context is it okay to smash babies against rocks???"

You're the one playing games. I never said it was okay to smash babies against rocks. I said you cited that verse out of context. What part of that don't you understand?

for Ken
>>So you're saying that Stalin and Mao weren't "true" atheists?

They were idiots. They weren't freethinkers, they weren't humanists, and their political philosophy was a state religion. Simply look at their iconography. What is a "true atheist" i wonder? All babies are born atheists - perhaps they're true atheists, but they have little in common with me, or therefore each other. Atheists simply lack a believe in gods. I also lack a belief in astrology, but you cannot lump me in with all astrologers and consider us all like-minded. There is where your error is.

lonestar
According to the definitions you provided, an atheist is one who denies the existence of God. You say that you neither believe nor disbelieve (assuming I understood you correctly). Thus, in my mind, that makes you more of an agnostic than an atheist.

"Atheism is not the basis of anything. How can lacking faith be the basis of anything?"

Precisely my point.

"But I would venture the basis of morality I take as foundation is the same as yours, just that you answer the question about God and I leave it open."

So you're saying that your morality is based on nothing? That doesn't make much sense.

Please know that I raise all these questions in good faith. I've debated you before, and I think you're an honest non-believer (as opposed to an anti-Christian bigot like Heinz).

My argument is this: without faith in God, morality does indeed become a matter of opinion. Yet I've never met anyone who truly believes all morality is subjective (the fact that Heinz labels God "immoral" proves my point). Humans simply aren't wired to think that way. I believe that's because we're made in the image of God.