Stop whining, Mike, it's unbecoming.

"No enactment of man can be considered law unless it conforms to the law of God."

In other words, positive law is good and true only in as much as it conforms with natural law. Blackstone opines "This law of nature... dictated by God Himself...." Aquinas argues natural law is that part of divine law man can discover through right reason, the rest man cannot know. His successors, the Scholastics, as well as Grotius, the founder of modern natural law theory, argued natural law, that is, what is good and true, must be so regardless of God's existence, or dictation.

Hicks omits to tell you "Prayer re-instated at Port Wentworth senior center" (http://savannahnow.com/news/2010-05-11/prayer-re-instated-port-wentworth-senior-center). And this undermines her point.

Hicks writes "Simply put, a faithful people will resist the intrusion of the government into their lives, while a secular society will embrace government as its supreme authority."

As a secular conservative, more specifically, an anarcho-capitalist, I am against any intrusion of government, be it secular or faithful, against liberty.

Hicks cites Newt: "America's historic conception of rights is clearly dependent upon a higher moral order than the laws of man. … How then can a purely secular worldview account for the...

Jackson says "My views are contrary to last month’s ruling of Judge Barbara Crabb of Wisconsin. She, and a growing number of atheists, secularists, and others, are somehow threatened by both prayer and the folks they call the 'religious right.'"

An odd non sequitar since what I've read neither the case nor the decision says anything at all about the threat of prayer, but rather: "Brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the case raises the question whether the statute creating the 'National Day of Prayer,' 36 U.S.C. § 119, violates the establishment clause of the United States Constitution." (http://media.journalinteractive.com/documents/prayer041510.pdf)

It's a legitimate Constitutional question. The threat is not prayer but...

"Its a question of faith vs. doubt."

Interesting point. It's usually argued faith v reason, but, obviously, there are those who reason from faith just as there are those who reason from doubt.

But is it really versus? Faith, true faith, has an element of doubt, not knowing yet choosing to believe, whereas the atheist, like me, not knowing but choosing to not believe.

"Atheists are not angry with God, because they don't believe in Him."

Close, in my case I don't know who God is to believe in him.

"They're angry ..."

Me? Not particularly.

"Either that, or they have incredible egos...."

Me? Not particularly.

Your either/or is a false dichotomy.


You said to me earlier: "The Bible is ALL eyewitness"

Circular. And not true, Genesis is not eyewitness for example.

"You want corroboration? Try the old testament and archaeology book by Kitchen."

The OT is part of the Bible, and does not corroborate the NT, or else Jews would believein Christ.

Archaeology proves the resurection?

"You start off with your premise, use nothing to back it up, and then offer judgement."

I presented facts. The fact you requested, that there is no collaborating evidence. And the fact the Bible provides no eyewitness testimony, just claims some saw. I presented no premise, and no judgment.

"My facts are verifiable that I just posted."

You have posted no facts, merely beliefs in the words of a book.


I'm still waiting, Anderson, for you to tell me who God is....

"where is the eyewitness testimony that the resurrection never happened?"

So, what, you want witness who saw something not happen? Makes no sense whatsoever. Why would anyone testify to what they did not see? Yet, therein lies the evidence you ask for, the utter lack of corroborating testimony, the deafening silence on what would have been the greatest miracle the world had ever seen!

And where is all this eyewitness testimony you claim? Nowhere to be found, mere claims of such in gospels written afterward. And, therein, again, lies the evidence you ask for, the utter lack of any eyewitness testimony, the deafening silence on what would have been the greatest miracle the world had ever seen!

Looks like you have no...

"I didn't say I was either - no need to get personal."

Ah, OK, so let me restate: A theist, or Christian, merely repeats what he or she personally believes to be revealed truth. That is as subjective as you claim Cia's truth is. It is not the basis of an objective standard.

To which you say "False, , but more importantly, a non sequitur"

Again, the mere claim unsubstantiated by argument. Now why is that statement false, Rich, why is it a non-sequitar?

"Whether you..."

"...no need to get personal." :)

"Whether you accept it as conclusive or not, the Christians produce more evidence than Cia does for her position. That is the topic."

Oh? I repeat my acceptance or rejection is besides the...

"If by theists, you specifically mean Christians, then "no", it is not their _personal_ view. They only repeat revealed absolute truth."

No, you, as a theist, or if you prefer, Christian, merely repeat what you personally believe to be revealed truth. That is as subjective as you claim Cia's truth is. It is not the basis of an objective standard.

"Now, whether you accept their argument from objective truth or not..."

My acceptance or rejection is besides the point, theists, or if you prefer, Christians, have not argued anything, merely claimed their subjective truth objective. If you, or anyone else, have an argument, I'd love to hear it.