Posted on 12/26/2015 3:42:01 PM PST by aimhigh
But I do sometimes get irritated with the attitude that if I answer, I'm picking a fight, and if I don't answer, I'm running from a fight. The real attitude, of course, is that atheists should be silent, which is just exactly the same attitude liberals have about conservatives. And most of the time I am silent about it. And I try to avoid the religious threads. But every once in a while, I get drawn in because... the one thing I'm not so sure of is that the "vast majority of posters are believing Christians."
I learned about Ayn Rand here on Free Republic. I know that are a LOT of atheists, we just keep our mouths shut because we are the ones who have to have the better manners. And sometimes, every once in a while, I just don't feel like it. But in the end, you are right, there is no point in talking to these people. It's just that when we try to talk to each other, they push in. It's like they can't even stand for us to talk to EACH OTHER, for pete's sake. I mean, what is that. Besides rude.
True. I admit to not minding religious people as long as they keep it to themselves. But then they trot out the fact that they are commanded not to keep it to themselves, and spread the good news. But yeah, we’re supposed to shut up. It is what it is. I do wonder who is hated the most on this site - Mormons, Muslims, Athiests, or the Pope. Who yah got?
LOL... overall, I’d still say Muslims. The atheist-baiters only number in the single digits, I think. They’re just prolific posters. And they get very excited when they see me.
What is all this with excuses or snide remarks in lieu of real engagement? You whine like a liberal about having neither time not inclination to read what refutes you, and consistent with your superficial consideration, you did not know why I brought it up.something that was an issue from the beginning. And after i gave you an overview of the exchange, you charge me with showing off my vocabulary (yet i cannot find an $10 words)! Yet atheists are the one's who often claim to be elite "brites."
No. American law really is my supreme standard,
Except that you proceed to basically deny that, while you already stated American law was your standard, and thus my response that a Communist atheist can claim the same for himself yet fundamentally at odds with you, just as those in opposing religions can be towards each other.
But while we can contend for which one should be submitted to as the sure supreme definitive standard, atheism cannot claim any one is, as they themselves are actually the supreme standard.
I don't always agree with it.
Then it is simply not your sure supreme definitive standard, but you are. We can decide to submit to such as that standard, and engage in some reasoned interpretation of it, but for us it is the supreme sure definitive standard, not something we disagree with, while atheists can have no such.
And frankly, I think my judgment is excellent, and that if I think someone needs to be executed, then they need to be executed. With me as judge and jury, let me tell you, this country would get cleaned up very, very quickly.
And why should we trust you that your executions will not include us, as has been the case under certain other atheists ? While you are restrained from doing so by the threat of the sword of the state, you lack any sure supreme moral standard to which you and your group or movement profess allegiance to, but all can be negotiable. Much like liberalism.
But it cannot be. My personal opinions, precious though they are to me, cannot be my guide, or I'll end up in jail. So I live by American law.
It is hardly comforting you know that apparently the only thing that prevents you from executing justice as you see it is the sword of the state, while your objectively baseless moral reasoning could justify who knows what. And yet atheists attack religion.
Now, you can say "that's not enough," but the fact is, it seems to be enough for me.
Which would seem to be the refrain of every form of anarchy, to which atheism is a cousin. Having no sure supreme moral standard, in response to which God gave His Law.
Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes. (Deuteronomy 12:8)
I do my job, pay my bills, clean my house, tend my various duties, maintain civil relationships, and obey the law.
Which is good, and Scripture teaches that man has an innate moral sense which affirms the law in essence, (Rm. 2) while you also benefited from historical Western cultural values which flowed from Judaeo-Christian morals, like it or not, in contrast to so many Eastern atheists.
Yet your submission is not because of allegiance to a higher transcendent substantive standard, but at least sometimes because you would end up in jail.
And ... that's kind of it. I have no idea why anyone needs more. Seriously. It baffles me, this whole layer of myth and magic some people dabble in.
Well, whether ou realize it or not, it is manifest that every person will worship, live for, find their ultimate security in, and place highest affection upon, and give their supreme allegiance to, something or someone. Which is either the infinite Creator or that which is created, be it self, possessions or position, and will fail you.
Countries that are atheistic make their rulers "gods," while others have formal false gods, but we find the God of Scripture to be real and warranting the faith and allegiance His calls for, not because He needs anything, as He does not, (Acts 17:25) but because it simply is right and beneficial for us.
Moreover, having a sure and supreme moral standard is better than everyman doing their own thing, or simply because they fear the sword of men. Those who reject any sure definitive moral standard but are their own justify as much evil as those in false religion. But your own definition oif evil can be simply what you judge, as stats testify to, in contrast to those who strongly esteem Scripture.
Honestly? You are tiresome! Why should I engage with you?
Why should I?
This line was the only line of your massive post that I read. If you cannot keep it brief, forget it. I'm not reading it. If you have questions, ask them one at a time.
If you have points to make, make them one at a time.
Or waste your time writing War and Peace if you want to, but I'm not reading it.
Click-bait content is like a cat — it has nine lives. And old religious click-bait always resurrects itself on Christmas and Easter. Just the other day, a post from the Times of India spawned these Freeper comments: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3377747/posts
um, War and Peace in under 30 sentences??? I will admit, War and Peace is a tome, but 30 sentences..maybe you just cannot muster the effort.. Seriously, sounds like a pretty weak excuse to me..
I don’t care how it sounds. I don’t mind a conversation, but I won’t consent to be lectured to. Ask one question or make one point, and I’ll respond. Lecture, and I won’t. Those are my rules of engagement. Engage me or don’t, it’s up to you, but a debate is like a relationship: both sides have to agree to it.
That’s too bad, I have learned some amazing lessons while being “lectured”. But, we are all given free will, you have chosen your course.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.