Not Such a Bright Idea: Atheists Try a New Name

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/mohler/ ^ | September 29, 2003 | Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

[Dimensio]

Our 'bright' friends have yet to refute this simple truth, after 100 years of great "successes" of atheism that murdered 100 million and enslaved a billion.

Naturally, take intellectually bankrupt political systems and blame it on "lack of belief in gods", as though that's all that was involved. For some reason my lack of belief in gods hasn't led me to desire to enslave or murder anyone (except for e-mail spammers, and I daresay that a number of theists hold the same opinion). Perhaps I'm not a "true atheist" or, perhaps -- more likely -- you're a presumptious twit.

[L,TOWM]

This is in Matthew Chapter 7, (NIV):

15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.
16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.
19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?'
23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

The last phrase is translated in the KJV as being "workers of iniquity".

Take care for the fruit you are bearing, brother. You may want to brush on The Sermon on the Mount. It includes many fundamental teachings of Christ.

[Physicist]

Really? Elijah mocked the priests of Baal. I merely mock the priests of neodarwinism.

Elijah was beholden to the old Covenant. Are you?

[balrog666]

Precisely. It is the same insecurity which inspires some Christians to hate Jews. We reject what they hold as absolutely necessary. Some cannot handle having their faith called into question, even by the mere existence of those who disagree with them.

Exactly. Insecurity, fear, and intellectual laziness.

[L,TOWM]

You are deliciously subversive, sometimes.

[Dimensio]

I would have replied, but exmarine has shown that he's completely dishonest. He insists that established logical fallacies are valid argument techniquest, including strawman arguments (like his utterly false claim regarding atheists) and argument from the consequences (where he argues that atheism is obviously false because he doesn't like what he perceives as the consequences of it).

[exmarine]

Sweeping generalization. Many atheists may be moral relativists, but there are also atheists who believe in an objective morality. So your statement here is false.

The atheists I refer to are the ANTI-THEISTIC ones (not the ones who don't give a flip). I'm talking about the ones (like you?) who are trying to ERASE America's Christian heritage, who do everything they can to oppose Christians and God, who are the enemies of religious freedom. Does the shoe fit?

By the way, atheists who believe in an objective morality are seriously confused. Pssst...Let me give you a clue - morals have only TWO POSSIBLE SOURCES - man or God. There are no other possibilities. If you think there is, then you need to name a 3rd source...

You are a jew? I have nothing against Jews - I am among the staunchest supporters of Israel, and Jesus Christ himself was a jew. But I do take exception with the ADL and other anti-Christian BIGOTS who are villifying Mel Gibson and are constantly attacking Christians. Are you one of those?

[Dimensio]

My dictionary defines "atheist" as one who DENIES the existence of God.

Your dictionary is inadequate. A = without, theism = belief in a god or gods --> atheism = without belief in a god or gods. Otherwise, what would you call "lack of belief in a god or gods"?

Consider that the definition itself is loaded by using the term "God", which implies a single monothesitic deity rather than a generic deity descriptor like "gods".

[OWK]

I have traveled that road myself.

Not really worth the effort.

[exmarine]

You like to play fast and loose with scripture. I didn't see anything in there that would prevent me from TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT ATHEISM... I think you need a commentary. But if you truly are my "brother," I would suggest that you think about the implications of joining with heathens in attacking a brother.

[exmarine]

You wouldn't know a covenant from apple butter.

[Physicist]

Why do you say that?

[general_re]

Normally I might throw gas on the fire, but I see that I'm already too late for that ;)

[OWK]

But if you truly are my "brother," I would suggest that you think about the implications of joining with heathens in attacking a brother.

Remarkably telling insight, into the mind of exmarine.

[Physicist]

Its the sort of thing a Teamster boss would say to keep a union brother in line.

[malakhi]

The atheists I refer to are the ANTI-THEISTIC ones

Then perhaps you should qualify your remarks when you make them.

I'm talking about the ones (like you?)

Having already said that I believe in God, that I am not a moral relativist and that I am a Jew, should have been sufficient to dispel any doubt on the matter.

By the way, atheists who believe in an objective morality are seriously confused.

Maybe they are confused, maybe they aren't. But that doesn't mean that they don't believe in an objective morality.

But I do take exception with the ADL and other anti-Christian BIGOTS who are villifying Mel Gibson and are constantly attacking Christians. Are you one of those?

I have no use for the ADL. I also have little use for Mel Gibson. I do not attack Christians qua Christians. My belief system does not require others to believe as I do.

[Revolting cat!]

Perhaps I'm not a "true atheist" or, perhaps -- more likely -- you're a presumptious twit.

How intelligent! How witty! How original! What a departure from the usual cliche that would say "perhaps -- more likely -- I'm a presumptious twit." What a sophisticated intellectual refutation of Dostoyevsky's statement, and of the widely accepted version of the causes of the 20th century horrors. We might as well surrender to the moral code of the atheists. But which ones? Oh, I'll take Woody Allen's atheistic standards.

"If there is no God, then everything is permitted" -- Fyodor Dostoyevsky

[L,TOWM]

In defense of my brother, "grace" vs. "law" is a pretty difficult concept for a lot of GOOD (not TV type) pastors to teach on, let alone us flock members to try to puzzle through.

[gdani]

Define "contradiction" - let's see if you know what you are talking about...

I am certain you are well aware of the numerous "time, place, manner & what-was-said" contradictions contained within.

Or maybe not -- judging by the number of times you have sinned on this thread.

[malakhi]

"If there is no God, then everything is permitted" -- Fyodor Dostoyevsky

What does not follow from this is that everyone would choose to do evil.