Atheist Memes: ‘Everyone’s an Atheist About Thousands of Gods. We Just Take Atheism One God Further’

By Tom Gilson Published on November 10, 2018

If you know how to answer, it’s nothing but a gnat. Trivial. Annoying, and that’s about it. But that’s only if you know how to answer, and too often our kids don’t. We might not even know ourselves.

I’m talking about the mocking, scornful anti-Christian memes that show up all over social media. I’ll be looking at a few of these over the next few weeks, starting with the “one god further” charge you see in the Richard Dawkins meme here.

ogf

This one gets points for cuteness, I’ll grant it that. Some people must even think it’s got some rational merit to it. Richard Dawkins was once Oxford University’s “Professor for the Public Understanding of Science.” He was also once known as the leader of the world atheist movement, and the headline attraction for the 2012 “Reason Rally.” With credentials like that, you’d think he’d make sense.

Alas, no. His entire God Delusion book, though a best seller, was riddled with errors as simple as this one. And yet there must be some attraction to the meme. A Google search for “one god further” returns almost 250 million results.

Not that they’re all very original. Memes are like that: They get passed around willy-nilly by people who think they understand what they’re talking about. Click through the Google result pages and you’ll find that the vast majority of those 250 million references are “very similar” to just the first 200 or so.

Of course the point of this meme is that everyone disbelieves in gods — lots of gods, in fact nearly all of them. Why make an exception for the one God we do believe in? How big of a deal could it be to disbelieve in just one God more?

What’s Wrong With the Meme

The meme fails on several levels, though.

Spiritual Readiness Logo - 400

First, it’s no small step to go “one god further.” The meme supposes it’s just arithmetic. Start at ten gods, say, and take them away one at a time, and you’ll find that a world with nine gods isn’t that much different than one with ten. Same when you dial down from nine to eight: no real change. If it doesn’t matter to knock off belief in the ninth god, why should it matter if just kept going, and quit believing in that last one?

But this is wrong-headed. A universe with no God or gods is one in which nothing exists but matter and energy doing what natural law tells it to do (or describes it doing, for those who want to quibble about it). This universe has no purpose, no mind, no morality, no reason for being, anywhere in its core reality.

Humans may claim we’ve got minds and purposes and moral significance — as of course we do — but where that came from in such a mindless world, no one can say. We really don’t fit into that kind of world at all. Some atheist thinkers have even concluded that if the universe isn’t moral and mindful, then all our impressions of morality, consciousness and rationality are illusions.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

And all it takes to change that around completely is just one God — the God of the Bible. God is eternal, perfect mind. He’s holy, good and loving. He’s a relational God, and a creative one. All of reality is built on that — so our humanness fits. It’s no illusion; we are the rational, morally significant creatures we’ve always known we are.

Where It Gets Comical — Or Not

In another version of this meme, atheists love to tell Christians we’re just about as atheistic as they are. We’re atheistic about millions of gods; they’re atheistic about all those millions plus one more. That makes us very, very nearly atheistic ourselves — within a millionth of a percent or so!

But that logic goes in a very crazy direction: It makes God the best atheist in the universe! Here’s why. God must of course disbelieve in all gods but Himself, so by this logic, He’s “atheistic” toward millions of them, more than any human ever knew about. He only believes in one out of all those millions, which is a very, very tiny percentage of belief in gods, right? Therefore God, if He exists, is very nearly (within mere millionths of a percent or less!) as atheistic as atheists are.

So the lesson is, don’t take this meme seriously!

If that doesn’t make sense to you, breathe a sigh of relief. It’s not supposed to make sense; I’d be a lot more worried if it did. But that’s where this reasoning goes, if you take it seriously. So the lesson to learn from that is, don’t take this meme seriously! That is, you can take it seriously enough to think it through; then you can see it’s really quite comical.

It’s comical, that is, except it fools too many people who are taken in by nonsense like this. At least now you don’t have to be. Neither do your kids, if you pass this along to them. They can be ready for it when it comes their way — if it hasn’t already.

First in a series on atheist memes.

 

Tom Gilson is a senior editor with The Stream and the author of Critical Conversations: A Christian Parents’ Guide to Discussing Homosexuality with Teens (Kregel Publications, 2016). Follow him on Twitter: @TomGilsonAuthor.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Trilemma

    The meme works because people who are Christians keep saying people of other religions worship different gods such as the claim that those who are Muslims worship the moon god. People who are Catholic have different beliefs about God than people who are evangelical. Does that mean people who are Catholic are atheists to the evangelical god and people who are evangelical are atheists to the Catholic god? No, it’s different beliefs about the same god. If people who are Christian simply said other religions such as Islam and Hinduism have wrong beliefs about God rather than saying they worship other gods, the meme would fade away.

    • GLT

      “Hinduism have wrong beliefs about God rather than saying they worship other gods, the meme would fade away.”

      The only problem with your reasoning is that when it comes to Hinduism one would be compelled to ask about which of its tens of millions of gods were they in error?

      No, Trilemma, it is not as simple as saying Muslims, Hindus, etc., simply have erroneous beliefs about God, they do in fact worship a concept of god/gods which is totally foreign to reality.

      • Trilemma

        You say that they have a concept of god/gods which is totally foreign to reality. They probably would say that you have a concept of god/gods which is totally foreign to reality. Same God, different concepts.

        • GLT

          “They probably would say that you have a concept of god/gods which is totally foreign to reality.”

          Of course they would, that goes without saying, obviously. The obvious answer is that we cannot both be right, as such it comes down to evidence. Do you really want to pit the historic evidence for the Hindu concept of God against the historic evidence for Christianity?

          “Same God, different concepts.”

          How about you provide more than your opinion it is the same God but different concepts. How are the tens of millions of gods in Hinduism the same as the one God of Christianity?

          • Trilemma

            True, you both can’t be right. You both could be wrong. Both Hinduism and Christianity believe in tens of millions of supernatural beings. The Hindu concept of the millions of supernatural beings is that they’re gods. The Christian concept of these millions of supernatural beings is that they’re angels and demons.

          • Ken Abbott

            But God is a different order of being than angels and demons. Does such a distinction exist within the Hindu pantheon?

          • Trilemma

            I’m not sure. I think they have some sort of hierarchy with great gods such as Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva along with lesser gods.

          • Ken Abbott

            Role or position hierarchies–think of the Greco-Roman or Norse pantheons for example, led by Zeus/Jupiter and Odin respectively–are not the same as orders of being. God is not Chief Angel but an entirely different and higher being to which there is no comparison. There is none like him.

          • Trilemma

            I understand your concept of god and other supernatural beings. All religions have a concept of god and other supernatural beings. The concept of God varies in Hinduism. Some Hindu sects believe all the different gods are incarnations of the same god. Concepts of god vary even within Christianity. Some Christians believe Jesus is God while others believe he’s a created god while others believe he’s an angel while others believe he’s a man.

          • Ken Abbott

            You’re changing categories. We were discussing the ontology of God in comparison (or perhaps contrast) to other supernatural beings. You’ve moved on to statements about the person of Christ, whether or not he is divine in the same sense as the Father is divine. And you want to include these contradictory beliefs under the same heading as Christianity. Sorry, T, but these beliefs cannot all be right. A person who wants to be called a Christian while denying the full deity of the Son is fooling himself and misleading others. Let him apply the proper terminology–he’s an Arian or a Unitarian or just a garden-variety unbelieving theological liberal. Why would he want to call himself a Christian while denying the substance thereof?

          • Trilemma

            The category is concepts of God. Every religion has its concepts of God. Hinduism has many concepts of God. Christianity has several concepts of God. Your concept of God is one of several Christian concepts of God. For as long as humans have existed, they have come up with concepts of God as they try to imagine what God is like. The ancient Egyptians had a concept of God. The Old Testament gives the concept of God that the ancient Israelites had. The New Testament gives a different concept of God from the Old Testament.

          • Kevin Quillen

            it is historically provable that Jesus was crucified on a cross, died, was put in a tomb, rose again, was seen by over 500 people. He is the only one whose tomb is empty. I stake my life and future on HIM and HIM alone. ALL other religions depend on man to work for salvation.

          • swordfish

            Do you also believe Mathew 27 which claims that when Jesus was resurrected, many other holy men raised from the dead and were seen in Jerusalem? Why was this plague of zombies not mentioned in the other Gospels or in any historical texts?

          • Ken Abbott

            Point of order: A zombie is a reanimated corpse, hence the term “walking dead” for the recent TV series. The account in Matthew says these “holy people” were raised to life, i.e., resurrected. There is an important difference between resurrection and reanimation.

          • swordfish

            There’s no meaningful difference between “resurrected” and “reanimated”. The detailed Wikipedia entry for zombies uses the term “resurrected” several times. A reanimated corpse is a resurrected corpse.

          • Ken Abbott

            Of course there is a difference, Wikipedia (!) writers notwithstanding. Resurrection is the restoration of full life and health (and then some in certain cases, such as Jesus). The idea of a zombie is that it is still dead. The corpse is reanimated, meaning it can walk around and do all the gross things zombies are supposed to do, including fall to pieces bit by bit. But no one considers zombies to be healthy.

          • swordfish

            Was Jesus restored to full health? He showed the holes in his body to doubting Thomas – having holes in one’s body doesn’t sound very healthy. As for zombies being still dead, have you not heard the term ‘living dead’? Why do you have to kill zombies in movies and games?

          • Ken Abbott

            “Having holes in one’s body doesn’t sound very healthy.” Heh. Try that line on someone with piercings. Seriously, I am sure you are well aware of the significance of the remaining wound-marks on Christ’s body. They were not running sores subject to infection or bleeding.

            I have heard of the term “living dead” as well as “undead” and the aforementioned “walking dead.” How does something that is dead live? How is something alive also dead? These are fanciful and internally contradictory terms for what is a fictitious entity. Makes for a great horror story (I suppose–I’m not really into zombie fiction) but it doesn’t have to make actual sense.

          • swordfish

            There are many kinds of zombies in fiction, but if they have one defining characteristic, it’s that they’re all dead people who have come back to life. I’m not clear how this differs from the status of those “holy men” who (supposedly) came back to life and paraded around Jerusalem. Mathew didn’t think anyone would be interested in details like how they behaved, what condition their bodies were in, or anything else which might have lent this (laughable) story credibility.

            Nice deflection from my original question to KQ as to whether he believes this part of Mathew, by the way.

          • Ken Abbott

            Second part first: You’re wrong about “deflection.” I addressed your attack on the Matthew account separately several posts above.

            As to this whole “zombie” discussion, which has become quite silly, I offer this lengthy quote on the nature of resurrection as encountered in biblical teaching:

            Resurrection was mocked by early Christian critic Celsus as “hope of worms.” Today, the idea is ridiculed by skeptics who claim we must worship Zombie Jesus.

            Is that the resurrection the Bible speaks of? Are our bodies simply going to be resuscitated? Paul tries to clear up much of the confusion in 1 Corinthians 15:35-44.

            After calling them fools for doubting that God, who created their bodies, could resurrect their bodies, Paul uses two illustrations to explain the reality of the resurrection – seeds and their produce, different types of bodies in different types of environments.

            First, he wanted the Christians in Corinth to consider seeds (1 Cor. 15:37-38). When you plant a seed, you don’t expect it to come up and look exactly like it did when you planted it. The seed produces a specific type of plant.

            There is a big difference between the seed that died and the plant that grew, but their is a definite connection. The same is true for your current body and your resurrected body.

            The body that goes in the ground is not going to burst forth from the grave like a zombie. God is resurrecting the body into a spiritual body – one that is different from your current physical body, as a seed is from a plant. However, there is also the connection there.

            The specific seed you bury in the dirt will grow into a specific type of plant. The seed determines the type of plant that will grow. You now will determine you then.

            Think of it this way. God made you who He wanted you to be. You didn’t surprise God. He created you, exactly the way you are, for a purpose, to praise and worship Him in a particular way that only you can.

            He doesn’t want to unmake you. He wants to perfect you. The spiritual body that is raised to new life will be you, exactly as you were intended to be, without the junk, the stains, the scars of sin hanging on to you.

            First, Paul establishes both the distinction and connection between the physical body and the spiritual body of the resurrection using the analogy of the seed. Secondly, he uses the distinctions between different types of animals and their bodies to illustrate the need for a transformation.

            Let’s go all preschool on this. Why do birds have wings? Because they fly. Why do fish have fins? Because they swim. Animals have bodies that correspond to their environment.

            The body you have now matches up with the environment in which you live. However, it will not suit you in the life to come. A body made for earth will not do in heaven.

            A body, no matter how good (or bad it is), suited for this earth is not the same as a body suited for eternity. Things have to change. Here’s how:

            Sown in corruption, raised in incorruption;

            sown in dishonor, raised in glory;

            sown in weakness, raised in power;

            sown a natural body, raised a spiritual body.

            Our present bodies must lay aside all those first things and our spiritual body will be all the latter things.

            Those outside of Christ have always mocked Christians beliefs because they fail to understand them. Silly, ignorant comments about zombie Jesus should not dissuade you from believing in the reality of Christian resurrection.

            What God has made, He can resurrect and perfect one day. There will be no undead, only those who are truly alive.

            *****
            There’s no accounting for people who will use terminology loosely or incorrectly in composing their fictions. Mostly the use of “resurrection” in the context of zombie fiction demonstrates the authors have no idea what they’re talking about.

          • swordfish

            “The body that goes in the ground is not going to burst forth from the grave like a zombie. God is resurrecting the body into a spiritual body”

            If the resurrected body isn’t the original one, why the empty tomb?

          • Ken Abbott

            The resurrected body is the original one, but transformed. Here’s where Paul’s metaphor of the sown seed and the resulting plant comes into play. The plant, although contiguous with the seed, is a different, greater thing than the seed out of which it came.

          • swordfish

            So it did “burst forth from the grave”, complete with several pounds of spiritual gut microbes.

          • Ken Abbott

            What are “spiritual gut microbes”? Are bacteria part of the glorified resurrected body? I’ll need chapter and verse on that one.

          • GLT

            Assuming that this event was not mentioned anywhere else, is that proof it did not happen?

          • swordfish

            It’s not proof, but it’s clearly unlikely that an extremely unusual and bizarre supernatural event could be witnessed by many people but not mentioned at all by any historians.

          • GLT

            “witnessed by many people but not mentioned at all by any historians.”

            If this event was not mentioned at all by any historians how are you even aware of the claim such an event occured?

          • swordfish

            Mathew wasn’t an historian.

          • Kevin Quillen

            you are like a stubborn child. yeah but, yeah but. I used to be the same way. Quit fighting it, and relax.

          • Ken Abbott

            Why was the event not mentioned in the other Gospels? It was hardly unique in this, given that there are several pericopes that are found in just one of the four accounts; John characteristically includes many events that the three synoptic evangelists do not. Much has to do with the purposes for each author in writing. None of them was written as an exhaustive biography of Jesus in the modern sense (which tends to drive some modern readers batty, but is itself revealing of their presuppositions). And John himself tells us that his account was selective–he observes there are many other things Jesus said and did, but that the things he wrote about in his gospel were intended to support his contention that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that life can be had by believing in him. Evidently he did not deem it necessary to include the Matthew 27 episode to accomplish this purpose.

          • Kevin Quillen

            Actually I do have an understanding of Matt 27:52. These people were believers in Jesus before He was crucified and lost their faith in Him because He seemed defeated. They fell into unbelief because He did not fit the bill as they thought He would. BUT…..when the sky went dark, and the earth quaked(old testament prophecy), they awoke from their “sleep”(unbelief) and believed again. Then after His resurrection, they went out again as witnesses. They “awoke” from spiritual death. Came out of their “graves”.

          • swordfish

            “Matt. 27:52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.”

            That reads like a passage which is meant to depict literal bodily resurrection. It looks like you’re trying to interpret it metaphorically just to avoid the accusation that it is ridiculous.

          • Kevin Quillen

            so does the heaven and earth literally burn up? 2 Pet 3:10
            answer…..no. do you read this literally?

          • swordfish

            Maybe Jesus’s resurrection is also supposed to be a metaphor.

          • Kevin Quillen

            historical fact. give it up swordfish and come to Christ.

          • No, people do not go to their deaths for metaphors.

          • Trilemma

            How is all that historically provable? What proof do you have that Jesus was seen by over 500? what proof do you have that the body of Jesus was not stolen and eaten? According to the Bible, a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. So, yes, you have to do some work for salvation.

          • The presence of the Church and God Himself.

            No, Christ was not eaten, although He gives up His Sacred Heart to be eaten trough the Eucharist. Convert, get into a State of Grace and partake in it, you desperately need it.

          • Ken Abbott

            A brief response due to lack of time immediately at hand: Your last sentence is wrong, flatly so, a mortally wounded canard that refuses to die, and can only be maintained out of ignorance or willful deceit.

          • Trilemma

            The Old Testament depicts God as a god of war and the god of Israel only. The New Testament depicts God as a god of peace and love and the god of all humanity.

          • Ken Abbott

            “Let no foreigner who is bound to the Lord say, ‘The Lord will surely exclude me from his people.’ And let no eunuch complain, ‘I am only a dry tree. For this is what the Lord says: ‘To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant—to them I will give within my temple and its walls a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will endure forever. And foreigners who bind themselves to the Lord to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord, and to be his servants, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant—these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.’ The Sovereign Lord declares—he who gathers the exiles of Israel: ‘I will gather still others to them besides those already gathered.'” (Isaiah 56:3-8)

            Yep, sounds pretty exclusive there, T.

            “The LORD sits enthroned over the flood; the LORD is enthroned as King forever. The LORD gives strength to his people; the LORD blesses his people with peace.” (Psalm 29:10-11).

            Yep, sounds like a warmonger, T.

            You are a selective reader of Scripture. You let only those parts that match up to your benighted expectations speak and ignore the volumes that contradict your thinking.

            The Lord Jesus identified the Father as Yahweh, as he also identified himself as Yahweh and the Spirit as Yahweh. The “God of the Old Testament” lives and speaks in the New Testament and took on flesh and dwelt among us.

          • swordfish

            “You are a selective reader of Scripture. You let only those parts that
            match up to your benighted expectations speak and ignore the volumes
            that contradict your thinking.”

            Pot kettle black. How is God not a warmonger when he commands the slaughter of entire peoples?

          • Ken Abbott

            Don’t be daft, man. That I offer brief counterexamples to put the lie to Trilemma’s insubstantial claims does not make me guilty of that of which I credibly accuse him. I am well aware of the passages of the OT in which God commands a war of righteous judgment and conquest upon the pagan and corrupt denizens of Canaan. “Warmonger” is pejorative and incorrectly applied to God’s actions, though. God did not gin up belligerancies for the sake of nationalism, material gain, or bloodthirstiness.

            As creator, God has absolute rights over his creation. He is the giver of life; he has the right to take it as well, particularly from those who arrogantly refuse to acknowledge their indebtedness to him, rebel against him, and flout his moral laws.

          • swordfish

            “That I offer brief counterexamples to put the lie to Trilemma’s insubstantial claims does not make me guilty of that of which I credibly accuse him.”

            Sorry, but it does.

            “God did not gin up belligerancies for the sake of nationalism, material gain, or bloodthirstiness.”

            Why are you having to justify the actions of an all-loving being?

            “He is the giver of life; he has the right to take it as well, particularly from those who arrogantly refuse to acknowledge their indebtedness to him, rebel against him, and flout his moral laws.”

            Rubbish. Anyone with an ounce of humanity can see this is morally bankrupt. Since when do we have the right to murder those who “refuse to acknowledge their indebtedness” to us? Creating us makes God morally responsible for us, not the other way around.

          • Ken Abbott

            Sorry, no, it doesn’t. Space here–and lack of time–does not permit the kind of extended demonstration required to refute T’s–and by extension, your–assertion. But I am willing to deal with the entire counsel of God as revealed in Scripture, whereas T generally is not, at least according to the evidence he provides here.

            Atheists routinely but ignorantly invoke the herem accounts in the early books of the OT and typically jeer any attempt to provide explanations or understanding. This demonstrates that minds are shut tight against any effort to dissuade them from their preferred thinking.

            Not rubbish. The potter has absolute rights over the clay. The creator has absolute rights over his creation. The legitimate sovereign has rights to the allegiance of his people. Your problem, SF, is that you have an inverted view of the relationship between God and humanity. You want God to be accountable to you but not you to him. In your heart, you want to be the sovereign, and you will brook no rivals.

          • Kevin Quillen

            SF really does know that God exists. That is why he so adamantly asserts mans rights.

          • swordfish

            “The potter has absolute rights over the clay.”

            We aren’t clay pots, we’re living, feeling beings. Do we have the right to treat our children any way we want, just because we created them? Absolutely not.

          • Ken Abbott

            It’s a metaphor, one used in both Testaments to describe God’s sovereignty over his creation. In your counterexample, you fail to take into consideration that God is a higher order of being, whereas human adults and children are the same order of being. That makes a great difference in terms of the relationships.

          • your only value comes from being Made in the Image of God. There is no other value in you.

            God creates all, you do not create children.

          • Kevin Quillen

            “Since when do we have the right to murder those who “refuse to acknowledge their indebtedness” to us?”

            If evolution is true, then why don’t we have the right to murder those who refuse to acknowledge their indebtedness to us? If man is the supreme being, why not? There are no absolutes, right?

          • swordfish

            Not again! Just because we don’t have absolute standards set by God doesn’t mean we don’t have standards. Every society that has ever existed has rules and standards of acceptable behaviour.

          • you do have Absolute Standards set by God, without God you have nothing.

            your ego is not a foundation for anything, reprobate.

          • So you accuse your enemies of what you are guilty of? And that any rightful accusation against you must therefore be turned around because your mortal sin of despair commands it?

            Love is to will the Good of the other as other. Good is anything as God created it to be. Love is so fundamental that God had to base it on Himself. God creates for the Good of the created, and so therefore creates out of Love.

            Ken is defending God for your sake, because by attacking God you bring about self-injury.

            you are the unnecessary one, not God. you are the one who needs God, God does not need you or anything.

            you have already perished due to sin. God is merely giving you a second chance by letting you live on earth for a bit. That is the only reason you were born.

            So you were born here to give you a chance to repent. Clearly you have wasted that gift.

          • GLT

            Why do you work on the assumption that you can hold God to the same standards as you hold other people?

          • What war is there? They have been damned (marked for death) for the danger they posed the survival of Isreal.

            Nervous about something?

          • Trilemma

            I will walk among you and be your God, and you will be my people.– Leviticus 26:12 NIV

            Did God say that to any other peoples in the Old Testament?

            Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'” – 1Samuel 15:3 NIV

            God commanded the Israelites to make an unprovoked attack and wipe out an entire nation of people. Sounds like a warmonger to me.

            In the Old Testament, King David was a man after God’s own heart. King David was a man of war and a ruthless murderer. In the New Testament, Jesus was not a man of war and didn’t murder anyone. Instead, he preached love and forgiveness.

          • Ken Abbott

            So what exactly is the idea of a “chosen people,” T? Are you jealous that your ancestors were not part of the In crowd? Well, neither were mine.

            BUT, did you even read my quote from Isaiah? How about this from Jeremiah: “Return, faithless people,” declares the Lord, “for I am your husband. I will choose you—one from a town and two from a clan—and bring you to Zion. Then I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who will lead you with knowledge and understanding. In those days, when your numbers have increased greatly in the land,” declares the Lord, “people will no longer say, ‘The ark of the covenant of the Lord.’ It will never enter their minds or be remembered; it will not be missed, nor will another one be made. At that time they will call Jerusalem The Throne of the Lord, and all nations will gather in Jerusalem to honor the name of the Lord. No longer will they follow the stubbornness of their evil hearts. In those days the people of Judah will join the people of Israel, and together they will come from a northern land to the land I gave your ancestors as an inheritance.”

            I can multiply examples, but it would be better if you took up a concordance and did some study on your own.

            “An unprovoked attack.” You cannot be serious. The pagan peoples of Canaan were endlessly creative in provoking God to judgment. The mercy is that he withheld his hand so long.

            So David was a sinner. Big revelation there, T. But was a warrior and murderer the sum and total of David’s life? Would you care to be judged forever on your worst moments?

            Jesus also preached repentance and warned of coming judgment in stark terms.

            Repeatedly in these conversations you express your preference to embrace only those aspects of Scripture that appeal to your natural heart. Get your mind renewed, T. Study the WHOLE counsel of God and learn wisdom.

          • Trilemma

            In the Old Testament, the Jews were a chosen people. That’s exclusivity. In the New Testament, there is no chosen people. There was neither Jew or Greek.

            Jeremiah was talking about the return of the Jews from captivity. There’s no inclusivity in it.

            Yes, I’m serious. The attack on the Amalekites was unprovoked.

            You shrug off David’s murderous behavior as if it’s no big deal. The man murdered men, women and children just so he could take their stuff.

            Repeatedly, you express your preference to embrace only those aspects of the Bible that appeal to you. You repeatedly make excuses for the immoral behavior the Old Testament claims God did. If God is moral then the Old Testament is wrong about God.

          • Ken Abbott

            Actually, T, you are incorrect. There is a chosen people in the NT. They’re called the elect. That they come from every nation, tongue, and tribe does not in any way mitigate the distinctiveness of their being called out (“ekklesia”). This represents the broadening of God’s covenant with the coming of Christ.

            So you think when Jeremiah refers to “all nations” he’s being facetious? That there is no sense (ultimately fulfilled in the NT) that God’s plan all along was to extend the covenant past Israel?

            So the Amalekites were completely innocent in the eyes of God, thoroughly righteous, but just in the way?

            I do not shrug off David’s sins. He himself did not shrug them off. Men and women of God are capable of doing great evil. But they repent of it and seek restoration of their relationship with God. And you’re dancing around the issue of your own sins, unless you somehow think yourself a better person because you have not been guilty of actual murder.

            Your last paragraph demonstrates (again) that your thoughts of God are entirely too small, indeed poverty-stricken.

          • Ken Abbott

            One further thought for you to chew on, T. You’re a Marcionite.

          • No, Isreal was perfected and became the Church. There is still only one exclusive people of God.

            Isreal was never a wordly nation, it was always the established Kingdom of God on earth.

            The ameleks were attacking and persecuting Isreal by being a threat to their survival. Interesting who you defend and what you claim is innocent: it is always you claiming servants of the devil are totally innocent no matter what they do.

            No, David killed men in battle to save Isreal.

            What is immoral about the Old Testament, can you define “immoral” for me?

            As it is, I see a devil worshipper angry that devil worshippers got their just desserts in the Old Testament.

          • Trilemma

            Here’s where David killed women and he didn’t do it to defend Israel.

            In all, David lived a year and four months in Philistine territory. David and his men went out on raids against the Geshurites, Girzites, and Amalekites—peoples living in the land between Telam, on the approach to Shur, and the land of Egypt. In attacking the land David would not leave a man or woman alive, but would carry off sheep, oxen, donkeys, camels, and clothes. Then he would return to Achish, who would ask, “Against whom did you raid this time?” David would reply, “Against the Negeb of Judah,” or “Against the Negeb of Jerahmeel,” or “Against the Negeb of the Kenites.” David never left a man or woman alive to be brought to Gath. He thought, “They will betray us and say, ‘This is what David did.’” This was his custom as long as he lived in Philistine territory. 1Samuel 27:7-11

            If Hitler was immoral for killing 6 million Jews then YHWH was even more immoral for killing all life on Earth in a flood save for a few in the ark.

          • hitler killed innocent people. This is called murder. There is no qualms or special terms for killing guilty and evil people, in fact it is required to keep people safer.

            The entire world was damned and moments from ending. God saved the only salvageable man and did not make a “flood,” God remade the entire world to make sure fallen man could better live on it without committing suicide by sin.

            Now hitler is just a common satanist and killed innocent people in the name of his dark master. The only reason what hitler did is wrong is because God disapproves of devilry and murder.

            God is God, and all belongs to Him and all is created by Him and all is contingent upon Him.

            I hope even you can see the difference there.

            As for King David, he was killing tribes of pagans to ensure the survival of Israel. It is not smart to quote something that makes my case for me. Similarly it is not smart enough to use rhetoric satanists use against me, when your shtick is that you are Christian (although no one believes that as you know nothing about Christianity).

            your argument here relies on me not knowing who the geshurites, girzites, amalekites, and philistines are. I do know who they are. For example the philisitines were a tribe of greeks who settled in the middle east who enslaved themselves to the shark-faced demon called “dagon” or “poseidon” in greek. They refused to read or learn anything because it might refute their devil worship, and attacked Isreal because of that.

            So you posted a quote that outright says that King David lived near four devil worshipping tribes, and on land that one of the tribes claimed for themselves.

          • Trilemma

            You claimed David didn’t kill women. The Bible says he did.

          • Are you really so desperate that you couldn’t address anything I said?

            I put a lot of effort into writing this and you truly anger me with your abject cowardice. Here is what I said once more:

            hitler killed innocent people. This is called murder. There is no qualms or special terms for killing guilty and evil people, in fact it is required to keep people safer.

            The entire world was damned and moments from ending. God saved the only salvageable man and did not make a “flood,” God remade the entire world to make sure fallen man could better live on it without committing suicide by sin.

            Now hitler is just a common satanist and killed innocent people in the name of his dark master. The only reason what hitler did is wrong is because God disapproves of devilry and murder.

            God is God, and all belongs to Him and all is created by Him and all is contingent upon Him.

            I hope even you can see the difference there.

            As for King David, he was killing tribes of pagans to ensure the survival of Israel. It is not smart to quote something that makes my case for me. Similarly it is not smart enough to use rhetoric satanists use against me, when your shtick is that you are Christian (although no one believes that as you know nothing about Christianity).

            your argument here relies on me not knowing who the geshurites, girzites, amalekites, and philistines are. I do know who they are. For example the philisitines were a tribe of greeks who settled in the middle east who enslaved themselves to the shark-faced demon called “dagon” or “poseidon” in greek. They refused to read or learn anything because it might refute their devil worship, and attacked Isreal because of that.

            So you posted a quote that outright says that King David lived near four devil worshipping tribes, and on land that one of the tribes claimed for themselves.

          • So you have dropped the pretense of being a mere gnostic and are now going full apostate. That is rare for you to let your mask slip so far.

            The pagans posed imminent danger to the Isrealites, and Isreal has to survive. Therefore the pagans were to be wiped out. I can see why God wiping out the enemies of His people worries you, as you spend every moment of your day as an opponent to His people.

            King David was a great King, when he wasn’t womanizing. Those wars saved the people of God from those like you.

            you have no love and therefore you have no forgiveness.

          • God is the uncreated, uncontingent Prime Mover, not some aspect of your worthless id.

            God created all, the Church is the perfection of Isreal.

            Really, your subversion here is to push the idea of Christ being nothing more than a proto-dnc politician.

          • GLT

            “The New Testament gives a different concept of God from the Old Testament.”

            It does? Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain these differences?

          • Trilemma

            Here’s an example. In the Old Testament, God commanded the Israelites to kill their enemies. In the New Testament, Jesus commanded the Israelites to love their enemies.

          • GLT

            Seriously, that’s your argument? Do you want some time to think that one through a little more?

          • Neither of those are opposed to the other.

            I know your understanding of the subject is puddle-deep due to you only caring about what you can use for your subversive reasons, but do you know what the Just War Doctrine is?

          • Trilemma

            How is killing your enemies showing you love them?

          • First you keep your own people safe (Justice) and then you worry about your enemy’s souls (Mercy). Mercy is only valid after Justice is completely settled.

            As I asked and you dodged: do you know what the Just War Doctrine is?

          • Trilemma

            How does loving your enemies involve killing them? Will your enemies know you love them as you kill them? There’s no such thing as a just war.

          • I hate the error you push and unthinkingly represent as well as me trucking hating your dark master. your intellectual cowardice drives me up a wall.

            Read what I said again because what I already said answers your bs vomited out above:

            First you keep your own people safe (Justice) and then you worry about your enemy’s souls (Mercy). Mercy is only valid after Justice is completely settled.

            One can worry about the reprobate’s soul only after they are neutralized.

            Now:
            do you know what the Just War Doctrine is?

            It means that it is mortally sinful to do nothing in the face of evil. There is no sin to kill evil men, but it is sinful to let evil men run free.

            Similarly it is not sinful to hate evil and be angered by it, but it is sinful to a quiescent to evil and passively approve of it.

          • The hindus have no concept of God at all as they savagely worship demons and the devil in the hopes it gives them power. The exact same reason you worship demons and the devil.

            God is eternal, immutable, and indivisible. There is no difference in God not is there a change in God.

            you, being a gnostic (and therefore demoniac) follow their ancient evil in saying that the Old Testament and New are opposed, just as your predecessors did before they were wiped out. But what opposition is there outside of your gnostic wishful thinking?

          • No, your words clearly show you do not understand God, nor do you understand anything.

            Christ is God and there is no Christianity ourside of the Church. There is no difference in views of Christ, subversive, long-dead berries are just that long-dead heresies.

          • Trilemma

            You believe Jesus is God. Some Christians don’t

          • No, Christ is God, and the only Christians are in the Church.

            I get that you are a gnostic, and therefore claim that your “gnosis” changes reality to whatever you want at that moment. I also know you claim to be a Christian for the purposes of your internet trolling and attempts to take down a local baptist church from within.

            Just because you claim to be a Christian does not make you one. Also, being a heretic and apostate does not make you a mere “anternate” Christian, it makes you a heretic and apostate.

          • They have no structure. They just worship whatever demon they can for the sake of power. They even worship celebrities in the same temples as they do demons.

          • GLT

            “supernatural beings.”

            We’re not talking about supernatural beings, we’re talking about God, do not equivocate.

            “The Hindu concept of the millions of supernatural beings is that they’re gods.”

            That’s irrelevant to the question.

          • Trilemma

            God is a supernatural being so that means we’re talking about supernatural beings.

          • GLT

            I think you know what I mean.

          • Trilemma

            Some Hindus believe all those millions of gods are incarnations of one god like some Christians believe the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are incarnations of the same god.

          • GLT

            “Some Hindus believe all those millions of gods are incarnations of one god,…”

            No, Hinduism is polytheistic in nature, not monotheistic.

          • Trilemma

            In Hinduism, polytheism and monotheism are like two sides of the same reality. The difference is not conceptual but perceptual. All the gods are manifestations of the great God Brahman.

          • GLT

            Hindus also believe each human contains an aspect of Brahman, a variation of pantheism.

            You can type until your fingers fall off, Trilemma, you will never logically draw a parallel between Hinduism and Christianity as the two are diametrically opposed to one another.

          • Trilemma

            Pantheism is the belief that God and creation are one and the same. Hinduism believes God is in all creation but also separate from creation and transcends creation. That’s panentheism.

            one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. – Ephesians 4:6 NIV

            As you can see, Christianity also believes God is in all creation. Christianity believes God is omnipresent. Therefore, Christianity also believes panentheism like Hinduism does.

          • pantheism and panentheism are hair other names for gnosticism.

            All of creation is created by God, but creation is not God.

            This is why the sciences were created by the Church. We know that creation is not Divine as God is not in creation, and that all is intelligible as we have the same creator.

            I just remembered that you are not just innocently misinformed and ignorant, but maliciously subversive and trying to gaslight people in service of your dark master.

          • swordfish

            Did the Church create the science of evolution?

          • Considering all evolution means as rightly ordered is “how things change in real-time over time,” yes the Church did create it as it describes how things age and things change over time.

          • Trilemma

            Is God omnipresent, everywhere? If yes, that’s panentheism.

          • you are misrepresenting the Church and God, as usual as you are both a subversive and a satanist. This is expected.

            That you then move onto misrepresenting your case just to continue quarreling because I just refuted your case already, well that is just funny.

            All is created by God and all is contingent upon God. God is not in creation, creation is not Divine. Again, the only way the sciences can exist is because the Church knows that nothing in creation is Divine (and therefore is contingent and observable) and that all is intelligible (as we all have the same creator).

            The second most amusing thing is that you often pretend to be scientifically inclined, yet you deny the only valid foundation of the sciences when you are presented with it.

          • Trilemma

            You said, “All of creation is created by God, but creation is not God.” People who are Hindu believe the same thing.

          • Not at all, they believe everything is divine and are so drunk on novelty they cannot tell left from right or up from down. Since they know nothing, they just assume everything is simultaneously true because have have no foundation.

            This is how you get thousands of years of trying to “blow out” ones soul while behind demons to possess you.

            As I said before. When you have to change your case and claims every single message because I refuted the last case you made is funny.

          • The Trinity is three totally separate Persons of God with the same essence.

            All of the thousands of demons that hindus worship could really hair be the devil in multiple disguses instead of thousands of individual demons. Most pagan “gods” throughout the various sects are just the same demon with a different name.

            It is impressive how you speak yet know nothing about anything you speak.

          • swordfish

            “It is impressive how you speak yet know nothing about anything you speak.”

            The irony, it burns!

          • Do you have an argument against me? It appears that I hurt your ego with my message.

            Good, then you know it is true.

          • God is the subsistent act of “to be” Himself, not a created, contingent being like you are or the demons you advocate.

            I know this is hard for you to grasp as you REALLY want to misrepresent God as something you could compete with and potentially usurp.

          • Trilemma

            How do you know you’re not the one misrepresenting God?

          • Because I know who God is: the subsistent act of “to be” Himself, the uncreated, uncontingent Prime Mover. Where in that fundamental definition of God allows for God to be a created, contingent thing like you are?

            As I said, God is not a created and contingent being as you are, nor is God a created and contingent being like the demons you swore your oaths to. you think your ignorance justifies you, and you assume that just because you are ignorant, then by your “gnosis” everyone else is just as ignorant as you are.

            Though, really, you are only trying to pretend God is a thing like you are, because you figure you can compete with things.

          • Trilemma

            How do you know what you believe about God is true?

          • Because I am founded in God. I have I know who God is to do that.

            To quote Aquinas, the will ONLY becomes active once you understand Good as Good. Meaning that you have to understand God as God. Before that you are little more than a mindless puppet to evil.

            This attempt to channel the devil tempting Christ would be better if your ignorance wasn’t so infuriating.

          • None of the beings I know of that hindus worship are angels, they are all demons.

          • Trilemma

            They believe the beings are different manifestations of God.

          • They are all demons, which is why you are so interested in them.

          • swordfish

            “They are all demons”

            Prove it.

          • Do you knew anything of which you speak? If you did, this would not be a question as you would already know what I am about to say.

            demons are damned spirits that have taken it upon themselves to ensure mankind cannot make it back home because they hate mankind. Every hindu ritual surrounds blood sacrifice (like burning widows alive) or demonic possession (taking the poses of demons to “awaken the serpent,” trying to “meditate” by repeating the name of a demon to push out your soul).

            demons are contingent, created things. The thousands of demons the hindus worship are created, contingent things.

            They also cannot create anything, and this is shown by demoniacs trying to commune with demons and the presence of demons destroys nature and life. This is seen in the presence of all pagan “gods.” Things exploding, natural disasters. It is like the planet itself is disgusted by their presence.

            Grace perfects nature, so the presence of God, Angels, and Saints heals and rebuilds nature and life. For example, the Shroud of Turin is a 3 dimensional photograph that could have only been made with an explosion of 34 trillion or so watts of energy. Yet the planet it still here. This is because there is nothing destructive about the presence of God.

          • swordfish

            “demons are damned spirits that have taken it upon themselves to ensure mankind cannot make it back home because they hate mankind.”

            This isn’t proof, it’s just a series of baseless claims. It doesn’t seem that you could even be bothered to spend ten minutes learning about Hinduism.

            “For example, the Shroud of Turin is a 3 dimensional photograph that could have only been made with an explosion of 34 trillion or so watts of energy.”

            LOL. I hate to break it to you, but the Shroud of Turin is a medieval fake.

          • It is a definition. Specifically describing the demons you have swore yourself to and do whatever they demand you do without question. Not shocking that you are defending fellow demoniacs.

            Thelie that the Shroud is a fake originates from a regularly debunked report from the 1980’s that had no substantiation. Studying it, it is a3d image burned into a thin, flammable cloth. The image is so detailedand the depth of the image that it would require 34 thousand-billion (34 trillion) watts to replicate. So the Medieval Church had the ability to push 34,000,000,000,000 watts of energy into a paper-thin sheer cloth without it burning up or blowing the planet up?

            Similarlythe Tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe is also a photograph. Dust is attached to the Tilma through an electric charge, which also colors the dust in brilliant, iridescent colors. The exact same way that butterflywings have colors. The image is so detailed that electron microscopes can see the thread in Mary’s robe and a reflection of Diego showing the Bishop the Tilma in her eyes. When the Icon was created, Diego had yet to even show it to the Bishop.

            The Tilma was also blownup with a bomb a few years ago (one of your friends responsible?), and it was totally unharmed. Not bad for a tilma, considering tilmas normally rot away to nothing within 30 years.

          • swordfish

            “The lie that the Shroud is a fake originates from a regularly debunked report from the 1980’s that had no substantiation.”

            According to skeptic Joe Nickell, an investigator for the New York-based Center for Inquiry,

            “…evidence against the ‘shroud’ — its incompatibility with Jewish burial practices, lack of historical record, bishop’s report of the forger’s confession, the still-bright-red ‘blood’ which failed forensic serological tests, the presence of pigments and paints throughout the image, three laboratories’ radiocarbon dating of the cloth to the time of the confession (1260–1390), and much additional evidence…”

            It’s interesting that you’ll accept the very thin evidence supporting the authenticity of the shroud, while rejecting the many tens of thousands of peer-reviewed papers and the voluminous evidence which support evolution. The confimation bias is strong in this one.

          • I see you totally ignored what I said about the Tilma. Impressive how you think the Medieval Church managed to put 34,000,000,000,000 watts of energy to make a photograph on a sheer cloth without blowing the planet in two.

            you fools think more of the Medieval Church than I do. Ha.

            The Shroud is studied regularly and you never hear about any of them because the results always come out that it was real. A totally fabricated report from the 1980’s is dragged out because it allows you to latch your “gnosis” onto to pretend it is not there.

            Yes, that is what you do, you use whatever confirms your bias so you can enflame your hatred to pretend to ignore the Church. That you accuse me of exactly what you are doing here means you know what you are doing and that it hurts.

            As for evolution, self-creation is absurd.

          • swordfish

            “A totally fabricated report from the 1980’s is dragged out because…”

            It was a completely legitimate piece of research which was published in Nature. I had a good look through the Wikipedia page on the Turin Shroud. I agree that there is research which indicates it is possible that it dates from the correct period, but there is also much research pointing out serious issues. The 34 trillion watts thing you mentioned is just nonsense – that amount of energy would have incinerated it. I can only think that the person who claimed that was inspired by Raiders of the Lost Ark.

          • Clearly not as it has been debunked and was made out of whole cloth.

            The Shroud is studied regularly, and you can look those studies up.

            The Shroud is a photograph with 3-dimensional depth. The only way to make it would be by shooting the fabric with 34 trillion watts of energy.

            Do you remember what I told you about the presence of Grace and how I proved hundus worship demons? I do recall that you did get it as you did not reply, meaning you could not figure out a way to “freeze, polarize, politicize” it.

          • swordfish

            “The Shroud is studied regularly, and you can look those studies up.”

            Life’s too short to waste time on something as irrelevant as the Turin Shroud. As far as I’m concerned, after looking at the research that’s been done, I’m satisfied that it is a medieval fake. That 34 trillion watts claim is just laughable.

            “Do you remember what I told you about the presence of Grace and how I proved hundus worship demons? I do recall that you did get it as you did not reply, meaning you could not figure out a way to “freeze, polarize, politicize” it.”

            Hindus do not worship demons (and neither do “hundus” – nice of you to insult billions of people). The fact that I didn’t reply to that doesn’t mean I agree with you, it means I think your point is so pathetic that it isn’t worth responding to.

          • Since it is a 3D photograph on a price of cloth, it was determined what amount of energy there would need to be to make a 3D photograph on a cloth.

            Both you and hindus worship demons and I explained why.

        • They worship demons, that is absurd.

          They do declare Christians are foreign to reality, and that is correct as we are beyond savage nonsense like nihilism and power fixation.

    • Patmos

      “No, it’s different beliefs about the same god.”

      It’s like you perused the “Religion” section at Barnes and Noble, and now consider yourself an expert. You should probably do yourself a favor and stop trying to post about things you know nothing about.

    • pagan “gods” are all demons. The hindus make no qualms about the demons they worship being demons, and all of their rituals surround being possessed.

      The mohammedans worship the devil himself, the moon being a reference to the “horns” of the “morningstar” that mohammed saw. There is nothing in common with Christianity and any paganism.

      evangelicals are common heretics.

      The Church is the One True Faith.

  • Kaz

    Studies show that more than half of all atheists believe in extra-terrestrials, which means they believe in something that has no scientific proof.

    And yet they bash Christians for believing in “the invisible sky Daddy.” We have just as much proof for sky Daddy as they do for little green men.

  • GLT

    I can never cease to be amazed at the number of people who fall for the schoolboy philosophical mumblings of Richard Dawkins. Not only is he not the brilliant mind many think him to be, he would be a source of great humour in any entry level philosophy class.

  • Eric

    I agree with what Tom Gilson has written, and add two more observations.

    This perspective is ancient. Early Christians during the time of the polytheistic Roman empire really were regarded and charged as “atheists” because they rejected the pantheon of Greek and Roman deities as being not truly gods. (See also Acts 17:16-34).

    While there is a real important difference between one God and none, that much might be true whatever God or god was the last one considered. There is an additional important difference that is alluded to in the article, but could be made more explicit.

    There is an immeasurable qualitative difference between all contingent gods (gods who supposedly came into existence, whose reason for existence is something outside of themselves, who might or might not act morally, and who might die) and the one necessary, eternal God who has always existed, who depends on nothing else to exist, and whose own personal nature defines moral reality thereby bringing right and wrong into the realm of facts. Even if those other gods were to exist, contingent gods cannot define moral reality, since they themselves are merely varying creatures of one kind or another, just as angels and demons are merely creatures. Only the uncreated Creator of all created things can be the non-arbitrary foundation of moral reality according to God’s eternal nature.

    • swordfish

      “Only the uncreated Creator of all created things can be the non-arbitrary foundation of moral reality according to God’s eternal nature.”

      Problem: how are you going to know what this non-arbitrary foundation of moral reality is when you’ve only got imperfect, fallible humans to interpret it and write it down in a book, then have other imperfect, fallible humans interpret said book?

      • Kevin Quillen

        Professing to be wise they became fools. Romans 1:22
        Your choice….meet your Creator on good terms, or as a disobedient child. Good luck.

      • Eric

        There are two basic questions at issue. One is about whether something exists at all and the other (yours) is about how can we know.

        To illustrate, suppose you want to know the height of a mountain. The first question is, “Does the mountain actually exist?” If it is only a made-up fictional mountain, the measurement question is futile. It would become a question about fiction, not fact, like arguing about how tall Paul Bunyan “really” is.

        On the other hand, if it exists and is real, there still could be difficulties getting the answer (How do you know…?), but it is not a meaningless question. If it really exists, then the answer also really exists.

        The second question about knowledge depends on whether the Creator wants the answer to be known. If the Creator were to keep something secret, there is nothing that fallible humans can do to overcome that. But if the Creator chooses to reveal information, then the Creator can do so, even if humans are fallible.

        One way people have always had at least a basic understanding is to ask themselves honestly, “If the situation were reversed, how would I want to be treated?” Jesus said the second greatest commandment was to “Love your neighbor as you love yourself.” Similarly, the “Golden Rule” as given by Jesus is, “Do to others what you would want others to do to you.” (Confucius had a weaker version of the same idea. In philosophy, Kant wrote about the “categorical imperative”.)

        The Creator is also able to reveal messages through history. When fallible people go fallibly astray, the message can be renewed, such as when a prophet appears to call people back to the truth. Best of all is when the more complete picture and message is sent through one who is an exact (not fallible) expression of the Creator’s nature.

        “Long ago God spoke to the fathers by the prophets at different times and in different ways. In these last days, he has spoken to us by his Son. God has appointed him heir of all things and made the universe through him. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact expression of his nature, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.”
        Hebrews 1:1-3, Christian Standard Bible

        “Jesus said to him, “Have I been among you all this time and you do not know me, Philip? The one who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words I speak to you I do not speak on my own. The Father who lives in me does his works.””
        John 14:9,10 CSB (See also at least the first chapter of the Gospel of John.)

      • What book? The Bible? That is a collection of Books written by Prophets.

    • This is because the “gods” of Ancient Rome were just demons adopted from the Greeks.

  • Patmos

    People like Richard Dawkins are the result of sheer laziness. People who can point to a meme that encompasses their life view are somehow below people like Richard Dawkins.

    On a related note, I remember seeing where Obama’s intake of “spiritual wisdom” consisted of consuming a few quotes from famous people every now and then, which not only explains his travesty of a presidency but also puts him somewhere in between Dawkins and the rest.

  • Kevin Quillen

    God revealed Himself to all mankind. In nature and in the heart. atheists are liars.

    • swordfish

      “atheists are liars”

      I would never accuse Christians or members of other religions of lying about their beliefs, I would always assume that they are being honest. In accordance with the theme of this article, do you think that all members of other religions are lying about their beliefs, as well as all atheists?

      • Kevin Quillen

        where does the knowledge that one did something wrong come from. I am talking about a child who is too young to have been taught by it’s parents. Toddlers know right from wrong before they are taught. It is inborn. God said that He put knowledge of Himself in every person’s heart and made His existence evident in nature. Atheists are liars!

        • swordfish

          “Toddlers know right from wrong before they are taught. It is inborn.”

          It is inborn by virtue of evolution. We can see this because other social animals like apes cooperate. Why would our behaviour not be inborn? How would the existence of God explain the fact that some animals cooperate?

          “and made His existence evident in nature”

          Where?

          “Atheists are liars!”

          This is just rude and ignorant.

          • GLT

            “Where?”

            By the very existence of nature itself. Can you explain the existence of nature?

          • swordfish

            I have my pet ideas, but I’ll just say no, I can’t. That doesn’t mean that the explanation “God did it” is true, as there could be other explanations, or no explanation.

          • Kevin Quillen

            A caterpillar eats leaves and one day climbs out onto a branch and attaches itself and creates a cocoon around itself. Time passes and one day the cocoon opens up and from it emerges a butterfly. The butterfly flies to the nearest flower and eats nectar. Why does it not go to try to eat a leaf? How does it know to go to a flower? Where does the information come from? Remember, there is only matter, only was matter, and only will be matter. Information cannot evolve. This, symbiotic relationships and irreducible complexity are proof of God’s existence. You know deep inside but do not want to face the consequences. You will lose control. That is the fear of atheists. Have you ever looked into the finding of soft tissue in dinosaur bones? Evolutionists have a big problem! Polystratic tree fossils? Big problem. Evolutionists need time, lots of time. The problem is that the more we learn the less viable the theory is. A single cell is much more complex than believed a few years ago. Epigenetics is causing evolutionists problems. They may need more time. The age of the universe has been changed several times in the past, will they change it again?

          • swordfish

            I’m not getting dragged into another off-topic argument about evolution, but I’ll just comment on that “soft tissue” claim. Are you aware that the scientist who made that discovery, Dr. Mary Schweitzer, is a devout Christian, but doesn’t agree that it is evidence of a young Earth? If the actual scientist doing the research doesn’t agree with you, maybe it’s time to stop misrepresenting her work? Just a thought.

          • GLT

            “maybe it’s time to stop misrepresenting her work?”

            That Schweitzer does not agree it is evidence for a young Earth is relevant only to Schweitzer, no one else. The evidence is there for all to access and interpret. Schweitzer has no copyright on the evidence and its interpretation. Schweitzer is influenced by her presuppositions just like everyone else, if she chooses to believe it is not evidence for the recent existence of dinosaurs that is her prerogative. It does not however make her correct nor does it preclude another individual reaching a different conclusion. If another individual reaches a conclusion other than that proposed by Schweitzer it is not a misrepresentation of her work.

          • swordfish

            It is a misrepresentation of her work to claim that it supports a young Earth when it doesn’t, and when the entire field of evolution disagrees with you. I’ve read some of the nonsense written on creationist sites – you’d think she’d found huge lumps of rotting dino-steak according to them. What was found was NOT SOFT, was microscopic, and was fossilised.

          • GLT

            “It is a misrepresentation of her work to claim that it supports a young Earth when it doesn’t, and when the entire field of evolution disagrees with you.”

            You’re missing the point, swordfish. I and anyone else who chooses to do so have every right to interpret the evidence any way we wish. We may be totally off base but that is our prerogative. The point is Schweitzer does not own the evidence or its interpretation. She has the right to her interpretation but she cannot dictate that everyone must accept that interpretation.

            “What was found was NOT SOFT, was microscopic, and was fossilised.”

            No, it was not, that is a plainly false statement. The whole point was the fact it was not fossilised. Which raises the question, do you understand what occurs in the process of fossilisation? It does not appear so.

          • swordfish

            Please, it’s so boring having these idiotic arguments about evolution. Evolution is a fact. The Earth is 4 billion years old. Just accept the truth and stop trying to cherry-pick things which you think support your case when they don’t. These “soft tissue” findings were mostly fossilised, with only microscopic traces of original chemical components remaining. If you think this supports a young Earth, how do you explain all the other evidence, such as dating of the rock samples, which agree with a very old Earth? What makes you think these chemical traces *couldn’t* be preserved for millions of years?

          • Kevin Quillen

            “I’m not getting dragged into another off-topic argument about evolution”
            Cannot answer the problem of the fact that according to evolutionists only matter exists. Cannot answer the caterpillar question, so avoid the tough ones. I know about Ms Schweitzer’s belief, I also know soft tissue has been found in a lot of fossilized dino bones once it became something to look for. I also know that the explanation provided so far is simply and escape mechanism. Very unsatisfactory answer. Kinda like the Oort cloud. Make up something to make this problem go away!

          • swordfish

            Unlike you, I’ve read The Stream’s comments policy. Off-topic comments aren’t allowed, although thisisn’t enforced very strongly. It’s very boring if every comment section degenerates into the same argument about evolution. This comments section is about an atheist meme, not evolution.

            “Cannot answer the problem of the fact that according to evolutionists only matter exists.”

            How is it a problem that only matter exists, and what has this got to do with the theory of evolution?

            “Cannot answer the caterpillar question, so avoid the tough ones.”

            The question was: “How does it [butterfly] know to go to a flower?” How this is even a question? Butterflies which go to flowers survive longer than ones which go to leaves.

            I trust Mary Schweitzer’s interpretation of her own research over the anti-evolutionary nonsense you’ve pulled from some loony creationist site.

          • Because matter cannot explain itself?

            Are you ascribing coherent thought to butterflies?

          • swordfish

            “Because matter cannot explain itself?”

            What has this (meaningless) claim got to do with evolution?

            Are you ascribing coherent thought to butterflies?”

            No.

          • yes, you are claiming that butterflies thought very hard about their situation and then developed a working system.

            For your statement to make sense, the butterfly has to understand what a flower is, use basic logic to make deductions about flowers, and then formulate a detailed plan for survival based on that.

          • swordfish

            Have you not heard of instinct?. Butterflies have just evolved the inate, instinctive behaviour of seeking food which they can digest, in the same way that we have evolved to find the smell of rotting food repulsive. This is a blind process which doesn’t require any intelligence – so it should appeal to you…

          • So this instinct just appears out of nowhere and is either put in by some self-intelligent life-force you call “evolution,” or you think these butterflies have rational souls.

            you give butterflies human qualities and humans beastly qualities. That is par excellence satanism

          • swordfish

            “So this instinct just appears out of nowhere and is either put in by some self-intelligent life-force you call “evolution,” or you think these butterflies have rational souls.”

            No. I really think you don’t understand evolution in the slightest! The instinct is formed by random mutations acted on by natural selection. There isn’t any “intelligence” involved, nor any “life-force”. Random mutations happen. They either help or hinder survival until an organism is old enough to reproduce. Those that help survival are passed on to succeeding generations, those that hinder survival do not.

            “you give butterflies human qualities and humans beastly qualities. That is par excellence satanism”

            I haven’t given any human qualities to butterflies, you did that with your total misunderstanding of evolution. As for humans having “beastly” qualities, we are animals by definition.

          • So the butterflies fundamentally changed without any regards to inertia or contingency, and these random changes managed to happen simultaneously across all butterflies in the exact same way at the same time.

            This change must have also happened quickly as they must have somehow survived without food for who knows how long waiting for these dice rolls to happen.

            And not only that these completely random, yet totally widespread, changes that had no cause have all the marks of a rational process with some good hard thinking put in.

            No wonder you aren’t capable of learning anything, you think it will just come to you on accident out do random.

          • swordfish

            “So the butterflies fundamentally changed without any regards to inertia or contingency, and these random changes managed to happen simultaneously across all butterflies in the exact same way at the same time.”

            No. All butterflies are slightly different, just as all humans are. Differences which are beneficial spread because they produce more offspring. I’ve no idea what you think inertia or contingency has to do with this.

            “This change must have also happened quickly as they must have somehow survived without food for who knows how long waiting for these dice rolls to happen.”

            No. Your whole picture of this is wrong. It’s a very gradual and slow process, not one where all flowers would suddenly change, leaving pollinating insects starving.

            “And not only that these completely random, yet totally widespread, changes that had no cause have all the marks of a rational process with some good hard thinking put in.”

            Like I said above, the changes aren’t widespread. That seems to be your main misunderstanding here. As for this seeming rational, how would you be able to tell? There certainly doesn’t seem to be any planning involved, otherwise it wouldn’t be the case that almost every species which has ever lived has gone extinct, nor would it be the case that evolution would turn a land animal into an air-breathing sea animal like a whale. And where is the rationality behind mudskippers, which are fish that can climb trees?

          • So these random changes spread?

            How does a random, uncontingent, uncaused change spread at all?

            How could anything be uncontingent and uncreated when it relates to any contingent thing within creation?

          • swordfish

            “So these random changes spread? How does a random, uncontingent, uncaused change spread at all?”

            Organisms with beneficial mutations reproduce and pass on those mutations to their offspring. This isn’t exactly controversial stuff! I’m not clear what you mean by “random, uncontingent, uncaused change”?

          • So now even ideas are hereditary?

            you still have yet to explain how something can happen without contingency or causality, and at random to the point it mirrors a perfectly rational process.

          • swordfish

            “So now even ideas are hereditary?”

            insticts aren’t ideas. Surely you accept the fact that animals have instincts which they inherit from their parents?

            “you still have yet to explain how something can happen without contingency or causality, and at random to the point it mirrors a perfectly rational process.”

            I’m not sure what you mean. Mutations are random, but caused. Natural selection produces results which might appear rational? I’m not clear that any part of nature appears to be perfectly rational – would you say it’s rational for men to have nipples?

          • These instincts are clearly based on rational thought. So these butterflies have rational thought themselves? you don’t even think humans have that.

            What is this faceless “life-force” you call “natural selection?” Why does it seem to be personified with rational, independent thought?

            All is intelligible, and there is nothing irrational about human biology. When has what you mentioned ever been a problem?

          • swordfish

            “These instincts are clearly based on rational thought. So these butterflies have rational thought themselves? you don’t even think humans have that.”

            I’m obviously wasting my time. Instincts aren’t rational thought. Everyone in the world knows that, apart from you, apparently.

            “What is this faceless “life-force” you call “natural selection?” Why does it seem to be personified with rational, independent thought?”

            I’ve explained what it is. At least you’re putting “life-force” in quotation marks now.

            “All is intelligible, and there is nothing irrational about human biology. When has what you mentioned ever been a problem?”

            So, our biology doesn’t have to be perfect, just “not a problem”. That’s some progress, right there.

          • Yet these actions are clearly rational and make sense. Are you saying these butterflies came up with what is clearly rational on the own and then taught all other butterflies this who also had to be rational to be students, all at random?

            What “perfect” are you hoping for and when did I ever mention that? Is it because you honestly believed the demons when they told you that you would “be like gods.”

          • swordfish

            “Are you saying these butterflies came up with what is clearly rational on the own and then taught all other butterflies this who also had to be rational to be students, all at random?”

            It appears that you’re too dumb to understand evolution.

          • It is the delusion of self-creation to attempt to pretend you are your own uncreated, uncontingent Prime Mover.

          • swordfish

            Your comments here should be a wake-up call to anyone who doubts the ability of religious belief to totally undermine one’s ability to rationally engage with reality. The image of Brady ranting to a rapidly-emptying courthouse at the end of ‘Inherit the Wind’ comes to mind.

          • If they are running, it is because Truth is a very good mirror. reprobates tend to be ugly in every way.

            As for this movie, I looked it up. It is the devil “coaxing” the genitals of the 1960’s by pretending the fool clarence darrow was a great man. How many unthinking “white” people are damned because of that movie is unknown, but you are counted among them no doubt. All of them emboldened by novelty and absurdity to sin until they died begging for death out of lonliness and misery, I suppose.

            A line in this movie honestly days that the multiplication table is holier than prayer and the Eucharist. What the actual **** are you watching (and then telling me to look up), reprobate?

            Apparently the scene you are mentioning is when some pastor dies suddenly as if your “life force” killed him for being “unprogressive.” So now you want me to die for challenging your gnosis? Well curses like that get turned around quickly.

            Crux sacra sit mihi lux
            Non draco sit mihi dux
            Sunt mala quake libas
            Ipse venana bibas
            Vade retro satana
            Nunquam suade mihi vana
            Pax

            To paraphrase what Chesterton said in his memoirs about his total destruction of darrow during their debate:
            “In my time in America I met a strange man who appeared to be having a perpetual row with his fundamentalist maiden aunt.”

          • swordfish

            “(and then telling me to look up), reprobate?”

            I didn’t tell you to look it up – I thought you’d already have seen it as it’s a classic movie.

            “So now you want me to die for challenging your gnosis?”

            I didn’t say that either. You’re good at making things up.

            “To paraphrase what Chesterton said in his memoirs about his total destruction of darrow during their debate:”

            Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he? But in any case, I had a really good laugh at that latin, it reminded me of another movie, The Omen.

          • I don’t watch self-abuse fantasies of gnostics. you also told me I was like a character in a satanic movie that mysteriously died because he defending himself against devilry.

            The prayer is a St Benedict Prayer. That you are a fan of satanism going by your movie choices explains the unfortunate path you took in life.

            Eternity is a long time, monster,

          • GLT

            “That doesn’t mean that the explanation “God did it” is true, as there could be other explanations, or no explanation.”

            No, it doesn’t prove God did it but it does demonstrate the problem you face. That problem being how did the natural universe and life itself originate? Putting off an explanation as unknowable or hoping for some future explanation other than God to suddenly appear is not a logical addressing of the question. The only logical approach is to work with the evidence and the knowledge at hand and draw the most logical conclusion.

            As for there being no explanation, that is pure nonsense. There may be no known explanation to a particular question, but there is indeed an explanation.

          • swordfish

            “Putting off an explanation as unknowable or hoping for some future explanation other than God to suddenly appear is not a logical addressing of the question.”

            It’s completely logical and consistent that if you don’t know the answer to something, you can just say you don’t know the answer. It’s not like the stockmarket is going to collapse tomorrow if we don’t come up with an answer.

            “The only logical approach is to work with the evidence and the knowledge at hand and draw the most logical conclusion.”

            The only evidence we have is that something exists. It isn’t logical to conclude that that something must have been created from nothing by an all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful, immaterial, eternal, homophobic supernatural entity.

            “As for there being no explanation, that is pure nonsense. There may be no known explanation to a particular question, but there is indeed an explanation.”

            What is the explanation for God?

          • Kevin Quillen

            “homophobic supernatural entity”
            Projecting? Could explain a lot.

    • GLT

      There is a distinct difference between being a liar and believing a lie.

      • Kevin Quillen

        Romans chapter one says it very clearly. No one has an excuse. All know God exists.

        • swordfish

          I don’t care what Romans one says. I don’t know that God exists, so it’s wrong.

          • GLT

            “I don’t know that God exists, so it’s wrong.”

            That’s a self-refuting statement, swordfish. You’re claiming to not know and to know at the same time. If God does exist and the Bible is his word, Roman 1 would be correct but yet you insist it is wrong even though you admit you do not know if God exists.

          • swordfish

            It’s not a self-refuting statement. God could exist, but that wouldn’t mean every line in the Bible would then be true, and what would ‘true’ mean, anyway – literally true, metaphorically true, or something else? The statement in Romans one is literally untrue, because many people, including myself, and billions of members of other religions, are saying that we don’t know God exists.

          • GLT

            “The statement in Romans one is literally untrue, because many people, including myself, and billions of members of other religions, are saying that we don’t know God exists.”

            However, if God does exist he is, by definition, omniscient and if he is omniscient he knows what you believe even if you deny such belief.

          • Ken Abbott

            And denying that one knows God hardly vitiates the truth of Paul’s statement, for he says that unrighteous and ungodly men suppress the truth about God. They *will not* have God in their thinking. They refuse to acknowledge him. At basis, it is a moral and not an intellectual problem.

          • swordfish

            Don’t be ridiculous. I don’t believe in God because there’s no evidence that he exists. This isn’t a moral problem in any way.

          • Ken Abbott

            Paul frames it as a moral problem. “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known by God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”

            What you claim is a lack of evidence is actually an unwillingness to deal with the evidence. You don’t want there to be a God to whom to be accountable. Your preferred universe has no God in it. You will not have God in your thinking. All of this is by choice, making it a moral matter. And the reason for this choice is immorality, wickedness, unrighteousness. Of course, these words and concepts outrage people who reject God. The man without the Spirit of God does not accept the truth revealed by that Spirit; they are foolishness (stupid, irrational, lacking convincing evidence) to him.

          • swordfish

            “And the reason for this choice is immorality, wickedness, unrighteousness. Of course, these words and concepts outrage people who reject God.”

            It doesn’t outrage me, it just saddens me to think that you’d fall back on such lazy stereotyping. I assume it’s easier for you to label anyone who claims not to believe in your God as motivated by immorality, but it just isn’t true. Can I decide to not believe in the law so I can get away with committing crimes?

          • Ken Abbott

            What you decry as “lazy stereotyping” is actually accurate diagnosis. Frequently the truth hurts, but it is not spoken out of a desire to harm but to heal.

          • swordfish

            I’m sure your heart is in the right place, but if I say that I don’t believe something, you should just accept that rather than trying to ascribe immorality as my motivation.

          • Ken Abbott

            Thanks for the affirmation. I certainly hope my heart is in the right place, or getting there more and more as time passes.

            Please don’t think I am singling you out. The diagnosis applies to everyone, for we are all in the same condition.

          • Yet we all know your motivations as you are purposely trying to play dumb about them.

          • your evil does drive you.

            As Venerable Fulton Sheen said:

            Conscience, Christ, and the gift of faith make evil men uneasy in their sin. They feel that if they could drive Christ from the earth, they would be free from “moral inhibitions.” They forget that it is their own nature and conscience which makes them feel that way. Being unable to drive God from the heavens, they would drive his ambassadors from the earth. In a lesser sphere, that is why many men sneer at virtue–because it makes vice uncomfortable.

          • God is the uncreated, uncontingent Prime Mover. your religion tells you that actively denying God will make Him go away and then replace Him with you. Lol

          • swordfish

            If God knows what I believe, then he knows that I don’t believe he exists.

          • Ken Abbott

            And he holds you accountable for your unbelief.

          • swordfish

            He holds me accountable for my lack of belief in him, thus disproving Romans 1 and reminding us once again that he is less moral than we are.

          • Ken Abbott

            No, he holds you accountable for your wicked suppression of the truth and your willful rebellion against him.

          • So your capital sin of pride is showing. Also, what foundation for “moral” do you have? Do you mean it as “whatever personally benefits me?”

            Romans 1 is about the wicked being allowed to turned into reprobate’s so that they destroy themselves and remove themselves from everyone’s misery. That is holding you accountable.

          • No, God knows you think denying Him will make your sin go away.

          • So you are so far gone you have no concept of Truth or reality?

          • Kevin Quillen

            touche’

          • Kevin Quillen

            liar

          • I have seen this problem with you before. you think denying something makes it stop existing.

            Does that work?

            Hint: it doesn’t

          • swordfish

            You mean, like the way you deny the Catholic Church facilitates and conceals child abuse?

          • How is sodomy facilitated by the Church? What is Catholic about sodomy? Where is your condemnation of sodomy? Why do you attack the Church when the Church is the least likely place to find sodomy?

            And a bonus:
            Do you think blasphemy, a sin that cries to Heaven for vengeance and incurs special punishment in damnation, will cover up another sin you did?

          • swordfish

            “How is sodomy facilitated by the Church?”

            Get a clue. It’s child abuse, not “sodomy”. In trying to deny the facts, you’re ignoring all the girls who have been abused, all the abuse which wasn’t sexual in nature, such as physical and mental cruelty, and all the sexual abuse which wasn’t “sodomy”.

            “Do you think blasphemy, a sin that cries to Heaven for vengeance and incurs special punishment in damnation, will cover up another sin you did?”

            1. Criticism of the Catholic Church isn’t blasphemy. 2. Blasphemy is a victimless crime.

          • sodomites cannot reproduce so they abuse children to make more sodomites. sodomy is caused by childhood abuse. Secondly, because it is caused by trauma, the sodomite finds their own reflection attractive. That narcissism is why they are attracted to other men. Also because of trauma they get stuck into a state of arrested development so they are mentally a child still. All of this was well documented before sodomites killed and threatened psychiatrists and psychologists to get their disease taken off the books in the name of “world revolution.”

            And what is this “cruelty” you speak of? Telling people they are going I be damned for their sin? you will be damned for your sin, so where is the problem there? It would be the ultimate act of hatred to let you just perish, so we must wake you up violently.

            blasphemy is the third sin that cries to Heaven for vengeance, meaning the worst sin of all. It incurs special punishment in damnation and can only truly be removed by an apostolic pardon. Secondly, because it cries to Heaven for vengeance, it must be paid in blood even if you repent.

            Attacking the Church is the par excellence example of it, as you will unfortunately find if you do not repent. I have no reason to believe a reprobate of your caliber will ever repent.

            Finally, blasphemy is self-destruction due to denial of God and reality. you are the victim, and your sorry state here shows that well.

          • swordfish

            I note that you don’t address the substance of my comment regarding the Catholic Church, so no change there.

            As regards blasphemy, the fact that such a thing is even considered to be a sin pretty much proves that God is a fictional character. Why would a real God be offended by the words of us mere humans?

          • What substance? you are claiming the Church is guilty of things that
            are not Catholic or are just made up to push your satanic political
            ends. I answered you in regards to reality, and it clearly put you on
            edge so that means you know I’m right.

            Let me repost what I said about your particular evil that you hold on so tight to:

            blasphemy is the third sin that cries to Heaven for vengeance, meaning the third worst sin of all. It incurs special punishment in damnation and can only truly be removed by an apostolic pardon. Secondly, because it cries to Heaven for vengeance, it must be paid in blood even if you repent.

            Attacking the Church is the par excellence example of it, as you will unfortunately find if you do not repent. I have no reason to believe a reprobate of your caliber will ever repent.

            Finally, blasphemy is self-destruction due to denial of God and reality. you are the victim, and your sorry state here shows that well.

            As CS Lewis described it, it is like cutting off the branch you are sitting on.

        • GLT

          That still does not change my argument that there is a difference between being a liar and believing a lie. Swordfish is not claiming there is no God while believing and knowing God exists, which would be a lie, he is claiming he does not know if God exists, which technically is not an affirmative statement in either direction, it is only a claim to a lack of knowledge.

          “No one has an excuse. All know God exists.”

          I agree, in our hearts we all know God exists, but that does not alter the fact that the heart is deceitful. Jeremiah 17:9

  • Olaf

    It is a stupid as the “can God make a stone that is too heavy for him to lift?”

  • swordfish

    This “one less god” meme isn’t intended to attack theists in general, or Christians in particular, it’s more that it’s trying to help them understand how theistic belief looks from an atheist perspective – our view of your God is the same as your view of other gods.

    “This universe [without God] has no purpose, no mind, no morality, no reason for being, anywhere in its core reality.”

    Correct, but so what? It’s up to each of us to find our own meaning, rather than have a one-size-fits-all (meaningless) meaning imposed on us.

    “Humans may claim we’ve got minds and purposes and moral significance — as of course we do — but where that came from in such a mindless world, no one can say.”

    No one can say? I would say our subjective feelings that our lives have meaning and that we should behave morally stem from our evolutionary heritage. Our survival and prospering is down to our cooperating in social groups.

    • Kevin Quillen

      what if I, as a evolved human animal do not want to belong to your social group and want to live as I desire? What if I am 300 lbs. of solid muscle and desire your stuff? Would you say I was wrong to just help myself to your stuff? After all, I am just an animal without morals, or a conscience.

      • swordfish

        I’m not sure what you mean by “just an animal”: we are animals by definition, but that doesn’t mean we have no morals or conscience. Have you not seen a dog acting guilty?

        If you tried to steal my stuff, I’d try and stop you, and/or call the police. We’ve passed laws against stealing because most of us see it as wrong. If you tried living completely outside any social groups, you’d find it hard to survive. I’m not sure what any of this has to do with God?

        • Kevin Quillen

          you miss the point…..if man evolved from slime, then there are no absolutes. The point is that man was created by God. Just as anything designed by a designer, the creation has a specific purpose. Where does conscience, morality, and sympathy come from? Where does information come from? How do feelings evolve? Atheism and humanism lead to tyranny. History proves that. Communism is the belief that man is the supreme being and that those with power can force everyone to bend to their will. The elite live as kings and the common man suffers. The outcome is inevitable. The founders realized this and built a system dependent on the truth of man being a created being. This truth means that we have an obligation to the Creator. There are absolutes, and if not adhered to, tyranny comes, and chaos. Man as supreme allows for chaos. Transgender foolishness(a mental disorder), queer marriage, confusion as to which bathroom to use, etc.. Where does it end and who says so? 3 way marriage? killing children up to 3 years old(has been proposed), killing old useless people, etc.. What is the control mechanism? Whatever the majority wants? Now we are back to my original point…..if the majority wants to take your stuff or allow one who is bigger than you to do so, why not? After all man is supreme and can decide everything for himself, right? A just society is only possible through the truth that man was created by God. As to the dog looking guilty……he was taught not to do certain things, and breaking the rule causes guilt. A dog is not born with innate guilt, man is.

          • swordfish

            You’ve raised a huge number of issues. I hope you’ll forgive me for not responding to all of them.

            “you miss the point…..if man evolved from slime, then there are no absolutes.”

            There would be no absolutes anyway, as we would only be able to interpret God’s word in a subjective way. Even the most basic commandment is unclear: “Thou shalt not kill” – is it okay to kill in self defence? What about killing 99 people to save 100 others? What about killing someone who is begging you to kill them because they’ve had half of their face destroyed by a wartime bomb? Where are the absolutes here?

            “The point is that man was created by God. Just as anything designed by a designer, the creation has a specific purpose.”

            What is the purpose of cancer, or the planet Jupiter?

            “Atheism and humanism lead to tyranny. History proves that. Communism is the belief that man is the supreme being…”

            Communism is based on class struggle and has nothing to do with atheism, just as democracy has nothing to do with religion. There has never been a country based on humanism, but if there was, I’d move there!

            “The founders realized this and built a system dependent on the truth of man being a created being.”

            No, they built a secular democracy based on the separation of church and state. Western values of freedom of speech, liberty, and democracy have nothing to do with Christianity, which is opposed to all three.

            “As to the dog looking guilty……he was taught not to do certain things, and breaking the rule causes guilt. A dog is not born with innate guilt, man is.”

            The behaviour of dogs is ingrained by evolution to allow them to live in packs, it isn’t due to them being trained by humans. Think of the difference between dogs and cats! Humans are not “born with innate guilt”, rather we are born with the capacity to feel guilt in response to social situations.

          • Kevin Quillen

            interesting how you never responded about social contracts and ones desire not to participate, or the majority wanting to take your stuff being ok with you. You are being obtuse when you use “thou shall not kill” as an example of Bible interpretation. You know better. History clearly shows that the founders knew that religion was necessary for a successful society. America was built on the principles of the Christian religion. Like most you do not understand “separation of church and state”. No comment on the majority legislating killing 2 year old babies or old people? Or multiple partner marriage? You know where your kind of thinking leads and cannot face it. You need Jesus as your Savior and then live as the Designer requires. It is the only way to peace. Because of your kind of thinking…..we now have tranny men winning womens sports events, and children being taught sex and gender are two separate things. Being queer is normal, and one can decide what they want to be(boy or girl), in some cases the state forces the parents to allow the child to decide or face losing your child. Is this the way you think the world should be? According to evolutionists thought, this crap is ok and inevitable.

          • swordfish

            “interesting how you never responded about social contracts and ones desire not to participate, or the majority wanting to take your stuff being ok with you.”

            I just read your original comment again, but I can’t see anything about social contracts. I didn’t answer your point about majorities because I’ve already answered it (you said “Now we are back to my original point”) but if you want me to answer it again, I’ll say that humans have an innate sense of fairness due to our evolution as social animals, which means that we would judge your “majority votes for crime” situation as wrong.

            “America was built on the principles of the Christian religion.”

            Again, no it wasn’t. Freedom of speech, equality, democracy, and liberty are NOT Christian principles. Christianity has actively fought against all of these.

            “No comment on the majority legislating killing 2 year old babies or old people? Or multiple partner marriage?”

            No such thing has happened.

            “Because of your kind of thinking…..we now have tranny men winning womens sports events,”

            My kind of thinking is simply that I don’t believe that God exists. I’m not sure what I’d do about the problem of transsexuals unfairly winning sporting events, but isn’t it also unfair if a person is born taller and stronger than someone else of the same sex?

            “and children being taught sex and gender are two separate things.”

            Sex and gender ARE two separate things. Sex means biological sex, and gender refers to how this is expressed in society, like the fact that men and women dress differently.

            “Being queer is normal,”

            It is normal, in the sense that there have always been a certain percentage of people who feel this way, just as there have always been a percentage of rude bigots.

            “According to evolutionists thought, this crap is ok and inevitable.”

            I accept the theory of evolution, but I don’t approve of the idea of killing 2 year old babies.

          • So this evolution, which you cannot define, has intelligently given humans the ability to think coherently about a topic as if they were based in God Himself?

            If so, why are you incoherent and why are you stealing from the Church?

Inspiration
God Knows Best, Even When He Foils Your Plans
Liberty McArtor
More from The Stream
Connect with Us