Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Absurdity Of Life Without God - William Lane Craig
American Sentinel ^ | December 16, 2008 | Michael Eden

Posted on 12/16/2008 10:31:38 AM PST by Michael Eden

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-192 next last
To: Publius Valerius
What's the meaning?

The world makes more sense without your litmus test for eternal bliss.

141 posted on 12/17/2008 7:57:51 AM PST by GunRunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

Refer back to communication between the ant and the human.


142 posted on 12/17/2008 8:01:50 AM PST by Neoliberalnot ((Hallmarks of Liberalism: Ingratitude and Envy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner
Your objective morality is an illusion. The secularists were standing right next to the religious when fighting against child labor, slavery, racism, and oppression.

There you go, contradicting yourself in a single paragraph without noticing it. First you say objective morality is an illusion, then you implicitly condemn "child labor, slavery, racism, and oppression." Since objective morality is an illusion, on what grounds do you condemn these so-called "evils?" A childish desire to prove you're more moral than G-d?

There are also both religious and secular people on each side of debates like abortion and death penalty, so no matter what, your objective morality is still subject to hang ups, no matter how much you think it is absolute.

Yes, but on what grounds? The whole point of morality is submission to the Creator's will. The smooth functioning of society, far from being the main purpose of morality, is merely a side-effect.

Right and wrong are determined solely by Divine Decree.

Then it is impossible for them to exist in the absence of god; however, we know they do, and have since the dawn of man.

We "know" they exist? How? And whose ("right and wrong")? I notice people like you never get around to answering this question. Evolved instinct maybe, which means the purpose of morality is to ensure the largest number of survivable offspring?

By the way, Rand was right.

Ayn Rand was a miserable human being, the foundress of a bizarre cult centered on herself (which has far too many acolytes on FR), and hardly a moral person (which means she was more consistent than many of her self-proclaimed "moralist" followers). Whittaker Chambers was completely right about her.

143 posted on 12/17/2008 8:05:01 AM PST by Zionist Conspirator (VeYisra'el 'ahav 'et-Yosef mikol-banayv ki-ven-zequnim hu' lo; ve`asah lo ketonet passim.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius
the "crime" of rejecting a particular set of ideas

I never said that.

Msg#81:

Do you believe that all devout Hindus go to hell?
Assuming they haven't accepted Christ, yes.

144 posted on 12/17/2008 8:13:29 AM PST by steve-b (Intelligent design is to evolutionary biology what socialism is to free-market economics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
There you go, contradicting yourself in a single paragraph without noticing it.

No I didn't, you just missed the point; that being that people who get their moral bearings from god and those who don't more often than not arrive at the same conclusion about right and wrong, and have been since the beginning of human history.

You and an atheist could stand side by side and witness someone get murdered and both be equally called to action.

The only difference is that you're inserting an extra, unneeded step by saying that the only reason you find this appalling is because your imaginary friend said so.

The whole point of morality is submission to the Creator's will. The smooth functioning of society, far from being the main purpose of morality, is merely a side-effect.

You've got it backwards.

A creator's will erases morality, since you're just doing a cost benefit analysis as to what will get you better rewards in heaven.

In your world, there's no reason to be good for goodness' sake, or to do the right thing when no ones looking, since, in your eyes, someone is ALWAYS looking and keeping tabs on you.

You are moral because you expect an everlasting reward for it.

We "know" they exist? How?

Because we can witness and read about goodness, evil, sacrifice, and all of the other eccentricities of mankind in civilizations, peoples, and groups who never knew, do not know, or choose not to follow a Judeo-Christian creator.

Ayn Rand was a miserable human being, the foundress of a bizarre cult centered on herself...

I'm not the biggest objectivist in the world, but she was far from a cult leader. She rejected collectivism in all forms, and whether or not she was miserable is conjecture on your part, unless that is your way of saying that you just don't like her, which is fine.

She was certainly more right about economics and philosophy than Marx though.

145 posted on 12/17/2008 8:20:41 AM PST by GunRunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius

I really don’t have any trouble with this subject, I just like asking questions.

Even though he studied and wrote a lot on the subject, how would Augustine actually know? In reality, how could anyone really know anything about this?

It would seem then, that God actually does create humans knowing they will go to hell.


146 posted on 12/17/2008 8:34:57 AM PST by stuartcr (If the end doesn't justify the means...why have different means?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner
No I didn't, you just missed the point; that being that people who get their moral bearings from god and those who don't more often than not arrive at the same conclusion about right and wrong, and have been since the beginning of human history.

You and an atheist could stand side by side and witness someone get murdered and both be equally called to action.

That's not objective morality. That's hang-ups. Everyone has hang-ups. Without G-d there's no difference between distaste for mass murder and a distaste for stepping on cracks in a sidewalk. I keep saying this, you keep ignoring it.

The only difference is that you're inserting an extra, unneeded step by saying that the only reason you find this appalling is because your imaginary friend said so.

My "imaginary friend" tells me the difference between what is objectively morally wrong and what is a mere subjective hang-up, however universal.

The whole point of morality is submission to the Creator's will. The smooth functioning of society, far from being the main purpose of morality, is merely a side-effect.

You've got it backwards.

A creator's will erases morality, since you're just doing a cost benefit analysis as to what will get you better rewards in heaven.

In your world, there's no reason to be good for goodness' sake, or to do the right thing when no ones looking, since, in your eyes, someone is ALWAYS looking and keeping tabs on you.

You are moral because you expect an everlasting reward for it.

First of all, all your arguments are based on a rejection of chr*stianity. I am not a chr*stian.

The purpose of morality is not reward. The purpose is submission to and obedience of the Creator. Period. End of discussion. Judaism (and Noachism) is far less dogmatic about the afterlife than chr*stianity. Its stress is on obedience to Divine commandments in this world. In fact, the only reason the world was created was so Israel could obey the Torah. And the point of Torah is not following one's instincts to do good but to obey G-d.

And even many chr*stians (the antinomian Protestants) completely disconnect behavior from one's fate after death, saying instead that this depends solely on whether or not one is "saved." So even there your argument is fallacious.

We "know" they [good and evil] exist? How?

Because we can witness and read about goodness, evil, sacrifice, and all of the other eccentricities of mankind in civilizations, peoples, and groups who never knew, do not know, or choose not to follow a Judeo-Christian creator.

That's exactly it! They're eccentricities! And whether some appeal to you and others appall you, or many, or all, has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of objective good and objective evil. All that "goodness, evil, and sacrifice" is meaningless in a meaningless universe. A meaningless universe cannot be given objective meaning no matter how much you pretend your hang-ups and eccentricities matter!

G-d is the Creator. Among the things G-d creates (by His decrees) is good and evil. Without G-d neither objective good nor objective evil can exist. So the "problem of evil" is not a problem for Theists as many think it is, but for atheists, since it is G-d who makes objective evil possible and without Whom it cannot be said to exist.

Is there any need for me to continue repeating these points?

147 posted on 12/17/2008 9:25:33 AM PST by Zionist Conspirator (VeYisra'el 'ahav 'et-Yosef mikol-banayv ki-ven-zequnim hu' lo; ve`asah lo ketonet passim.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Michael Eden

I really liked the article but I find it problematic that the author expects that people without faith would struggle to find any meaning in their lives or that their lives lack virtue or meaning without faith. I am a Christian and have been all my life. I do not live my life in fear of eternal damnation nor do I live my life with eternal reward in mind - I would admit that these things have always been known to me and that in some way they must have an effect on me. However I am as normal as everyone else and have friends that are not Christians and find that for them and mostly for me Love is enough - love of my Family, my shildren and my beautiful are enough for me and that love makes me concerned for society as a whole and for people who don’t have enough to eat and live and for morality as it relates to all of this. My friends who are not Christians also seem to realate to the world in this way.

To say that life has not meaning if we are without faith or only if God exists is a problem to me when I look at these people. I don’t think God looks at things this way and I am sure that He cares about these people just as much as He does me.

These are only my thoughts and are not meant to be taken as any statement agaisnt or for the article posted.

Cheers

Mel


148 posted on 12/17/2008 10:13:15 AM PST by melsec (A Proud Aussie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
Without G-d there's no difference between distaste for mass murder and a distaste for stepping on cracks in a sidewalk. I keep saying this, you keep ignoring it.

The purpose of morality is not reward. The purpose is submission to and obedience of the Creator. Period. End of discussion.

All that "goodness, evil, and sacrifice" is meaningless in a meaningless universe. A meaningless universe cannot be given objective meaning no matter how much you pretend your hang-ups and eccentricities matter!

G-d is the Creator. Among the things G-d creates (by His decrees) is good and evil. Without G-d neither objective good nor objective evil can exist. So the "problem of evil" is not a problem for Theists as many think it is, but for atheists, since it is G-d who makes objective evil possible and without Whom it cannot be said to exist.

Is there any need for me to continue repeating these points?

No you needn't keep repeating the same flawed reasoning.

You refuse to address the fact that those who do not believe and do not "submit" before any celestial authority are capable of good, just as someone who takes his cues from a higher power.

You keep asking the same tired question that I hear from religious people all the time: If there's no god, then who's to decide what's good and what's evil.

You use this one point to hammer away over and over again without looking at the probable answers.

All it takes to understand this is ask yourself what you would do tomorrow if you found out there was no god. Would you still love your children, work hard, and live a righteous life? Or would you cash out all your stocks and spend it on cocaine and hookers and slit throats of perfect strangers. You do yourself a disservice if you assert that the only thing that makes murder abhorrent to you is because god says it is. Find in yourself what would make you still live a moral life after a realization that god doesn't exist, and you'll have taken the first step.

Existentialists and other philosophers have been talking about the nature of right and wrong for millenia, there's far greater answers out there if you want to do the looking.

The belief that god is necessary for good and evil to exist can be refuted with two main points.

First of all, no one can deny that faith in a higher power can never, ever under any circumstances be a guarantee of virtue. At the same time we can see virtue in people without faith.

Secondly, you cannot name for me one ethical action or statement that can only be performed by a believer and not a non-believer. Faith is not required to be an ethical and moral person, therefore, there's no need for a creator.

I assume your answer would be that with no god there's no ethics, which makes me wonder how Plato and Aristotle were able to write vast volumes on the subject without you there to remind them that their task was impossible, since they didn't have a Judeo-Christian creator in their repertoire.

149 posted on 12/17/2008 10:17:48 AM PST by GunRunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner
Obviously you refuse to understand that it's not about loving one's children or about virtue. It's about Halakhah (Torah for Jews, Noachide Law for non-Jews). When G-d is obeyed spiritual forces are released throughout the Creation in ways we have no access to. When G-d is disobeyed, then destructive spiritual forces are unleashed to do damage we will know nothing about until our day of judgment.

In other words, you atheists (rightwing atheists, anyway) refuse to understand that morality isn't about "virtue" but, quite literally, about "mojo." It is from your perspective "primitive" and "cultic," not philosophical. Funny, but your leftwing brethren have no problem with cultic morality among the "oppressed indigenous pipples."

However "virtuous" I may be, if there is no G-d, then there is no "mojo." And the "mojo" is what morality is really all about. I'm afraid this is something you admirers of pagan Greek philosophy never seem to understand.

May I ask if you believe that in the absence of G-d pork is still forbidden to Jews? Or that animal sacrifices must be performed in precisely a certain way in order to avoid sacrilege? Or if Aristotle's rational morality told him it was forbidden (not "wrong," but forbidden) to castrate males of any species regardless of the animal population?

"Thou shalt not kill" is based the very same rationale and authority as "it is forbidden to eat the meat of the sacrifice before the blood has been sprinkled on the altar." The fact that one of those commandments is more intuitive to mankind ultimately has nothing to do with its validity.

Now do you understand that it's not about either "reward" or "virtue?"

The entire problem with Communism is that it is a non-Theistic moral/ethical system. It may have killed more millions of people than Randianism or certain other non-Theistic moral/ethical systems, but they're all at bottom wrong.

150 posted on 12/17/2008 10:52:21 AM PST by Zionist Conspirator (VeYisra'el 'ahav 'et-Yosef mikol-banayv ki-ven-zequnim hu' lo; ve`asah lo ketonet passim.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
When G-d is obeyed spiritual forces are released throughout the Creation in ways we have no access to. When G-d is disobeyed, then destructive spiritual forces are unleashed to do damage we will know nothing about until our day of judgment.

I try to learn as much about Jewish theology as possible, so I'll readily admit I was not aware of Halakhah. From your brief description it sounds like it was plagiarized from Judaism by the Scientologists, who have a very similar principle called thetans.

This sort of mysticism might have been a very useful way for the ancient Israelites to categorize good and evil, but I think if they had looked to Hellenization with those "pagan Greek philosophers" instead of rejecting it, they would have found that there's much more rational explanations than 'mojo'.

Funny, but your leftwing brethren have no problem with cultic morality among the "oppressed indigenous pipples."

Agreed. Leftists laugh and giggle at Christians and Jews, but are quite respectful of any two-bit religious ceremony performed in third world backwaters. How many leftists have you seen with icons from Native American religion hanging in their faculty offices and such?

I assure that my derision is equally applied to every sort of mysticism and superstition, not just the major ones.

May I ask if you believe that in the absence of G-d pork is still forbidden to Jews?

You get to make whatever rules and regulations you would like about the imbibing of meats into your body. There's nothing metaphysical that makes pork react to your physiology differently than it would someone else. I don't have an opinion on the next two. You're free to do as you will, but I'm not an expert on animal sacrifices, haven't ever done it, never will. So maybe you should ask another party on that.

I did have both of my dogs spayed however.

The entire problem with Communism is that it is a non-Theistic moral/ethical system.

The problem with Communism is that it doesn't work. A non-Theistic moral/ethical system based on the principles of Spinoza, Jefferson, and Einstein has never been guilty of murdering millions.

151 posted on 12/17/2008 11:16:05 AM PST by GunRunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner
I try to learn as much about Jewish theology as possible, so I'll readily admit I was not aware of Halakhah.

Halakhah is Judaism. It regulates a Jew's every activity of life every day in all circumstances, including how to tie one's shoes and how to lie down at night.

Noachide Halakhah isn't quite as totalitarian, but it's much more involved than most realize (my own observance is far from perfect).

This sort of mysticism might have been a very useful way for the ancient Israelites to categorize good and evil, but I think if they had looked to Hellenization with those "pagan Greek philosophers" instead of rejecting it, they would have found that there's much more rational explanations than 'mojo'.

This sort of mysticism might have been a very useful way for the ancient Israelites to categorize good and evil, but I think if they had looked to Hellenization with those "pagan Greek philosophers" instead of rejecting it, they would have found that there's much more rational explanations than 'mojo'.

Ironically, the Jewish victory over Hellenistic rationalism will be celebrated next week, but most people will never hear that message. They'll hear that Chanukkah is about "religious freedom," ie, the right to worship whatever "gxd" or "gxddess" one wants to (ie, the right to commit idolatry--a capital offense for both Jew and non-Jew).

Agreed. Leftists laugh and giggle at Christians and Jews, but are quite respectful of any two-bit religious ceremony performed in third world backwaters.

That's because they're Hegelians, and Judaism and chr*stianity are the "antithesis" while "indigenous" religions are the "thesis." Wonder what Karl would have thought of that?

I assure that my derision is equally applied to every sort of mysticism and superstition, not just the major ones.

Unfortunately, such consistency is rare. Even some right wing Randian atheists seem more scornful of some "mysticisms" than others.

You get to make whatever rules and regulations you would like about the imbibing of meats into your body.

Actually, no I don't. It is forbidden to create one's own religion.

There's nothing metaphysical that makes pork react to your physiology differently than it would someone else.

No, but it has a metaphysical effect (which is why it's labeled a to`evah). But this is only for Jews. Non-Jews are not required to observe the distinction between tahor and tame' species in eating (though they are when it comes to offering animal sacrifices). So long as all parts of the animal stop moving before it is butchered it is kosher for non-Jews.

The problem with Communism is that it doesn't work. A non-Theistic moral/ethical system based on the principles of Spinoza, Jefferson, and Einstein has never been guilty of murdering millions.

True, but so? You're assuming the mere fact of not murdering millions is the point. It is not.

152 posted on 12/17/2008 12:38:43 PM PST by Zionist Conspirator (VeYisra'el 'ahav 'et-Yosef mikol-banayv ki-ven-zequnim hu' lo; ve`asah lo ketonet passim.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
True, but so? You're assuming the mere fact of not murdering millions is the point. It is not.

I'd say in the scheme of things its a good starting point, considering the track record of most civilizations.

I'd rather live in a civilization built on their principles rather than built on archaic superstition and good old time faith.

Don't you ever lament the celebration of Hanukkah?

I mean, while the Maccabees played up a fascination with some olive oil that lasted longer than it supposedly should, the Greeks were discovering atomization and experimenting with republican government. You can't say that the Hasmoneans were much better in the long run, and probably helped lead to the final downfall by the Romans.

153 posted on 12/17/2008 1:06:39 PM PST by GunRunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner
Don't you ever lament the celebration of Hanukkah?

I mean, while the Maccabees played up a fascination with some olive oil that lasted longer than it supposedly should, the Greeks were discovering atomization and experimenting with republican government. You can't say that the Hasmoneans were much better in the long run, and probably helped lead to the final downfall by the Romans.

The only thing I lament about the celebration of Chanukkah is that its true meaning is never given. It's always used as a symbolic secularist counterpoint to chr*stmas or downright misrepresented as a celebration of abstract "religious freedom" (the only real religious freedom is the freedom to obey G-d's commandments without hindrance).

As for form of government, I'm a Theocrat. I'll take Mashiach HaMelekh over any other form of government any day. But then, wouldn't anybody?

154 posted on 12/17/2008 1:30:02 PM PST by Zionist Conspirator (VeYisra'el 'ahav 'et-Yosef mikol-banayv ki-ven-zequnim hu' lo; ve`asah lo ketonet passim.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
The only thing I lament about the celebration of Chanukkah is that its true meaning is never given. It's always used as a symbolic secularist counterpoint to chr*stmas or downright misrepresented as a celebration of abstract "religious freedom"

That's true. It was probably one of the more minor Jewish holidays, but has been introduced into the mainstream as "Jewish Christmas" or some other such nonsense. It's proximity to Christmas has probably helped obscure the meaning.

155 posted on 12/17/2008 1:39:09 PM PST by GunRunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner
That's true. It was probably one of the more minor Jewish holidays, but has been introduced into the mainstream as "Jewish Christmas" or some other such nonsense. It's proximity to Christmas has probably helped obscure the meaning.

Don't get me started. You aren't supposed to say "merry chr*stmas" without adding "happy Chanukkah" to it--Chanukkah getting the "honor" of representing everything non-chr*stian and "multicultural," from atheism to santeria. And in years when Chanukkah comes early it's ignored when it's actually here and then a month later, sure enough, every "merry chr*stmas" has a "happy Chanukkah" added to it to prove how "multicultural" the well-wisher is, even though Chanukkah's been over for a month. Sheesh.

Chanukkah is older than chr*stmas, btw. It's even mentioned in one of the gospels.

Meanwhile the biggest Jewish holidays of the year get smothered by "halloween," and no one feels the need to be "multicultural" about that. And Purim gets blitzed by St. Patrick's Day. And as for Shavu`ot . . . even many Jews don't talk about it!

The transforming of Chanukkah into the symbol of "otherness" and even of "irreligion" is not only a warping of its true meaning . . . it makes it very hard on those of us who used to celebrate chr*stmas but have given it up because it is displeasing to G-d. Everybody else thinks chr*stmas is G-d's holiday!

156 posted on 12/17/2008 1:51:27 PM PST by Zionist Conspirator (VeYisra'el 'ahav 'et-Yosef mikol-banayv ki-ven-zequnim hu' lo; ve`asah lo ketonet passim.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: PasorBob

You said:
It is truth that matters; choosing is irrelevent. The truth will remain the truth regardless of your choice, and the choice is bigger than just atheism or Biblical Christianity. There are a multitude of belief systems.

So it doesn’t matter whether you choose to drive into a brick wall or choose to avoid it? The brick wall is there whether you “choose” to see it or not. The brick wall will “remain the truth,” regardless of your choice. But, come ON! YOU would be very different from choosing the one or the other (i.e. alive versus very dead).

Pascal says that the evidence being equal, you would be wiser to choose belief versus unbelief in Christianity because you have nothing to lose versus everything to gain. But if you choose unbelief, and hell is real, it will be your everlasting “brick wall” to smash into. And the argument is irrefutably true.


157 posted on 12/17/2008 3:05:55 PM PST by Michael Eden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

You said:
This is simply a bloviated version of “Pascal’s Wager”, and falls to the same fallacies:

1. With a few trivial word substitutions, the entire argument could be framed as an equivalent choice between (for example) Islam and atheism. Thus, the exact same argument supports the conclusions “You should accept Christianity” and “You should accept Islam”.

What you are saying, first of all, is the silliness that Islam and Christianity are identical. They are not, as anyone with common sense should clearly understand.

Further, you are saying that the evidence for Islam and the evidence for Christianity are identical. And again, you are very wrong. Had Mohammad stated that he would rise from the dead, and then done so, maybe you’d have a point.

Jesus’ disciples were absolutely convinced that they saw and touched the risen Jesus. Their lives transformed. They wrote the most sublime moral literature in the history of the world. They didn’t “make a ton of cash” bilking the faithful out of their money, but rather carried the faith to the ends of the earth. Read any good encyclopedia on the disciples. Matthew, Peter, Nathanial, etc.; all but John died martyrs deaths. And they journeyed to the ends of the known earth to spread a message (and die for that message) that they clearly believed to be true. You don’t die for something you know to be a lie.

One hundred years after Christ, Christians were dying by the tens of thousands as martyrs under hateful emperors determined to crush their faith and impose the Roman deities. But Christianity changed the culture that was murdering them because it was truth.

One hundred years after Mohammed, Muslims - who had already swept across Arabia into Africa looting and murdering any one who would not submit to Islam - poured across Western Europe to continue their killing and were stopped at Tours, France by the Christian Frank Charles Martel.

And you think these religions are interchangeable?

You said:
2. The argument implicitly assumes the existence of a deity who will look favorably upon belief motivated by a desire for reward (in this case, relief from existential angst). If, instead, there is a deity who looks favorably upon the ability to suck it up and bear with a bit of angst, the argument leads to the conclusion that atheism is actually preferred — and yet there is no way to know in advance which alternative is correct.

As for your second point, that religious people are moral out of fear of a vengeful deity, and that atheism is therefore preferred, is just as remarkably absurd. The problem with atheism is that there are NO MORAL GROUNDS TO CONDEMN DESPICABLE BEHAVIOR.

Go ahead: offer an atheism-based critique of Joseph Stalin. I will respond with a defense of Stalin. He made sure that he was the strongest who survived, he killed the weak, etc.

What moral laws derive from atheism? How is it that atheism is prescriptive, and not only tells me what I’ve done, but what I ought to do? Doesn’t evolution “evolve”? If it does, then how can you demand I live by “yesterday’s” standards?


158 posted on 12/17/2008 3:21:22 PM PST by Michael Eden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Michael Eden
Pascal says that the evidence being equal, you would be wiser to choose belief versus unbelief in Christianity because you have nothing to lose versus everything to gain.

Faith is bigger than choice. Faith is deeper than choice. Faith isn't driven by benefit, but sacrifice.

159 posted on 12/17/2008 3:28:43 PM PST by PasorBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

You said:
What drives me to distraction about most atheists—whether leftwing or rightwing—is that they refuse to live according to the logical of their beliefs (ie, that life is meaningless) and insist on being the loudest, most annoying moral crusaders in the universe.

Marx, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, and Pol Pot are only a few of the atheists who were great crusaders for their various utopia.

All today’s atheists need is power to repeat the vicious horror that every single atheist government has perpetuated upon mankind.

When your “morality” has zero foundations apart from the will to power, you can do anything at all once you get that power.

P.S. We pray for the shalom of Jerusalem, and urge the world to support Israel in its struggle against terrorism and brutal regimes such as Iran that would repeat the Holocaust.


160 posted on 12/17/2008 3:30:28 PM PST by Michael Eden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-192 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson