The problem with Atheism is by what standard or rules do they live by? What is the criteria for right and wrong? It would seem that each individual would have a different concept of the acceptable boundries, so there is no one standard code by which to live.

DING! naliakea wins today’s grand prize (IMHO).

I perpetually run into precisely THIS difficulty with the position held by the atheists. Case in point:
There is an card carrying member of the ACLU that works in my office. Although his family’s heritage is that of New York/Hebrew stock, he has renounced God, openly claims to be atheist, and he is rather hostile in his demeanor when he is in the vicinity of Christians (or other “people of faith”). He is well educated (Ph.D. Ohio State), snooty, and stereotypical of the condescending liberal that we all know and love. He LOVES to deride me about 1) my “superstitious” beliefs, and 2) the hypocracy of the Christian “leadership”, e.g. citing his disdain for the televangelists. He is a rabid believer in Darwinism and all things “science.”

I am only human. One day I finally got fed up with his nasty comments and his snarky attitude. I approached him and told him that “There is no one here in the office that should be MORE delighted that I am a Christian than YOU pal.” He looked at me in a quizzical fashion. “What do you mean?” he said. I asked him “Do you still believe in Darwinism.” He said “Yes.” I said “Well then, you should know that the love of Jesus is the only thing that is keeping you alive right now.” He said “How’s that?” I reminded him about the Darwinian concepts of “natural selection” and “survival of the fittest.” He acknowledged his belief in those concepts. I said, “If for one minute I believed that there is no God,and that our entire existence had nothing more to it than random chance and Darwinian evolution, I assure you that I would not hesitate to kill you at my earliest convenience, steal all of your worldly possessions, and perhaps even “have my way” with the surviving members of your family.” Of course, this made him very angry (a secondary emotion based on fear). He challenged my right to do something like that. I pointed out to him that I am MUCH bigger than him (several inches taller and probably out-weighing him by at least 60 pounds) and that I would have no difficulty subduing him at any time of my choosing. “THAT is the bottom line on that whole ’survival of the fittest’ garbage for you.” I said. Of course, he immediately protested about how wrong and immoral that something like that would be. I countered with “There is no God,remember? Where’s your moral authority?” Before I left, I reassured him that I was only speaking hypothetically, and that I was only trying to point out to him where his atheism leads. Of course, he is significantly more polite to me now when we discuss politics and religion. And to this day, we still discuss all of those matters – minus the nastiness.

Of course, I’ll admit that it probably wasn’t the way Jesus would have handled the situation, but nevertheless, I am pleased with the outcome. We are now able to communicate with each other and show mutual respect for each other. And that is way better than where we started, which was akin to the whole thing that started this thread, viz.

Because their arguments are intellectually weak and intolerant. Where they once were just condescending, they are now hostile and vaguely hysterical.

CyberCipher on January 27, 2007 at 8:46 PM

But given Bryan’s beliefs I kind of doubt he was seen around BC street too awfully much and certainly never at Whisper alley. Saw your other post about the Mercury club. Knowing chuckle ;)

Bradky on January 27, 2007 at 9:58 PM

You’re too late. Yesterday’s thread (posted by Bryan) where some of us had a lively discussion regarding the origins, merits, and possibly uses of and for “depravity” has already been archived.

Of course, if you’ll stick around, I am fairly certain that AllahPundit would be glad to accommodate you and start a new thread dealing with that sort of thing. You have to admit that AP is not “shy” about tossing the “raw meat” out there for the consumption of the readership.

CyberCipher on January 27, 2007 at 10:14 PM

Adam and Eve weren’t sent away because God was angry at them; He knew what was going to happen. They were sent away because they were then sinful and thus unable to approach God without being destroyed. Evil cannot be near God.

naliaka on January 28, 2007 at 12:36 AM

This may very well be correct. When I read that passage in Genesis, I came to a different conclusion, however. Take careful note that after Adam and Eve sinned, there was a “huddle” or “conference call” in heaven. The passage suggests a “meeting of minds” of sorts. Perhaps a meeting of “God’s council” would be a more accurate term. At some point in the meeting, it was pointed out that if Adam and Eve stayed in the garden of Eden, they would most likely eat of the tree of life and subsequently “live forever” (note that they had already eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil at that point). It was at THAT point that God declared that Adam and Eve must leave the garden of Eden. Although not explicitly stated, one can easily infer that God objected to the idea that Adam and Eve would live forever in their sinful state. In other words, the ONLY possibility for salvation (and for the restoration of mankind to God) was for Adam and Eve to leave. If Adam and Eve had stayed in the garden of Eden, they would have lived forever in a sinful state — always separated from God. Maybe this is a minor, technical point. But it doesn’t, in any way, diminish or sleight God’s intentions. We are agreed that God ONLY had good intentions for Adam and Eve. The punishments meted out to the two of them, including death itself, are the consequences of their disobedience. Not because God is vengeful, but because God is a righteous, holy, and just God.

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

CyberCipher on January 28, 2007 at 2:06 AM