Tagged: atheism Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Eugene Adkins 7:08 am on 2017-03-06 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: atheism, ,   

    Atheistic argument proves too much 

    “Proving too much” is a philosophical phrase applied to an argument that seems to make a valid point until you realize the point is so broad that it is not able to remain true when the obvious is pointed out. There are variations on the exact phrasing of the definition, but the point is always the same – you prove too much and the result is you prove nothing.

    I recently read an on-line article that discussed the feelings of some atheistic parents after one of their children embraced religion. As with most on-line stories there was a comment section, and as with most on-line stories involving atheism and any form of faith the comments were predictable to say the least.

    Out of all the comments, one stood out to me – but it wasn’t original to the commenter. I have seen roots of the comment (which was presented as a passive argument in this case) used multiple times. And unfortunately I am sure it will continue to be used despite the fact the comment proves nothing by proving too much. In fact, the “challenge” of the comment can be logically answered with fewer words than it takes to propose the argument.

    The argument under consideration is (More …)

    • Don Ruhl 7:47 am on 2017-03-07 Permalink | Reply

      Their argument would also apply to evolution. A baby does not believe in evolution until someone teaches him it happened.

      • Eugene Adkins 5:55 pm on 2017-03-07 Permalink | Reply

        You’re being too fair with the proposition to be commenting on the Internet.

  • J. Randal Matheny 3:21 am on 2016-12-23 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: atheism, ,   

    One liberal tires of the emptiness 

    That leads me to . . . drum roll . . . the Christian Right. It is no small feat, switching tribes. It feels stressful and weird to abandon your tribe for the Detested Other Side.

    Since November 8, my husband and I have been taking the kids to church. (He is politically conservative with a religious bent, so no argument there.) I have come this close to buying a giant poster of the American flag for the living room. I may do it still.

    Right now, I am struggling to accept the basic Christian doctrines (virgin birth, resurrection, second coming) because I feel the Christian tribe may be the right tribe for my family.

    via ‘My Fellow Liberals, I’m Tired Of You’ | The American Conservative

    The entire letter this California lady wrote to a blogger can be read at the link above. It deserves a careful read, and an approach by faithful Christians that might help people like her to make the jump from the emptiness of a godless life to the abundant life in Christ.

    Her language about “tribe” has been imported by progressives among us to make the church of our Lord into just another denomination. But she means something different by this.

    Obviously, the writer has been attending some denomination. But nothing keeps those who hold to NT faith from making a strong appeal—in fact, ours is stronger than the so-called “Christian right”!

    It’s a shame that we can’t get some WVBS videos and books like Dick Sztanyo’s book, Graceful Reason, on Christian apologetics, in her hands.

    Though she doesn’t mention it in her letter, there’s no doubt her husband’s “religious bent” had some influence over her. Here is evidence for the power of example.

  • Eugene Adkins 8:08 pm on 2016-12-05 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: atheism, , ,   

    One thing that “American Atheists” and several Protestant churches will have in common this holiday season 

    The title of this post may sound a little weird, but assure you that “American Atheists” and several Protestant churches will have something in common this holiday season that you may never fathomed.

    What is it?

    They think you (More …)

    • marciasettles 8:45 pm on 2016-12-05 Permalink | Reply

      Our doors will be open! (We are a small Church of Christ in KY.)

    • Bernard Barton -Preacher for the Pleasant Hill church of Christ in Tennessee 5:29 am on 2016-12-06 Permalink | Reply

      The Pleasant Hill church of Christ in Pleasant Hill, Tenn will be meeting December 25 because it is the first day of the week when Christians worship God and study the Word of God together-Bernard Barton-Preacher of the pleasant Hill congregation

    • docmgphillips 1:32 pm on 2016-12-06 Permalink | Reply

      Regardless of secular holidays, we will be in church when the elders have set the time…and if they are led astray by “political correctness,” we will worship at home. But, regardless, we will worship the Lord on the Lord’s day.

  • TFRStaff 6:51 am on 2016-04-01 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: atheism, ,   

    Do Atheists Believe in Miracles? 

    Atheism’s Contradictory Supernatural “Natural” Explanations

    Atheism contends that a supernatural Creator does not exist. Allegedly, a supernatural Being is unnecessary in our material Universe. Everything can be explained purely naturally through a study of the natural world. In short, nature exists “naturally,” not supernaturally.  Read >>

    AP Web Logo

    • James McFerrin 6:00 pm on 2016-04-01 Permalink | Reply

      I guess that I’m not smart enough to understand how something can come from nothing. It’s much easier to understand that God did in fact CREATE something from nothing.

  • Eugene Adkins 7:22 pm on 2016-02-15 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: atheism, , ,   

    Neat Reverse Paragraph Article 

    You may have seen this before, but it was new to me and I thought it was worth passing along.

    I read it in the email bulletin sent out by the Wise church of Christ.


    I will live my life according to these beliefs

    God does not exist.

    It is just foolish to think

    That there is a God with a cosmic plan

    That an all-powerful God brings redemption and healing to the pain and suffering in the world

    Is a comforting thought,



    Is only wishful thinking.

    People can do as they please without eternal consequences.

    The idea that

    I am deserving of Hell

    Because of sin

    Is a lie meant to make me a slave to those in power

    “The more you have, the happier you will be.”

    Our existence has no grand meaning or purpose

    In a world with no God

    There is freedom to be who I want to be

    But with God

    Everything is fine.

    It is ridiculous to think

    I am lost and in need of saving


    (reread from bottom to top)


    (More …)

  • Eugene Adkins 10:03 pm on 2015-10-28 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: atheism, , ,   

    A link to a video you’ve probably heard about 

    This young lady shows great composure while describing the interaction she had with her 7th grade (atheistic) teacher that basically gave her, and her class, an ultimatum: Deny that God is real or fail the assignment

    After clicking on the picture’s link (which takes you to the school’s site), click on “Item 8 – Open Forum” to watch the original footage in full length.

  • J. Randal Matheny 3:06 pm on 2015-10-17 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: atheism,   

    ‘I never wonder if I’m wrong.’ Where did Bart go amiss? 

    “The truth of the matter is I never do wonder if I’m wrong.” So ends Bart Campolo, son of famous evangelical Tony, an interview on World Mag. A few years back he rejected his father’s religion and turned to atheism.

    Below, a few thoughts of mine after reading the interview. (More …)

  • TFRStaff 6:49 am on 2015-06-02 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , atheism, , ,   

    A Loving God and an Eternal Hell–Video: (Part 6) 

    This video, along with the rest of the series, can be found by visiting this link.

  • Ron Thomas 4:04 pm on 2015-03-03 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: atheism, ,   

    I have written quite a number of letters… 

    I have written quite a number of letters to editor in our local newspaper (Decatur and Mattoon, IL) through the years. I have been somewhat of a broken record, but this is by design on my part. I want to underscore the empty atheistic moral code that many in society seem to want to adopt.

    On occasion I will go to the newspaper website and peruse the comments to my letters. Today (3.3.2015) I looked to see the following replies to what I most recently wrote. So readily are they willing to accept some moral standard that has an objective quality to it, but so “emptily” are they able to put forth a moral code that is obligatory for others to follow!

    Since they have failed to do so, comments that illustrate this follows.

    ****So tell me Mr. Thomas, how is it that our moral code based on religion did not prevent our invasion of Iraq and inflicting massive casualties, war crimes, and misery on a country which did not attack us? How was this not “evil”? Our moral code did not prevent this country from committing a large number of atrocities. It seems “thou shall not kill” has a few loopholes in which you can fly a B52 through.

    ***Religion isn’t responsible for creating moral code, society is my friend. If religion was the source of all morals we would never have had slavery. Which commandment was it that said, “Thou shalt not own or enslave another person”??? Which one? Oh, that’s right…none of them. It’s because society tells us what’s right and wrong, not religion. Society advanced and gave women the right to vote, not religion. Society gave and is still trying to give equal rights to all, not religion. –oblivious

    ***Show me what part of the bible endorses democratically elected governments? Democracy and republicanism is a pagan invention discovered by the intellectual enlightenment. . Christianity was an enemy of democratic rule. The divine right of kings was their standard.

    ***Mr. Thomas pretends to know the workings of the mind of an atheist. Shall we then conclude that dishonesty is morally permissible to the theist? There is no written rulebook for the atheist, and yet all the ones in my acquaintance, and there are many, observe the practice of treating others as they, themselves, would wish to be treated. How does a theist, whose handbook sanctions genocide, incest, cannibalism, and slavery, among other atrocities, find the nerve to criticize anyone else?

    • marciasettles 5:03 pm on 2015-03-03 Permalink | Reply

      Do you even bother to respond to such attacks?

      • LaraIngalls 6:03 pm on 2015-03-03 Permalink | Reply

        Whether Mr Thomas replies or not, indulge me with a response. I hear these and others all the time.

        Firstly many, many, many things are done by individuals that break the rules/ moral codes they live under. Just because most drivers speed at some point does not change the law, it shows humans break/ disregard the law. They do the same to a Biblical code in the New law. This does not mean God’s law has no power, it means humans break His law. Grace, mercy and forgiveness are possible under God’s law, generally not man’s law.

        Secondly, God’s law is higher than society’s law, which as we know changes with leaders, borders, and time. God’s law has remained the same, year on year, for nearly 2000 years. As for women’s rights, it is God’s law which makes no distinction between male and female in what is expected. Man is the one who creates societal laws that discriminate against women. The same goes for racism; God is no respector of persons (Acts 10:34). His law applies equally to all genders, colours, nations, sizes and times. There is nothing in God’s New Testament to either endorse or disallow slavery, which is society’s choice. But God’s laws of love, mercy, honesty apply across all human relationships.

        Thirdly, God has never endorsed any human government system. In the Old Testament, when He ruled Israel directly for a time, then He acted as legislature and executive, allowing appointed Judges to be the upholder/ enforcer of the law. And the Israelites asked God for a king like their neighbours and enemies had. So He relented and gave them a king. There is nothing in this which supports the divine right of Kings.

        Lastly, it is my experience that atheists are extremely rude and abusive in language towards those who have a faith in a higher power, whomever that is. It is true that atheistic leaders such as Hitler and Stalin wreak genocide, hatred, mass murder, etc., to spread rule by fear. As for genocide, incest, cannibalism, slavery and other atrocities… Kindly point out for me what New Testament law endorses these?! Please do not confuse the message and the messenger. As stated, a lot is done in God’s name that He detests. In the end He says, Depart from me, I never knew you (Matthew 7:21-23).

        I have taken the time to read Darwin, Dawkins, Hitchens and such to understand atheism. I wonder how many atheists have read the Bible cover to cover. Most I know take what they hear from movies or others, or worse, what some Catholic history or tradition does, and lay that at the feet of God. This is a fatal flaw. Read the Bible, Old and New, to understand who God is and what He wants from you.

      • Ron Thomas 7:18 pm on 2015-03-03 Permalink | Reply

        No, I don’t respond. I am, however, interesting in seeing if there is a substantive reply to anything I write along that line. As you can see there was nothing.

        On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 5:03 PM, The Fellowship Room wrote:


    • Andrew 5:52 pm on 2015-03-03 Permalink | Reply

      Last paragraph – how do people think the Bible ‘sanctions’ genocide, incest, cannibalism, and slavery? Such nonsense…

  • Eugene Adkins 8:22 am on 2015-03-01 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: atheism, ,   

    Atheists may end up believing in an eternal creator after all 

    There was no big bang that created the universe.

    That’s not a Christian saying that either (although I agree with the statement on its surface). According to this proposed scientific theory, the universe is eternal!

    All that scientific cozying up to the big bang for nothing!?

    But the greatest irony of the story’s conclusion, at least to me, is that atheists may end up believing in an eternal creator after all. How interesting.

    • makagutu 11:15 am on 2015-03-01 Permalink | Reply

      maybe it is not your fault, but how would an eternal universe need a creator?

      • Eugene Adkins 8:21 pm on 2015-03-01 Permalink | Reply

        Without painting with too broad a brush, the average atheist belittles and makes a laughing point out of the theist for believing in something/someone who exists as a creator and who created all things but did not need to be created. Yet now, according to this new “scientific” knowledge, there are some atheistic scientists (at least the ones who ascribe their belief to this new theory) who in fact believe in something that needs no creator. I just see this as interesting irony.

        • makagutu 11:04 pm on 2015-03-01 Permalink | Reply

          Eugine, I still don’t understand you.
          One it is an hypothesis. Two it says the universe could be eternal which means it didn’t need a creator. The BB was an hypothesis. It did not say the universe was created, no, it only meant there was a singularity. There is no irony. It is you who misunderstand

      • Eugene Adkins 6:54 am on 2015-03-02 Permalink | Reply

        The Big Bang theory says the universe had a beginning, but now the new hypothesis says that the universe had no beginning because it has always been; since atheistic scientists ultimately believe that the universe is their “creator”, they thus believe in a creator that had no creator.

        That was the point of my post’s title and that’s about as simply as I can put it for you.

        Thanks for commenting.

        • makagutu 6:58 am on 2015-03-02 Permalink | Reply

          Now I see. The problem is you don’t understand the bb cosmology. One the bb talks of a singularity, and is silent about what was before if we can talk of a before.
          The rest of your statement is a strawman.

    • docmgphillips 1:12 pm on 2015-03-01 Permalink | Reply

      I find it quite interesting that those who have faith in science often have to revise their credo, while those of us who have faith in God alone have never had to revise our credo. That says something, doesn’t it?

      • Eugene Adkins 8:08 pm on 2015-03-01 Permalink | Reply

        Without doing intentional damage to the text, they are “ever learning” so it’s a by-product (2 Timothy 3:7).

    • meanlittleboy2 11:55 pm on 2015-03-01 Permalink | Reply

      Reblogged this on meanlittleboy2.

    • James Craven 7:56 am on 2015-03-02 Permalink | Reply

      Actually , it’s the reverse. They used to say it was eternal. However , because of the first and second laws of thermodynamics and because they can see how the Universe is expanding they no longer say that. See the website , Apologetics Press or Brad Harrub’s Focus Press.

    • James Craven 8:13 am on 2015-03-02 Permalink | Reply

      There was a “Big Bang” that created everything! It was created by an Eternal Being! His name is God!

  • TFRStaff 6:45 am on 2015-02-27 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , atheism, , ,   

    5 Reasons Racism is Ridiculous 

    Atheism has no rational basis upon which to call anything objectively just or unjust, including racism. If mankind is merely the result of billions of years of mindless evolution and is nothing more than animals (as atheistic evolution contends; Marchant, 2008), then man can logically make evolutionary-based racist remarks that are consistent with the godless General Theory of Evolution. In fact, Charles Darwin’s “Bulldog,” atheist Thomas Huxley, did just that in his 1865 essay, “Emancipation–Black and White.” He alleged, for example, “no rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less superior, of the white man.” In truth, if there is no God, mankind could just as easily look down upon and mistreat others (whom he deems are less evolved), as he does roaches, rats, and orangutans (Lyons, 2011; Lyons and Butt, 2009). Those who are Christians, however, logically contend that since (1) God exists, and (2) the Bible is the Word of God, racism is morally wrong–and completely ridiculous for the following five reasons. Read >>
  • Ron Thomas 3:42 pm on 2015-02-26 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: atheism, ,   

    Atheism and a meaningless word ('evil') 

    Since there are no absolute moral values to the atheist, agnostic, or even the secularists, then all values a person has is relative to that person. There is nothing obligatory in the values of one to be followed by another. This is the case because, as one atheist wrote, “Claiming that there is any standard that is objective and transcendent of man, set forth by God, is plain and simply a lie.”

    Yet, this empty statement is one that can’t win the day, and is self-defeating. For instance, in an article dated February 15 (A-3, Herald & Review), a humanist chaplain felt compelled to rewrite the ten commandments for the 21st century. Why would such a one (or ones) need to do something like this if values are relative to the individual? This is done because of the moral bankruptcy of a subjective/relativist moral code that has origin in man.

    The statement is also empty for another reason. In a news report the evil Islamic State captured 90 Christians (A-2, Journal Gazette, 2.26.2015). An atheist ascribes the meaningless word “evil” to something that they can’t objectively say is evil at all! The best they can do is say it is “evil” to them. To an atheist, one’s moral code is subjective and relative to oneself. If the community of the Islamic State (a collection of individuals) condones and participates in the beheading of innocent people, then that “moral” behavior is codified (written or unwritten), thus becoming sort of a subjective “moral” law. What can atheists say to judge it as immoral, since they don’t believe in a moral code higher than man? Only that they think it is immoral.

    Finally, the statement is empty of substance because there is no way to judge as immoral a Catholic priest for possessing child pornography (A-3, Journal-Gazette, 2.27.2015). On what basis would the priest, or anyone, be wrong when an individual “valued” it to be acceptable?

    The atheistic moral code is a lot like one who asserts that life can come from non-life. This is a physical/material impossibility. Think about that for just a moment. An atheist wants a moral code that can successfully judge between right and wrong – but they have none. An atheist also wants life from non-life – but they can’t get that either.

  • John T. Polk II 10:50 pm on 2015-02-25 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: atheism, Bible-believer, ,   

    2-24-2015           Atheism Equals Ignorance 

    The evidence for God’s existence is so abundant that an atheist can believe there is no God only by denying all the scientific evidence concluding with, God Is. Atheists are as Gentiles, “in the futility of their mind, having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart…” (Ephesians 4:17-18 NKJV). Instead of “faith,” an atheist has a “vacuum.” “Atheist,” is a word meaning “without faith in deity” and they are known for what they do not or cannot know. “Ignorance” is defined as “the absence of knowledge.” It is practically impossible for any atheist to ridicule a believer’s “faith” because a Bible-believer has evidence for that faith, but an atheist is reduced to denial!

    This is Johnny Polk, with “Words of Wisdom” brought to you by the Oneida church of Christ.

    • Linuxgal 6:07 am on 2015-02-26 Permalink | Reply

      Give me the single best piece of evidence for your faith, so I can see if your judgment is correct that my heart is blinded.

      • John T. Polk II 8:31 am on 2015-02-26 Permalink | Reply

        Genesis 1:1=the effect (the created world) demands an adequate cause (God).

        • Linuxgal 11:05 am on 2015-02-26 Permalink | Reply

          I object to your methodology where you assert the necessity of a cause for every effect (which, by the way, is falsified by the observation, via the Casimir effect, of the creation of virtual particles in the void) but when you trace it back to your creator deity, you suspend the requirement. An eternal universe would be a simpler hypothesis than an eternal creator, because it would eliminate the intermediate step of creation.

      • LaraIngalls 12:46 pm on 2015-03-03 Permalink | Reply

        Hi Linuxgal

        Kindly indulge me, and provide me the single best piece of evidence for your faith in evolution/ atheism? I have yet be informed of one single, scientific method validated instance of one species evolving into another. Adaptation is something entirely different, so please don’t talk about bacteria that become resistant bacteria (and thus still bacteria, not a new species); or talk about a finch with a thicker beak (but still a finch).

        Kindly provide me with your single best piece of evidence. Then I can share mine.

    • John T. Polk II 7:41 am on 2015-03-01 Permalink | Reply

      The Casimir Effect is a theory (which remains unproven!) that assumes: a vacuum is full of unending, unusable electromagnetic waves, which can draw two mirrors toward each other! To accept such a fanciful theory as fact is the stuff of Science Fiction! Belief in unscientifically-proven theories requires blind faith.
      Scientific facts are: no matter is eternal; there has to be a beginning for everything (Hebrews 3:4) and the Earth shows clear “footprints” that it began. Therefore, there cannot be a materially physical explanation for the Creation. Genesis 1:1 sums up this scientific solution.

    • Linuxgal 8:01 pm on 2015-03-03 Permalink | Reply

      First of all, I don’t have “faith” in evolution, I understand it to be true.

      Evolution means a species undergoes genetic change over time. We can sequence the DNA of various species and analyze these sequences to arrange them into a phylogeny (evolutionary tree) which shows a hierarchy of features, beginning with vertebrae, proceeding to jaws, digits, eggs, hair, placenta, thumbs, and so on. If evolution is not true, and every species is created to exist in its niche by a master designer, then there would be, for example, no need for men to develop their testes inside their abdomen and then permit them to descend outside of the body, which makes them vulnerable to developing hernias. The reason it happens in human beings is that the adaption was first used by our fishlike ancestors, and we fall under that phylogeny, that tree I mentioned above.

    • John T. Polk II 7:52 am on 2015-03-04 Permalink | Reply

      May I assume, then, that my reply to your use of the Casimir Effect adequately disproved your major premise that “matter is eternal?” And, since you have ignored my argument that scientific facts uphold Genesis 1:1, then you have decided to defend the “doctrine of Evolution” which, itself, unscientifically assumes that “matter is eternal.” Thus, you have moved from one gross assumption to another which is based upon the previous assumption. This is the very definition of “blind faith.”
      The “doctrine of Evolution” teaches that “genetic change over time” crosses the “species” line and creates a whole new “species.” This has never been found to be true, either in a laboratory or in a fossil. That “doctrine” has absolutely no proof of the eons of time necessary for an improbable “genetic change” to occur. And the “doctrine” fails to prove that such “genetic change” has occurred or could survive, if it did occur! The Creation lines remain uncrossed until this very day. “All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of animals, another of fish, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory” (1 Corinthians 15:39-41 NKJV).
      The “doctrine” is based upon man-made, artificial, imaginary charts, “phylogeny (evolutionary tree),” into which “the DNA of various species” is re-aligned and forced into a “false witness” which is then treated as if it were proven fact! “A false witness shall perish, But the man who hears him will speak endlessly” (Proverbs 21:28 NKJV).
      The process by which our birth bodies develop, either with men or women, has nothing whatever to do with “our fishlike ancestors,” but is the maturing process by which we are prepared to multiply. Do you know of any “fishlike ancestors” who “develop their testes inside their abdomen and then permit them to descend outside of the body?” If not, then you have no parallel case that supports your use of the term “fishlike ancestors.” How unscientific can you be?
      The Creation speaks of God’s “wisdom” in every design and detail (Proverbs 8:22-31). If you would objectively (i.e. scientifically) examine it, you, too, would be in complete awe of God and His power.

  • Ron Thomas 5:53 pm on 2015-02-12 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: atheism, , , standards   

    Brian Williams – Did he really do anything wrong? 

    (Letter to editor),

    It is most unfortunate that Brian Williams “fell from grace” in the television news business like he did. The unfortunate aspect is the humiliation he is experiencing at this moment because of his unwise engagement in false news reporting. That Brian Williams needs to pay a price goes without saying, but the humiliation is tough for anyone to handle.

    To the atheistic model of morality, though, Brian Williams did nothing wrong! It was not long ago that someone wrote, “Claiming that there is any standard that is objective and transcendent of man, set forth by God, is plain and simply a lie.” To an atheist (or secularist), what is a lie? For that matter, to an atheist, what is truth? If there is such a thing as truth, then on what is it based? Is it man’s opinion, perspective?

    If truth is based on facts, and there is no objective truth, then the facts are subjected to an interpretation. Subjective truth, therefore, is nothing but one man’s opinion, or perspective. Thus, Brian Williams did nothing wrong from the vantage point of the atheistic moral code.

    Yet, atheists can’t live like that because of the obvious moral chaos it produces. In order to live by an objective truth they deny even exists, they “steal” Christianity’s standard of morality, and complain about and against those who try to promote it!

    • J. Randal Matheny 6:01 pm on 2015-02-12 Permalink | Reply

    • Eugene Adkins 7:58 pm on 2015-02-12 Permalink | Reply

      Double amen to the last sentence of your last paragraph.

      Guess you’ll have to settle for a single amen when it comes to the rest 😉

    • Ron Thomas 8:15 pm on 2015-02-12 Permalink | Reply

      That’s funny -and singles are always good.

    • Eliza 11:21 pm on 2015-02-12 Permalink | Reply

      I just want to know why we feel sorry for a liar who was caught in his lies. So many are coming to his defense and making excuses, but he is the managing editor of the network that brought us these examples of news tampering: putting an explosive charge on a Chevy truck gas tank that refused to explode on impact, falsifying George Bush’s National Guard records, and editing George Zimmerman’s 911 call log to make him appear a racist. It is not only there is no standard, it is that there is a concerted attempt to manipulate the news to manipulate the populace. Unfortunately, liars and news work so well together at NBC. God bless you:)

      • Ron Thomas 4:04 am on 2015-02-13 Permalink | Reply

        Perhaps I am a bit different. I don’t want to see another suffer humiliation, even when decisions made result in actions completed. Brian received the consequences of his actions. Thank you for reading and posting. On Feb 12, 2015 11:21 PM, “The Fellowship Room” wrote:


        • Eliza 1:20 pm on 2015-02-13 Permalink | Reply

          You are assuming those are the only two instances where Brian Williams lied to others about major news events. What other lies has he told millions while anchoring the news on NBC. They have that track record of ginning up the news to prove their preconceived point. Maybe so many feel sorry for Brian because he got caught and they hope that they don’t get caught.
          On another note, humiliation can be the starting point for changing one’s behavior, perhaps it can lead to humility. Humility is a godly attribute, and being humiliated over sin, for lying is sin, could, Lord willing, lead the sinner to repentance and life.

    • john 11:10 am on 2015-03-11 Permalink | Reply

      You have no understanding of morality, philosophy, or secular humanism. Christian morality steals from secular humanism heavily. Morality does not require religion, and most educated religious scholars (educated meaning a well rounded balance of religion AND philosophy) will agree with this. Religion can promote morality but morality can and has been arrived at through secular philosophical thought alone.

    • Ron Thomas 3:21 pm on 2015-03-11 Permalink | Reply

      You are pretty good at the assertion, now set forth your case for an objective/transcendent standard of morality that has its origin “through secular philosophical thought alone.”

  • Ron Thomas 10:00 am on 2014-10-29 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: atheism, , , ,   

    What an atheist did answer, then me (8) 

    QUESTION: What happens when we die?

    ATHEIST: All bodily functions cease, and eventually our bodies decompose. (Ecclesiastes 3:19-21).

    CHRISTIAN: From a purely naturalistic perspective this would be true, but there is more to man that just the material substance. There is the mind, and the mind is not material. From where did it originate? An atheist has no answer, but a theist does (Ecclesiastes 3:11). The passage used (3:19-21) is strictly from a physical perspective, but the wise preacher of Ecclesiastes knew there was more than the physical/material. In this there is wisdom.

    QUESTION: What if your wrong? And there is a Heaven? And there is a HELL!

    ATHEIST: If I am wrong, then I will go to Hell. Under such a circumstance, our choices are limited: 1) Be eternally tortured. 2) Be terrorized into submission in hopes of being allowed to spend eternity with the very being who created this scenario which lead to being so terrorized in the first place. I find neither scenario appealing. (NOTE: The concept of Hell being an old Pagan myth; and the concept of Heaven being “pie in the sky” hopes of defying nature and thereby somehow reconnecting with dearly departed loved ones; neither concept renders itself either a realistic cause for concern or a viable source of consolation).

    CHRISTIAN: An atheist chooses to look upon the options as to only two, and he then chooses to value those options according to his own subjective standard. Yet, his standard is arbitrary, and not objective or transcendent. Thus, no reason to accept what he says about it; it can be summarily dismissed. The third option is to change one’s thinking in accordance with the evidence, but many atheists don’t do that since naturalism is a dogma that has to be held onto at all cost. Recently read an article where naturalism has to accept supernaturalism at the outset (see earlier reply). Interesting!

compose new post
next post/next comment
previous post/previous comment
show/hide comments
go to top
go to login
show/hide help
shift + esc