‘There Is No One Right Way to Live’: Atheists Invent Their Own Ten Commandments

ContestTwo professing atheist authors recently held a contest in which they asked followers to “rethink the Ten Commandments” and come up with “an alternative secular version … for the modern age.”

Lex Bayer and John Figdor, authors of the book “Atheist Mind, Humanist Heart,” launched the contest last month to “open up for discussion what gives life meaning when secular culture is on the rise.”

The crowdsourcing competition invited atheists and humanists around their world to submit a commandment, which was then voted on by their peers, as well as a panel of 13 judges. The global contest resulted in over 2,800 submissions from 18 countries worldwide.

“Experience as wide a range of pleasures as possible, without excess or harm to others,” one submission read.

“The infinity after your death stretches out as the one before your life,” another said. “Enjoy your short window, lucky one.”

“Have a purpose in life,” stated a third.

Judges in the contest included Adam Savage from the Discovery Channel’s “Mythbusters”; National Medal of Science recipient Gordon Bower; Harvard University’s Humanist Chaplain, Greg Epstein; Executive Director of the Richard Dawkins Foundation, Robyn Blumner; and Chief Executive of the British Humanist Association, Andrew Copson. Ten winners were chosen, and each received $1,000 for their entry.

  • Connect with Christian News

On Friday, Bayer and Figdor announced the winning submissions:

I. Be open-minded and be willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence.
II. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not to believe what you wish to be true.
III. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world.
IV. Every person has the right to control over their body.
V. God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningful life.
VI. Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognize that you must take responsibility for them.
VII. Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect them to want to be treated. Think about their perspective.
VIII. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations.
IX. There is no one right way to live.
X. Leave the world a better place than you found it.

The men claim that the secular commandments demonstrate that one doesn’t have to be Christian to be moral.

“There is often a misconception that nonbelievers don’t share strong ethical values. In reading through the thousands of submissions in the contest it’s very clear that is not the case,” Figdor, who works as a humanist chaplain at Stanford University, said in a statement. “The overwhelming positivity and overlap with traditional moral values shows that no matter where you are from, or what your faith tradition has been—or hasn’t been—there are some things we can all agree on as being important and vital to a rich and fulfilling life.”

But as previously reported, Terre Ritchie of CBH Ministries said that it is futile for humankind to concoct its own definition of goodness.

“There has to be more to our faith than being a nice person,” she continued. “Knowledge of the Scriptures is going to tell us what good is. … When King Solomon wrote, ‘Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding,’ [he was telling us that] if we’re going on an understanding without God, we’re not going to get far.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Vito Zabala Halasan

    “V. God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningfull life.”…and then WHY aethist , always mentioned GOD if there’s no GOD? …

    • Spicy Ray Swinehart-Patrick

      They are obsessed with God. As much as they deny Him.

    • Jessica Armstrong

      Um, because that is what you Christians call your deity. Therefore, in the absence of a word for him we use the accepted term so that you understand. However, if you want to get into it we could always call him “The Nonexistent Deity”.

      • Spicy Ray Swinehart-Patrick

        I’m so glad I have a life and don’t spend my time mocking others beliefs.

        • Jessica Armstrong

          Okay, that’s just rude. You actually believe that I have no life. Just because I have an extended amount of time now doesn’t mean I have no life. It’s called vacation. And how are you not mocking others’ beliefs? Hello, you’re sitting here mocking atheists’ beliefs. You need to think before you speak.

          • Spicy Ray Swinehart-Patrick

            I don’t ever mock atheists actually, unless in response to being mocked first. I could give a crap what they do until they mock my God. Even then I usually let it go. Most atheists live and let live, but some of you are just off the wall out to get Christians. And I don’t NEED you to tell me what I NEED to do. Thanks 🙂

      • Vito Zabala Halasan

        seems stupid…

  • Vito Zabala Halasan

    “V. God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningfull life.”…and then WHY aethist , always mentioned GOD if there’s no GOD? …

  • Neiman

    “19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written,
    “He is THE ONE WHO CATCHES THE WISE IN THEIR CRAFTINESS”; 20and again, “THE LORD KNOWS THE REASONINGS of the wise, THAT THEY ARE USELESS.”…
    I Corinthians 3

    “1The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good.” Psalms 14

    #7 is from the Bible – oops!

    The first are designed to oppose the value of faith and place science upon God’s Throne.

    The rest are relative morality, situational ethics, there is no right or wrong. It can be summed up in there are no moral absolutes and as there is no God, it is eat, drink, fornicate and die, the worst of us only become worm food as the best of us. So nothing should be denied to any man, fulfill all your manifold lusts and don’t worry about the consequences.

  • Neiman

    “19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written,
    “He is THE ONE WHO CATCHES THE WISE IN THEIR CRAFTINESS”; 20and again, “THE LORD KNOWS THE REASONINGS of the wise, THAT THEY ARE USELESS.”…
    I Corinthians 3

    “1The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good.” Psalms 14

    #7 is from the Bible – oops!

    The first are designed to oppose the value of faith and place science upon God’s Throne.

    The rest are relative morality, situational ethics, there is no right or wrong. It can be summed up in there are no moral absolutes and as there is no God, it is eat, drink, fornicate and die, the worst of us only become worm food as the best of us. So nothing should be denied to any man, fulfill all your manifold lusts and don’t worry about the consequences.

  • Carol Cantell Moorby

    EVery one is trying to rewrite everything. These atheists and also the government trying to rewrite our constitution and common core is teaching our children to rewrite the constitution as well. Rebellion is the root of all this foolishness. ” NO one is going to tell me what to do” attitude comes because parents have neglected to discipline their children. These perverted mind sets are a result of anti-Christ spirits and a hatred of God. Basically people need The Lord. These 10 atheistic commandments are all based on selfishness, self centeredness and are void of morals and values.What atheists don’t understand is that they do believe in a religion…it’s called secularism or humanism even satanism because if you don’t chose Jesus you have already chosen the god of this world ( small g) satan, but most people don’t even know this because they have not read what God has written in his bible which clearly teaches this. imhave one last nugget to share with you…God says your body is NOT your own because it was bought for and a price was paid for you when Jesus gave his body and life to cleanse you of all your sins.

    • http://textsincontext.wordpress.com Michael Snow

      Big part of the problem–savorless salt in our culture. How many Christians even care enough about the Ten Commandments to learn them and teach them to their children? We need to focus on making disciples and stop worrying about the atheists. http://textsincontext.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/teaching-children-the-ten-commandments/

    • Jessica Armstrong

      That is absolutely ridiculous. First of all, no one needs “the Lord”. A person can rely on him/herself and doesn’t need some intangible parent figure. If that were true, we would never become adults. Secondly, what makes you think that a person can’t have morals and values just because they are an atheist? And how dare you equate us to Satanists? Satanists actively worship SATAN! Atheists don’t believe in any higher power, be it God or Satan. To us, the universe was created from itself and there was no intangible deity that did it. Also, my body is mine you moron. Not God’s, Jesus’, the devil… MINE! You are so freaking delusional.

      • chrisleduc1

        Did you create yourself? Did you cause yourself to exist? Heck, did your parents cause you to exist? No, not even they had control over whether or not you would come into existence. Can you keep your heart beating? Can you keep your cells replicating? You can’t do ANYTHING for yourself! Simple fact. You were created by God and you are sustained by God – He gave you life and He will be the one to determine when it ends. Deny it all you want, but its reality.

        • Jessica Armstrong

          Okay, so obviously you’ve never read a physiology and anatomy book. Otherwise, you would know that the body is a self-sufficient system that works off itself to create itself, grow itself, and sustain itself. The teaching is that anatomy dictates physiology. Blood is a good example. You see, the heart is not strong enough to pump blood through the whole body. So your veins are shaped much the same was as a river with rocks in it. Thinner in some areas, wider in others, it causes friction which creates motion. All of your organ systems work with each other to keep a human being going. But that just shows how ignorant Christians really are.

          • chrisleduc1

            Nothing to do with ignorance, you’re just twisting my point. Simple question – you can choose to keep your heart beating, or make it stop? Can you pause it? No, you have absolutely no conscience control over the most primary system in your body…

          • Jessica Armstrong

            Okay, were you not listening to me? I said that your body is self-sufficient. Self-sufficient means that there is no conscious control of it. But that doesn’t mean that God is making my heart beat or blood pumping through my veins. My body does it. No God enters into the equation. Again with the ignorance.

          • Neiman

            You have just described incredibly complex and perfect design and you cannot have design without a preexisting designer greater than the thing designed. Random mutations over time and cosmic accidents can never result in design, let alone complex design. You have proven yourself wrong.

      • James Grimes

        I just have to wonder how you can have the arrogance to come to a Christian forum and promote your nonsense that no one needs God. Please go to an Atheist site to do that.

        • Jessica Armstrong

          Are you afraid of a different point of view? Does it make you question what has been said? Christians attack atheist sites all the time but when we do it on a Christian site you run scared. Was merely pointing out that there are obvious flaws in your logic. If you want to make a statement then you need to be willing to back it up. Look up the definition of Satanism in the dictionary and you will know that your logic is flawed. But it usually is by Christians. If you can’t handle the heat then stay out of the kitchen.

          • James Grimes

            Afraid of you and what you have to say? Absolutely not. Don’t confuse being afraid with intolerance. I have no tolerance for what you have to say. I have no tolerance for Atheists, especially on a Christian site. Good bye.

          • Jessica Armstrong

            Intolerance is another form of pride. “Pride goeth before a fall”. That’s you breaking your own biblical teachings. Congratulations, you just entered the ranks of intolerant Christians. Shocker.

          • James Grimes

            Your comment is totally meaningless. Don’t waste your time. Your presence here is insignificant. Good bye. You have been dismissed.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            LOL. And you wonder why people write you off and react the way that they do? You really need to work on your apologetical style. No doubt you will be calling down the fire from heaven onto my head for daring to say this as a fellow believer.

          • Colin Sutton

            Asking questions to get to truth is considered ‘evil’ by Christians? Wow!

          • James Grimes

            Yes. The only truth on this site is the truth of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior to all who believe in Him. Atheists ‘ questions, such as yours, are meant to cause dissension on this site. Those are not only to be ignored, but in some cases, condemned.

          • Neiman

            Tolerance of evil is evil. Tolerance is a most despicable refuge for evil men and women. Leftist tolerance is designed to defend every kind of evil known to man and it is never directed towards Christians, only as a weapon to attack them. Intolerance is NOT the same as pride, if you are intolerant of child molesters or child murderers, is that pride in you? See intolerance of evil is only bad to you when it is Christians being intolerant of evil, it is never bad when you liberals are intolerant, isn’t that hypocritical of you?

          • James Grimes

            Thank you for stating some well needed information. Intolerance of evil is a virtue. If we tolerate these naysayers, we aren’t doing anyone a favor. Personally, I would rather be disliked by the Atheists rather than have them pat me on the back and tell me “a job well done.”

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Are you the owner and administrator of the site? Who said that non-believers and non-Christians are not permitted to participate? It is very strange that you take this as an opportunity to denigrate rather than confess your faith and try at least to lead it to a fruitful discussion.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Yes. He is afraid. He constantly tells atheists to leave this site because he’s terrified of having to examine his own beliefs critically.

          • Neiman

            According to God’s Word, all who are not part of Him, not born of His Spirit are under the power of Satan and serve that evil being. So, while you and your fellow travelers do not consciously worship Satan and can argue against your detractors on that basis, that you are Satan’s children and are doing his business, Scripture makes that fact clear.

            So, James logic and accusations were not flawed and you and folk like you stand convicted in God’s Court.

          • CrossedtheTiber

            This is not what the Bible says at all. Ms. Armstrong is not satan’s child. Ms. Armstrong is created in the image of God and is loved by God, even if she has no belief in God. He didn’t say that He only loves us if we believe in Him. Paul tells us that “God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” Romans 5:8

            Satan was an angel that was cast out of heaven for his pride. Satan does not and can not have children because satan is a spiritual being. Only God can create life and as Christians we believe that God created Ms. Armstrong and we should treat her with the dignity and respect that is due to anyone who is created in the image of God. Ms. Armstrong’s disbelief in God, or denial of the existence of God does not cause her to cease to be a creation of God. Rather, we, as imitators of Christ, should show only immense love and compassion to her. Jesus didn’t verbally assault people for not believing in Him. He never imposes Himself on us. He gives us a choice to believe in Him or not to believe in Him.

          • Neiman

            It is dangerous to only have part of God’s Word and not His whole counsel.

            “…43″Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. 44″You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”John 8

            “Ye are of your father the devil,…. Not of his substance, but by imitation and example; and as being under his authority and influence, his instructions and directions, and ready to follow after him, and obey his commands; the word “your” is rightly supplied, and is in some copies: and the lusts of your father ye
            will do; the Syriac and Persic versions read in the singular number, “the lust”, or “desire of your father” John Gill

            Those not born again of Christ, not literally, but by their conduct and rejection of Christ are children of the Devil. Jesus even accused Peter of that relationship, when the latter resisted God’s Will concerning Christ.

            Like so many, while your motives are good, you have a false idea of the Love of God. It is offered to everyone to be sure, but it is also a tough love, raging against sin which leads souls away from Him and into hell. God hates sin and He does not compromise with sin. I will not waste my time, but if you looked at Jesus and at John the Baptist, you would see where, when appropriate, they both expressed anger at sin and called people first to repentance. Was John acting in your definition of love when he called people serpents and to his face accused Herod and his wife of adultery. Is that is why he was beheaded, for showing forth only a saccharine sweet love and toleration of sin? What about Jesus calling people serpents, twice the children of hell, driving people out of the temple with a whip and kicking over their tables. Is that why Jesus was killed, because of this saccharine sweet love you are talking about? Or, did the Holy Spirit in them both confront sin and sinners, while just as surely on other occasions showed forth great compassion and a gentle spirit?

            While there is much good in many of your words, I do not doubt your sincerity, but they are out of balance with the full counsel of God, they fail to represent the Love of God as also a tough love.

          • CrossedtheTiber

            Jesus is not talking to non-believers when He says this. He is talking to those who claim to be God’s children but are rejecting God who is standing before Him in the flesh. He is talking to people of faith. Therefore, it could be argued that this verse applies to those who claim to be God’s children but reject Jesus. Additionally, when Jesus was talking to these men, He had the ability to look straight into their souls and see the condition of their hearts. We don’t have that ability, as humans. Therefore, we need to be prudent and think twice before using verses like this one. We don’t want to risk trying to remove the speck in our neighbor’s eye when there is a plank in our own eye. John 8:50 says that there is One who will judge. We are not the ones to hold the seat of judgement, only God does.

            Additionally, Jesus’ death on the cross WAS pure Love. The image of Jesus on the cross is the most intense, powerful, provoking and beautiful image of perfect and pure Love that we could ever lay our eyes on. It is true that sometimes Jesus used tough love, but he also said to us “He who has no sin, throw the first stone.” Perhaps, rather than throwing verbal stones at Ms. Armstrong, we can share with her the ways that Jesus has changed our own hearts through His love and grace?

          • Neiman

            In John 8, Jesus was talking to the Jews, they were NOT believers in Him, He was speaking to Israel, He was telling them that they, as non-believers, were children of the Devil, as are ALL non-believers. Anyone outside of Christ are servants of sin, they belong to the Devil.

            Your words sound quite charitable, compassionate and I have no doubt you are sincere, but IMO you are sincerely wrong. Like so many believers and certainly those of this world, you want Christians to just be sweet, kind, loving and not speak out against sin, no words of condemnation of sin, no judging sin to be sin. Just play nice and everyone will come to believe in Christ because doggonit, you are just so nice.

            Yet, what of John the Baptist? Was he divine, did he look into the souls of everyone that came to him? No, but his message was clear – the world is guilty of sin, the people that came to him were all sinners bound over to hell. That the people caming to him needed to repent of their sins, if they would prepare their souls for Jesus and His Salvation, as without repentance there can be no salvation. John spoke harshly to these people, he spoke even harsher to the Jewish religious leaders and even harsher to Herod. This was no sweet, mamby pamby sickening sweet invitation, John was condemning sin as something that needed to be dealt with as a precondition to anyone being ready to accept Jesus and His Salvation.

            I will not even go into your false understanding of not throwing the first stone and our not judging sin to be sin. But, I am telling you that unless people know that there is a God, that they are deserving of hell – which requires their sins be made manifest, they are not ready to seek a Savior. We are called to condemn sin, to make sure everyone knows that without the recognition of sin in their lives and a sincere repentance, they will suffer forever in Perdition’s Flames. We are calling out to sinners to pluck them from the fires of hell. How can we do that without saying to all non-believers that they are guilty of sin – just as we are, saying what is sin and calling them to Christ?

            How can a doctor get a man with cancer to seek treatment to save his lives unless first he tells him that he has a cancer and that hey will die without treatment? How can we get any man to seek God’s only cure for the cancer of sin unless we are sent to tell them that they have a fatal cancer of sin and then bringing them to the Great physician of souls for His sure cure and the gift of life? If we are silent, if we give way to this false saccharine sweet Christianity that preaches love without calling them to repentance, it is not love at all.

            No – you are wrong and you are so wrong that your brand of Christianity would rather see souls in hell than to dare offend them. Thank God that Jesus, John the Baptist, the Apostles, a myriad of Christian martyrs and precious saints did not heed your advice and they dared torture and death to condemn sin and call souls to repentance.

            Jesus, John the Baptist, the Apostles and countless other Christians were not murdered for being too nice, but because their testimony against sin brought down the wrath of sick souls upon them.

          • CrossedtheTiber

            Do you believe that Jesus loves us?

          • Neiman

            Do you believe that God hates sin?

            Do you believe even one sin will keep a soul out of heaven?

          • CrossedtheTiber

            I will happily answer your question after you answer mine.

          • Neiman

            I will answer your question, after you answer mine.

          • CrossedtheTiber

            Oh what a disappointing impasse. I hope you have a wonderful Christmas!

          • Neiman

            What a disappointing impasse. Sorry that you don’t think God hates sin or that a single sin will keep people out of heaven. You should go to a Bible believing Church and get the truth. That is my only wish at this season of the year for you.

          • CrossedtheTiber

            Of course I believe that God hates sin. God hates sin so much that He ensured that His Mother was preserved from original sin so as not to dwell physically where there was even the stain of sin. Sin separates us from God. So we must confess our sin and He is faithful and just to forgive our sin. I also know that the Bible tells us to share the reason for the hope we have with gentleness and respect. Calling someone a child of satan is neither gentle nor respectful. I am grateful for your Christmas wish as it has already come true! I get to experience, fully, the truth of Scripture in ways I never dreamed before. Merry Christmas to you!

          • Neiman

            “…22Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You.” 23But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, SatanYou are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s.” Matthew 16

            Jesus said this to Peter, you know that fellow you all think was your first Pope. Yep, Jesus called your alleged first Pope – Satan. Not very gentle or respectful, was it?

            Jesus called people dogs and swine, Matthew 7“6 Give
            not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.”

            But, I guess Jesus was not a very gentle or respectful Christian, was He? He called people all sorts of names, as did John the Baptist, but I guess they were both not very good Christians, right? http://officialstreetpreachers.com/Name%20Calling/NAME%20CALLING.pdf

            What absolute utter nonsense that Mary was without sin. If Mary was without sin, why did she need a Savior? “47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,” Luke 1 As we are all conceived in sin, then surely Mary’s mother would have to have been sinless or else Mary was conceived in sin and her grandmother and all the way back to Eve, who was certainly not sinless. “23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” Romans 3: Oops, it does not say except for Mary? Well, I could go on, but while she was blessed and she received much grace from God, she was human and thus born in sin like every one else. “5Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me” Psalm 51

            God did not, He cannot have had a mother. God is self-existing and for Mary to be His mother she would have to existed before Him who eternally exists and be greater than the child she produced. Poor God the Spirit, He does not know anything, much less it appears than your Pope or your alleged Church, as He said, “26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.” Galatians 4 So Mary and Jerusalem are both the Queen of Heaven and both our Mother and so is your Roman Catholic Church? We have three mothers? Is God a polygamist?

            If the Bible tells us to share the reason with gentleness and respect, surely Jesus and John the Baptist sinned in the examples I gave above and more, right? Or, is gentleness and respect not the words nor intention in the original texts, which would be “meekness and fear” (I Peter 3:15) Meekness is another word for humility, meaning knowing that we are only saved by God’s Grace’ and “fear,” meaning having awe and great respect for God?

            “I get to experience, fully, the truth of Scripture in ways I never dreamed before.” Just words, meaningless words, give us proof, we already know that you reject God’s Word in favor of the traditions and rules of your Roman Catholic Church, so how do you experience Scriptures that you reject more than other men?

          • CrossedtheTiber

            I am really glad that you brought up these great points of discussion.

            St. Peter would definitely NOT have been MY first choice for the original Vicar of Christ. He was messing up all over the place! It’s true that Jesus rebuked him and said “Get behind me Satan!” This was because Peter was relying on his own understanding rather than God’s. Peter loved Jesus and couldn’t bear the thought of Jesus dying. He couldn’t see beyond his own human understanding to see God’s incredible plan of salvation.

            As I said, St. Peter would not have been my first choice. Thankfully, God does not rely on human understanding. Rather, in His infinite wisdom, He chose a leader who made several mistakes so that no one could look at the Church and say “Oh, the Church is only strong because of the Apostle Peter.” Rather we can instead say “Who else could have done this but God?” It is also a great lesson for us, that God can use us even when we find ourselves messing up over and over.

            As to Mary being born without the stain of original sin, I think that it’s helpful to look at the verse in John 8 and the one in Matthew 16 and realize that we shouldn’t rely on our own human understanding to understand Mary as Theotokos. You and I have had lengthy discussions on this before so you can refer back to my earlier points.

            Perhaps you and I have different understandings of humility and fear of the Lord from 1 Peter 3:15.

            Now to your last paragraph. I’ve been praying that someday you will know, personally, what I mean. I get to join with the angels every Mass in declaring “Holy! Holy! Holy!” I get to experience the Sacraments, which is a means of participating in the Divine here on earth. I always thought that the Catholic Church was full of rules and punishment and ritual and nothing else. Instead, I have experienced more grace here than in the 30+ years that I spent as a Protestant. I live under more ‘rules,’ to be sure, but my life is richer and more full of meaning, joy, hope, peace, etc. The Bible finally makes sense in ways it never did before. It is so EXCITING to study the Bible! It is so wonderful to be Home.

          • CrossedtheTiber

            Oh – I forgot to add. In your response to your claim that we don’t read the Bible. We read a lengthy Old Testament, Psalms, New Testament, and Gospel reading every single Mass. If you were to attend Mass every week for three years you will read/hear the entire Bible!

          • Neiman

            The problem is that most of what you Roman Catholics believe is not based on Scripture alone, but it rests primarily on tradition, which include beliefs, customs, prayers, and worship, the teaching of popes, bishops, theologians and Church councils. Contrary to Catholic assertions that these things cannot contradict Holy Scripture, most Catholic beliefs are based outside of Scripture and cannot be proven by Scripture.

            There is simply nothing in Scripture that clearly states Mary was sinless or that she was the mother of God. There is nothing in Scripture that clearly states Peter was in any way superior to any other Apostles or that he was ever in Rome, was ever called a vicar of Christ, a Pope or that apostolic succession, beyond Matthias replacing Judas, is a teaching of Holy Scripture.

            Theotokos does not appear in the Bible, it is a Greek Word and was part of the Eastern Orthodox tradition, it is simply not bible based teaching. Mary being the mother of God, the Queen of Heaven, the Mother of Christians and most other things taught by your church have absolutely no foundation in Holy Scripture, they are manufactured by Pagan Rome out of whole cloth

            Now you introduce the doctrine of angels, having angels join Catholics in worship during the Mass. While all in the inhabitants of Heaven often fall down and worship God, again there is nothing in Scripture to justify your belief that angels join you in the Mass. The Eucharist in crucifying Jesus over and over again is wholly contrary to Scriptural teaching that He died once for all.

            Rules? You fail to get the understanding that there is liberty in Christ, no rules, no liturgy, nothing that man can do to gain or maintain their salvation or to please God, it is all of and by Christ or else it is of the flesh.

            The more I debate people like you, the more I compare God’s Word to your beliefs, the more I am convinced that the Roman Catholic Church is anti-Christ, the seat of the False Prophet and the leading character in the false. apostate Church of the Last Days. Your Church and your life is simply not Christ centered, He is not all-in-all, first to last, beginning to end, the Alpha to Omega, having absolute supremacy in all things. There are simply too many false doctrines, too many things between Christ and the believer, too many rules, rituals and things that are anti-Christ. I wish it were not so, I wish I could see Christ in the Roman Catholic Church, but the more we debate, the more it appears Christ is not in your Church at all, He is there in name only, He is referred to but only to mask the real Church, the Pagan Catholic Church.

            Show me what you believe clearly stated or taught in God’s Word, not as your Church interprets them, but clearly taught and then, and this is critical, wherein every teaching of your Church is wholly centered on Christ, where He is the beginning, middle and ending of each doctrine, how it glorifies Jesus alone and can stand without Mary or Peter.

          • CrossedtheTiber

            I can easily direct you to a great resource that spells out every single belief of the Catholic Church and how each belief is rooted in Scripture and that is to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is much better written than anything I could give you. You will find Scripture based responses to all of your assertions there. It is simply our “statement of faith” and it is beautifully written and a pleasure to read.

            I will say that without Mary, we would never have Jesus. In order for God to come to earth as fully Man and fully God, there had to be a mother and that mother is Mary.

          • Neiman

            Sorry, but it is not a matter of how you and your Church believe your doctrines are rooted in Scripture, if they are not there in truth, clearly taught, that every believer can read them, with the guidance of the Spirit and come to the same understanding, without the Roman Catholic Church telling them what it means, then it cannot possibly be Truth.

            You just don’t get it and never will. When you and your Church make Mary a part of your doctrines, to honor her as giving birth to God, praying to her for her intercession, praying to her in the Rosary, honoring her in pictures, statues and in other ways – you are taking the focus off of Jesus, you are robbing Him of the honor and glory that belongs to Him alone. When you pray to Mary or mention her in your prayers, you are sharing your devotion with Mary, devotion that belongs to Jesus alone and you are dishonoring Christ. In Mary and in a host of other things, your Church is taking attention off of Christ as being absolutely everything in the life of every true believer and unintentionally or not, by definition that is anti-Christ.

          • CrossedtheTiber

            Everything about the Catholic Church points us to Jesus. Jesus is the first One we see when we walk into a Catholic Church. The stations of cross are all over the walls, walking us through the final days of Jesus’s life. The rosary is a beautiful prayer that takes us through Jesus’s life through the eyes of the first Christian, Mary. The veneration of the saints points us to Jesus. All of it leads us to Jesus. Jesus is the center of Catholic life. Actually, the focus on Jesus was a struggle for me in the beginning! I was so used to church being about ME! If I didn’t like the preaching, I could find another church. If I didn’t like the worship then I could find another church. It was the church’s job to entertain me, to enlighten me, to teach me, etc. Now, as a Catholic I realize that the purpose of attending Mass is to focus my whole being on Jesus, on the Trinity of God (side note: Trinity is not in the Bible). I can understand how it can be very confusing from the outside looking in, just as many American customs are confusing to those in other countries. But once you are a Catholic and study our Christian heritage and our Christian faith from the lens of the Catholic Church you see that it is truly all about Jesus.

            I’m sorry that my responses are not adequate enough for you. Again, the Catechism is an excellent resource for any other questions/assertions/claims you might have. I hope that you have a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year.

          • pax2u

            I think that you are asking him a difficult question

            He seems to see God as a God of hate and anger, rather than Love and forgiveness

            I would if he is a Once Saved Always Saved or a Predestination Calvinist, who sees himself as one of the few elect and all of the rest of us are damned to hell

          • CrossedtheTiber

            I think it’s possible you may be right and it hurts my heart to see that. I think of that book “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” and I always cringe when I see that. I was not quite in that camp as a Protestant, but I definitely though that if something bad happened to me, it was because of some unrelated sin I’d committed. I had this idea that God was just sitting there, relishing in the opportunity to punish me and make me suffer. I had such a twisted view of God.

            Now, as a Catholic, I realize that that wasn’t what God was like at all. There was a dad I knew growing up who was very strict with his kids but he was the most loving father I’ve ever known. He set up rules to keep his kids safe and give them the best opportunity at a great life. His rules were also always very reasonable and well-thought. The rules made sense. It was also so obvious that his rules came from a place of deep love. He was also loving toward his kids outside of the rules. That is closer to how I understand God to be now. Of course, God is so much more than that example, but it’s one of the closest ones I can come up with right now.

          • pax2u

            that was a very good post, we are Children of a loving God

          • CrossedtheTiber

            Thank you. I was also thinking about that passage where we’re told to have faith like children. If you look at the type of homes that children are naturally drawn to, you can see a good model for what the Church should be. Kids hate going to the homes of cruel, authoritative, domineering parents who have strange rules with little explanation. Then, on the opposite extreme you see the homes where there are practically no rules and it’s basically just a fun house. Kids might go there for a good time, but the homes where they feel the safest and the most comfortable are the ones with a good, reasonable balance of rules and love. The ones where you can sense the love from the moment that you walk in the door, but you also know that you’re expected to act a certain way (a way that is reasonable and makes sense) when you come in the home. That is what the Church should be. Full of expectations for Christians and full of immense Love.

          • Vito Zabala Halasan

            as the matter of facts…they (aethist) born “BLIND”…

        • CrossedtheTiber

          Why wouldn’t we welcome those who have no belief in God? And what does it say to atheists if the only response we give them is “Go away!” Shouldn’t we have a better answer and response than that?

          • James Grimes

            I only have a problem with Atheists who come to a Christian site and tell me my belief in the God of the Universe is wrong.

          • CrossedtheTiber

            She was invited here by the author of the article who addressed atheists in the title. We should welcome Ms. Armstrong’s discussion with gentleness and respect and offer sound, thoughtful responses. 1 Peter 3:15

          • James Grimes

            That’s fine. Anyone who wants to engage with her is allowed to do so. As for me, I have to follow the advice given in Proverbs 26:4. Thank you for your concern.

          • pax2u

            you are correct, and blessings to you, Merry Christmass

          • CrossedtheTiber

            Merry Christmas and blessings!

          • pax2u

            and to you, Merry Christmas

      • Gary

        You are going to die. And after that, you are going to be judged by God. Whether you believe any of that or not, it is still going to happen anyway.

        • Jessica Armstrong

          And what if you’re wrong? What if there is no God and I’m not going to be judged? What then? But that’s the problem with Christians. They don’t acknowledge the fact that they could be wrong. Even your own Bible says that human beings are flawed. And yet you all are sooooo convinced that you are right. That’s the difference between Christians and atheists. Christians are self-righteous. Atheists admit that they could be wrong. Christians don’t.

          • Gary

            I know I am not wrong about the existence of a Creator because there must be one. Logic and reality require a Creator. I know I am not wrong about dying, because every human dies. If I am wrong about being judged by God, then you might escape that. But, I don’t think I’m wrong about that either, based on the Bible.

          • Spicy Ray Swinehart-Patrick

            “And what if you’re wrong? What if there is no God and I’m not going to be judged? What then? ” What then? Then nothing, we still lived our lives the best way we knew how, and lived it with the hope of meeting Jesus. If we don’t get to meet him, I guess we won’t know because we’ll just be dead.
            Do you think we live our lives differently than anyone else? Are we missing out on things because we believe in God? I don’t feel I am missing out on anything. We still work, laugh, play, argue. We try to help people when we can. We happen to love Jesus and want to meet him, that’s about the only difference in how we live our lives.
            OK, my hobbies are reading, gardening, camping, playing video games with my sons. I draw, surf the web…do you think if I didn’t believe in God my life would be different? Well, some things might be, in hard times praying to him has made me feel better. I also like the feeling of a loving Father watching over me. That’s what I would miss out on I guess.
            What do you think believing in God hurts, really, I’d like to know.

        • Colin Sutton

          Which god Gary?

          • Gary

            The God of the Bible. The God who created the universe and life on earth.

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        1. “Secondly, what makes you think that a person can’t have morals and values just because they are an atheist?” Of course an a-theist can have morals and values: they just can’t be true to their a-theism and be able to ground objective moral values and duties. Don’t blame us Christians: it is your “pope” and “cardinals” who admit this: http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2014/01/16/an-atheist-explains-the-real-consequences-of-adopting-an-atheistic-worldview/

        2. “To us, the universe was created from itself” Positively delusional! In order to create anything, an entity must first exist. This is metaphysically impossible. Please give up your fairy tales and grow up.

        3. “Also, my body is mine you moron.” Yes it is, but the baby’s body in your womb is NOT “your body.” She is a separate human being. Please stop killing innocent and defenseless human beings in your womb and stop encouraging others to do so. It isn’t nice (it IS cruel!), and it certainly isn’t objectively moral. (But, under a-theism, there are no objective moral values and duties.) Nice to see a female a-theist for once – God bless you, Jessica!

      • TheSotSays

        OK hot shot tell us about blood clotting, and how you think such a system “was created from itself:”

        – if you make a clot in the wrong place, say the brain or lung, you’ll die
        – if you make a clot 20 minutes after the blood has drained, you’ll die
        – if the clot doesn’t confine itself to a cut and your entire blood system solidifies, you’ll die
        – if you make a clot that doesn’t cover a cut, you’ll die

        Most of the clowns who call themselves Atheists or Darwinists can’t come up with an explanation of how this spectacular “system” came about, or evolved, without stupidly saying some component or other “suddenly” appeared.

        Up until now no one can figure out how blood-clotting could have evolved or started up on its own, it’s either there, or it ain’t. So if you’ve solved this problem will you please let the rest of us know what’s going on.

        • CrossedtheTiber

          Calling people names does not honor Jesus. We should never insult people, especially those who have no belief in God. Jesus didn’t look at all of those who were beating Him and hurl insults and curses at them. Instead, He loved them, and even while they were killing Him He asked God to forgive them. We should follow His model of humility.

          • TheSotSays

            Well now, since your unreasonable allegation against me is that I engaged in name calling, insults and curses perhaps you should cough up some specific hard examples of it because I did no such thing.

            On top of it you’ve accused that woman of killing me and she did not, you want me to love her and and I don’t even know her, she might be someone’s devoted wife, and you believe I should ask the Heavenly Father to forgive her when there’s nothing I know of that she needs forgiveness for.

            It’s reasonable to assume that since she was unable to answer my question that she’s no longer an atheist.

            As for my humility it manifests itself constantly when I eat a rasberry or a strawbery or drink a glass of orange juice or when I examine the symmetry of a cauliflower or gaze at the great work of art that is the leg of a grasshopper that resembles a scimitar of the middle ages.

            Humility is constantly present when I listen to the works of Mozart composed when he was a child or of Czerny or of Beethoven, who proclaimed his own magnificent music to be a work of God because he had no idea himself where it came from or when I examine an epic painting of Bierstadt.

            My accurately directed humility knows no bounds.

      • railhead

        WIth all due respect, you do believe in a higher power, albeit kind of an impersonal one. It is what is usually referred to as “mother nature”. Because it is so counter-intuitive to believe in nothing, there has to be some construct to imply some of kind of intelligent direction in the universe. I have yet to meet anyone who truly believed in nothing. Nothing just happens on it’s own in this life, therefore it’s very hard to believe that the whole universe just happened on it’s own without some kind of cause or direction.
        However, in accordance with your beliefs, your body is just a random assemblage of molecules. Why, then, is it yours? Why shouldn’t someone with a greater and more able molecular structure, coupled with higher intelligence be able to take your molecules and use them as he or she sees fit? Because you say so? Remember there is no God giving moral absolutes. Who are you or anyone else to tell me what is right and wrong, if I’m stronger and more intelligent than you?

      • Vito Zabala Halasan

        “the universe was created from itself”??? you just saying first in the beginning was empty then..Bang! the universe created.. just like a magic? the facts theres no beginning , the universe was just..

  • http://GREATSITE.COM/ John Lawton Jeffcoat III

    The fact that the majority (6 out of 10) of these Godless Pagan Humanist Atheistic “Ten Commandments” are actually good advice that is truthful and righteous… mixed with 4 more that are heretical and anti-Christ… demonstrates how the Devil mixes lies with the truth in order to be more deceiving (as the Bible warns us).

    • Jessica Armstrong

      Or maybe this is the truth as an atheist sees it.

  • Gary

    You can pretend God is not real all you want, but eventually, just as you will have to die, you will also have to face God at the judgment.

    • Colin Sutton

      Which god?

      • Gary

        The God of the Bible. The God who made the universe and life on earth.

  • Frank

    The fool says in their heart there is no God.

    • http://www.robinlionheart.com/ Robin Lionheart

      Don’t water it down, read the whole verse. Psalm 14:1 reads, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.”

      • Frank

        Yes, but the point I was making is that the atheists and their list is foolishness. Either way written is correct and makes that point so no dispute. I just used the summary, if you will.

        • http://www.robinlionheart.com/ Robin Lionheart

          “Unbelievers are fools” is a pretty expurgated summary of “unbelievers are fools and they’re all villainous scum”.

  • James Grimes

    Why copy the original when the original can’t be improved upon?

    • Jessica Armstrong

      Because the original 10 doesn’t take into account circumstances. It even has some obvious gaps like poverty and slavery. Nowhere in the 10 Commandments does it state “Thou shalt not watch a person go hungry”.

      • chrisleduc1

        You have the same understanding of the 10 commandments as the Pharisees that Jesus condemned did. That’s why he gave the sermon on the mount. First commandment – No other God’s but the one true God. That means you serve Him only. That is simply done by following His laws. He gave plenty of laws about how to take care of the poor. Im really not trying to be mean, but your comment really demonstrates an absolute ignorance of the God revealed in the Bible. Mayne you know bits and pieces, stuff that you can get angry at, but if you make the claim that you just did, then really are ignorant. I don’t mean that as an insult, just an honest description. God condemned Israel many times for their treatment of the poor. So in reality you are the guilty one here, bearing false witness against God.

        • Jessica Armstrong

          I’m sorry, but I disagree. First of all, we were talking about the 10 Commandments, not the whole Bible. Obviously, the rules were expanded upon after. But the discussion was about the 10 Commandments.

          • chrisleduc1

            Yep, the discussion is about the 10 commandment. And you have ignored the 1st commandment. As much as you’d like to try, you don’t get to determine what the author of the written text meant when he wrote it. Thats the way it always works. The author is the one who gives meaning. And the rest of the Bible is what explains the implications of the 1st commandment and give it its meaning.

          • Jessica Armstrong

            Okay, obviously you are missing the point. The new “10 Commandments” are the commandments that an atheist would live by, not a Christian. Of course we have not followed the first Commandment of the Christian bible because we are not Christians. The “new Commandments” are atheist commandments. The way that we live morally. Has nothing to do with Christian Commandments.

          • chrisleduc1

            No Im not missing the point, you are trying to change the point so that you don’t look like an intentionally ignorant fool. In case you forgot, these comments are under your comment where you said “Because the original 10 doesn’t take into account circumstances. It even has some obvious gaps like poverty and slavery. Nowhere in the 10 Commandments does it state “Thou shalt not watch a person go hungry”.”

            So don’t try to change the story and say “Okay, obviously you are missing the point. The new “10 Commandments” are the commandments that an atheist would live by, not a Christian.” This discussion was about you saying the original 10 were inadequate. But nice try…..

          • Jessica Armstrong

            Conversations evolve. You can’t start out an argument about oranges and apples, introduce new evidence of pears and peaches, and then say that my argument about pears and peaches is invalid because it had nothing to do with the original argument. I was merely commenting on your comment of the original 10 Commandments. I was making you aware that the article that we read was about an atheists’ 10 Commandments. And the original 10 are flawed. Was merely pointing that out. Obviously, you have a problem with logic. You don’t like it. That is why you are arguing with me over idiotic things like “what are we talking about” and statement structure. Also, calling people names shows your true ignorance.

        • James Grimes

          Good retort. Thanks for saving me the trouble. Have a blessed Lord’s Day.

    • Tom in Raleigh

      I would think that leaving out prohibitions on rape and slavery are rather glaring omissions that we can all agree would be improvements to the Ten Commandments.

      • James Grimes

        How are you going to improve what God has given us? I don’t have the arrogance to think that I can do it.

        • Tom in Raleigh

          How would we improve upon the ten commandments? I think I just said how. Thou Shalt not rape and Thou shall not enslave other human beings. You don’t think those would be mighty fine additions?

          • James Grimes

            No. Please look at my comment again.

          • Jessica Armstrong

            Okay, so by your logic it is perfectly okay to rape and enslave because they’re not part of the 10 Commandments?

          • Tom in Raleigh

            I read your comment. Mine was in regards specifically to the 10 commandments. They, quite obviously, can be improved upon. I’ll reserve comment about other improvements to what god has given us for another day.

  • Gary

    The fact that the universe exists is proof of God’s existence because the universe could not have created itself, and it could not have come to exist without being caused.

    • Keith Bowden

      How do you know the universe could not have created itself?

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        Metaphysically impossible. In order to create, an entity must first exist. Even Stephen “The Universe Created Itself” Hawking admitted defeat there.

        • Keith Bowden

          Um no, he did not. It’s absolutely possible, and just as plausible as an omnipotent being that has no origin. It doesn’t have to make sense to you to be true. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/7976594/Stephen-Hawking-God-was-not-needed-to-create-the-Universe.html

          • chrisleduc1

            Haha, actually John Lennox (you know, Professor at Oxford with 3 grad degrees and 3 doctorates) refuted this silly claim up, down and sideways. You have cited probably one of the most ridiculous and embarrassing things ever published by the brilliant Dr. Hawking. He’s been quite ridiculed for this silly statement, and rightfully so..

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You-explain-universe-God.html

          • Keith Bowden

            Well I guess I don’t have anything as reliable as a book of fables written by people who didn’t know where the sun went at night, so I’ll just let you win. I’ll never change your mind, and you’ll never change mine. Peace be with you.

          • chrisleduc1

            I bet you feel like you really took the moral and intellectual high ground there eh? Quite a dignified response I must say. Congrats to you Sir…

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Thank you for sharing this article – first time I have seen it. It’s a keeper. God bless you mightily!

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Keith, you are really grasping at straws here. Your statement “It doesn’t have to make sense to you to be true.” shows that a-theism is quite irrational. We already know this, of course, and just because a guy sells a lot of books does not mean he cannot say absurd things. (Bill Clinton immediately comes to mind.)

            You have the chance right now to win your Nobel: please provide a LOGICAL explanation of how an entity can create itself. (Without first existing, of course – that is the trick.) In the meantime, please give up your fairy tales and turn to the God Who created you. God bless you, Keith!

      • Gary

        In order to create itself, the universe would have to exist before it existed. That is not possible.

        • Neiman

          Not really God created everything out of nothing, He is the only one that could. It has long been suggested by science that the universe came into being out of nothing, which is impossible unless you are God and create things that never were.

    • Jessica Armstrong

      Okay, so who created God?

      • Gary

        Nobody. God has always existed.

        • Jessica Armstrong

          But by your own logic something has to be created from something. Therefore, God had to be created from something which should have been created from something else, which was created by something else, all the way into eons of creation. Your logic is flawed from the beginning.

          • Gary

            Someone with intelligence, and the ability to design and make things, has to be eternal, or nothing at all would exist. It is your “logic” that is flawed.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Jessica, as a former a-theist, may I lovingly help you out a bit here? Check out the Kalam Cosmological Argument, Big Bang cosmology, and the BGV (or BVG) Theorem. The latter two subjects both support the 2nd premise of Kalam, which argument goes like this:

            Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
            Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
            Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

            Now, the cause of the universe does NOT require another cause. In fact, the first uncaused cause (I use that term in case there might be multiverses) is by necessity eternal. So, you really only have 2 options: A. The universe is eternal. or B. The first uncaused cause of the universe is eternal. Unfortunately (for the a-theist) Big Bang and BGV really nail down premise 2 of Kalam and eliminate option A that the universe is eternal. That is why New A-theists are attacking premise 1 with such rabid absurdity.

            I hope that this has been helpful, and I tried to eliminate most of my normal snarkiness in my reply in honor of the fact that you have been gracious in most of your replies and that you actually seem to be one of the relatively few New A-theists who are seeking truth, God bless you, Jessica! (I say that sincerely.)

  • WorldGoneCrazy

    No, but it does prohibit abortion: “Thou shalt not murder.” And the overwhelming majority of a-theists are in favor of abortion: http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2014/08/10/can-atheists-condemn-slavery-as-immoral-do-atheists-believe-that-slavery-is-wrong/

  • WorldGoneCrazy

    “III. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world.” Do the a-theists have “scientific” proof for THIS statement?

    “IX. There is no one right way to live.” Is believing THIS statement a “right way to live?”

    The life of the a-theist, my former life, is filled with self-refuting absurdity. Praise God for delivering me from my a-theistic delusions!

    • Jessica Armstrong

      III. Um, yeah, it’s called science. The scientific method has been proven time and again. And it explains the natural world.
      IX. If you had read the statement properly you would know that they are saying that there is no one right way to live for every person. All people follow their own judgment. That’s why there’s different ways of life. Of course, we could all be little automatons like all religions want us to be…

      • chrisleduc1

        “If you had read the statement properly you would know that they are saying that there is no one right way to live for every person”

        Um, actually thats an absolute statement that applies a truth claim to all people and is self-refuting. You do realize that, right?

        • Jessica Armstrong

          So what? We’re all supposed to be little automatons living the exact same life? If we were meant to be robots we would be. That is what that statement means. And obviously you don’t know how to read because I was professing that not all people are the same. Go back to grade school and learn how to read.

          • chrisleduc1

            No, you were saying: “you would know that they are saying that there is no one right way to live for every person”

            And I simply pointed out that this is a self-refuting statement. You do understand basic logic?

          • Jessica Armstrong

            Actually, what you said was that it was “an absolute statement that applies a truth claim to all people and is self-refuting”. Self-refuting means to prove a person to be in error. And an absolute statement is a statement that applies to everything. My statement was that no two people are exactly the same. Obviously, that means that the statement does not apply to everyone. And self-refuting has nothing to do with it because I was simply clarifying what another person had said. A re-wording if you will to make you understand. Being in error has nothing to do with it because I did not make the original statement.

          • chrisleduc1

            “Self-refuting means to prove a person to be in error.”

            No, maybe you should try looking it up instead of being willfully ignorant. Actually, what you did was give the dictionary.com definition of “refute” lol. Self refuting: “A self-refuting idea is a type of claim where the terms contradict the conclusion if applied correctly.” “Self-refuting ideas are relatively common among those who don’t consider the assumptions they’re making or what those assumptions actually mean; the result is an argument that undermines itself.”

            ” And an absolute statement is a statement that applies to everything.” Yes…

            ” My statement was that no two people are exactly the same. Obviously, that means that the statement does not apply to everyone.” Are you really THAT dumb? C’mon…. Saying “no two people are exactly…” is a statement that includes EVERYONE! That is an absolute statement. Or maybe you are saying that there really are some people who ARE excluded fro your statement and that there actually ARE two people who are exactly alike? Which is it, either its an absolute statement, or people are excluded from the statement and there therefore really are two people exactly alike. Cant be both….

          • Jessica Armstrong

            Wow, your logic is completely flawed. What do you take away from the statement that “no two people are exactly alike”? Does that mean (in your purple world) that there are two people that are exactly alike? You are trying to twist my words so that it fits into your own little bubble. By that token, every statement ever made is an absolute statement because they are all statements. You are playing on the words and context to suit your own needs. You still have yet to acknowledge whether my statement is right or wrong. And that is what proves my statement correct. Because you are different from me and I am different from you. Stop playing on the sentence structure and start thinking about the words. Again, go back to school and learn how to think.

      • chrisleduc1

        “The scientific method has been proven time and again. And it explains the natural world.”

        That would be funny if it wasn’t such a sad statement. What is taught as science changes every few decades or less. Most of the time what was taught as absolute scientific fact is later completely contradicted.

        • Jessica Armstrong

          Actually, you’re wrong about that. It isn’t completely contradicted. It is expanded upon. Take for instance the “Earth is flat” theory. This was because we humans perceived the world as flat. Until one of our forward thinkers (Pythagoras, a Greek by the way) came up with the theory that the Earth was round. Even then he was called a crackpot (by Christians no less) and it took many years for scientists to prove to everyone else (Christians no less) that the earth was round. The reason this is a good example is because the “Earth is round” theory shows just how much Christians are against logic of any kind. Even when presented with evidence they refute it. It’s almost like you are against reason. If it’s not in your book, then it doesn’t exist. But if that’s true, then how can space exist. Humans have been to the moon and back. They have been to Mars and back. They have seen images from other galaxies. And yet there is nothing in the Bible about any of this. Where exactly did Neil Armstrong land if space cannot exist?

          • CrossedtheTiber

            I’m so sorry that you’ve been treated badly on this site. It’s wrong for people, especially Christians, to insult you.

            You are right that the Church embarrassingly condemned the concept that the earth was round, and Galileo was a victim of this horrible mistake. The Church has tried to rectify their wrong and to some this may not be enough.

            I would gently argue though, with your claim that all Christians are against logic of any kind. Though the Church has made mistakes when it comes to science, it also includes many of history’s greatest scientists, philosophers and thinks. In fact, the Church even has it’s own observatory! My husband is a scientist, as well as a devout Christian. He and I both feel that science increases our love for God, and a desire to know God increases our love for science. The Church teaches that we should have a good balance of faith and reason in our Christian walk.

            I hope you don’t mind, but I looked through some of your previous comments that are listed on Disqus and saw that you mentioned that you searched for God yet he never really made Himself known to you. Your comment (I think it was from a year ago), brought to my mind the story of Jennifer Fulwiler, author of “Something Other Than God.” Fulwiler was raised in a wonderful, loving, atheist home. Her dad read her “Cosmos” at bedtime and always taught her to seek truth. She was very content as an atheist. She had a moment, however, when she looked at her new baby and realized that the love that she felt for her baby couldn’t be explained through simple biochemical explanations. She had this thought that perhaps it was possible that there was something else out there. That moment sent her on a fascinating quest for truth. The part that reminded me of you was that right after she had this thought, she prayed her first prayer, a “tap-tap-tap Is this thing on?” kind of moment, and said “God, if you’re out there, then please show me.” However, God didn’t do anything at first. It actually took a long time and a series of events and a long process of searching. It would be easy to say “Well, doesn’t this mean that He is a cruel God for not just making Himself known immediately?” But even she would say that it was a loving act that God didn’t just make Himself known. If He had, then she would have had no choice but to believe in Him. Instead, she found Him over time, through searching. Yet when she looks back at that journey she sees Him in every step of the way.

            I hope it’s not offensive for me to say that to you, and you’re welcome to dismiss the story about Jennifer Fulwiler. I tend to be very long winded.

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        Jessica, I am trying to be gracious with you here, because it is nice to have a female a-theist for once. Do you see the self-refuting nature of the two commandments that I highlighted above? In the first case (Commandment III), the a-theists have made a philosophical statement that science is the most reliable way to understand the world. But, of course, they cannot prove this statement scientifically, nor can they show it to be reliable using scientific means, because it is philosophical. So, it is self-refuting.

        In the second case (Commandment IX), they are listing as a Commandment (for the one right way to live) a statement that “there is no one right way to live!” This is patently self-refuting, absurd, and delusional.

        Finally, you say “all people follow their own judgment.” That would include Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Ted Bundy, etc, right? Keep searching for truth, Jessica. The One True God Who saved me from a life (and death) of a-theism will not reject a sincere search for truth. (But, it has to be sincere, OK?) God bless you, Jessica!

  • WorldGoneCrazy

    Big Bang Cosmology combined with the BVG Theorem to support the 2nd premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God. That is all secular science, math, and basic sophomore-level logic to support the existence of an all-powerful, non-material, timeless, and personal God – remarkably in line with the God of the Bible.

    • Keith Bowden

      This is ridiculous. It’s late and I don’t even know where to start. I wish you a merry christmas and wish you well though.

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        See my reply to Robin. Merry Christmas to you too, Keith, and God bless you and your family!

    • http://www.robinlionheart.com/ Robin Lionheart

      I’m pretty science-literate, but I’ve never heard of “the BVG Theorem”. What’s that? And how does it support the 2nd premise “The universe began to exist”?

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        It is alternatively called the BGV Theorem. I guess it depends on who gets the coveted last name. 🙂 You’ve got a universe which has an average expansion rate that is positive (which is what all of the scientific data points to in our universe). Borde, Vilenkin, and Guth proved that you must have a beginning in a finite past time. This conclusion was quite astounding in that it is independent of the physical description of the universe and is not affected by the presence of a (possible) multiverse.

        Between this proof and the overwhelming evidence for a positive (average) inflationary universe, premise 2 of Kalam is effectively closed off to the a-theist. That is why you see more and more New A-theists attacking premise 1 and making totally absurd statements. (Very few self-respecting a-theists would have dared attack premise 1 in the glory days of a-theism – I, for one, was clinging to oscillating universes, praying to no one that premise 2 would not be closed off – but, alas, premise 1 is really all that is left right now.) If Borde, Vilenkin, and Guth had come up with this long ago, they could have saved me a lot of heartache in my former a-theistic life. God bless you, Robin!

        • http://www.robinlionheart.com/ Robin Lionheart

          Oh, I’ve heard theoretical physicist Sean Carroll talk about the Borde-Guth-Valenkin theorem (that bundles of paths through spacetime whose average expansion rate is positive must be geodesically incomplete) in his debate against William Lane Craig. He explained that the BGV Theorem does not, as you put it, “prove that you must have a beginning in finite past time”; it means that our ability to describe the universe with classical mechanics (i.e. without quantum mechanics) breaks down at some past time in some (not all) universes. You cannot draw a definitive conclusion about our universe from it.

          Premise 1 should be more targeted in the last 30 years since that’s how long theoretical physics has had quantum cosmology models of a universe with a beginning but not a cause, starting in a Hartle-Hawking state.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            You don’t have to parrot what Sean Carroll says about BGV. You can investigate it on your own. It may not say what Sean says it says. 🙂

            Perhaps it might be more interesting to hear what the “V” in BGV, Alexander Vilenkin, has to say about it, since it is his theorem (he addresses the concocted theories to escape a beginning as well): https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2014/09/02/alexander-vilenkin-all-the-evidence-we-have-says-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning-2/

            You use the term “definitive conclusion,” but I think (hope?) that by now you realize that a theist cannot prove with 100% certainty that there is a God and an a-theist cannot prove with 100% certainty that there is not. (And I pray that I am not wasting my time with an a-theist who believes there is no burden of proof for the a-theist, because that is a-theism 101.) Therefore, we are in a plausibility discussion here.

            Plausibility means that each side in the debate must provide evidence, and the one with the more plausible case wins. I was asked to provide evidence above and I did: Kalam with premise 2 supported by Big Bang and BGV – all secular science, math, and philosophy. (Premise 1 is not presupposed – it is the experience that every human being has shared every day of their lives without contradiction. Feel free to provide an example to contradict it – it only takes 1, and you will 100% assuredly win a Nobel Prize.) Thus, I have given you evidence (non-Biblical) to support the God Hypothesis.

            Now, what have you provided for the No God Hypothesis?
            1. Sean Carroll says…
            2. That I have not given you enough proof to draw a “definitive conclusion.”

            So, it seems to me that the God Hypothesis is supported by even the secular science, and the No God Hypothesis is more of a say-so religion, no?

          • http://www.robinlionheart.com/ Robin Lionheart

            A blogger asked Vilenkin directly if the BGV theorem proves that the universe had a beginning. His answer was “[I]f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning.”

            Guth thinks otherwise. In a memorable moment of that debate I referred to, Sean Carroll put Alan Guth on screen to refute Craig’s mischaracterization of Borde-Guth-Vilenkin. Guth said, “I don’t know whether the universe had a beginning. I suspect the universe _didn’t_ have a beginning. It’s very likely eternal – but nobody knows.”

            Both positions are consistent with the BGV theorem, which only tells us about classical descriptions of the universe, and not about our universe itself. As you can see, whether the universe had a beginning is still an open question in science.

            But if quantum cosmology models are correct, the universe itself is a counterexample to Kalam’s premise 1. Your argument “the experience that every human being has shared every day of their lives without contradiction”, which is just a hasty generalzation of “I’ve never experienced one”. And “I’ve never experienced one, therefore there isn’t one” is an argument from ignorance fallacy. With arguments like that you also could conclude the nonexistence of the south pole.

            TL;DR: Science proves neither Kalam’s premise 1 nor 2.

            And at no point in our conversation did I advance or support either a God or no God hypothesis. I’m just disputing your assertion that science supports Kalam.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            And, here is Guth saying quite the opposite of what you say he says – in video (a little over 4 minutes long – trying not to link the really long stuff): https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/11/04/what-you-need-to-know-videos-about-the-borde-guth-vilenkin-theorem-bvg-theorem/

            (It is the 3rd video down, which also has a section about how a-theists deceptively misquote Vilenkin. But, of course, under a-theism, there is no reason not to be deceptive, and every reason to be – if it will extend one’s life prior to annihilation.)

            You are quite false in asserting an argument from ignorance fallacy. There are tons of data that support premise 1 – every single moment of every single day of every single life on this planet – thus far. In order to deny premise 1, all you need is one counterexample. Lawrence Krauss did his best but failed, in this regard. You are making the absurd claim that despite the fact that your experience, everyone else’s experience, and the lack of a counterexample from the greatest thinking minds of a-theism throughout the centuries shows premise 1 to be plausibly true, you refuse to accept its plausibility, because there MIGHT be something in the future that will refute it! Talk about “a-theism of the gaps!”

            Just think, Robin: the Kalam Cosmological Argument can be extinguished forever with just one counterexample to premise 1. But, it hasn’t magically appeared yet, so Kalam is the more plausible and rational place to align oneself – for now. Your South Pole argument would have been better if you had said “pagans believe that there is a Huge Cookie Monster – there could be! – down at the South Pole, but you Christians will not believe it because you have never experienced a Huge Cookie Monster!”

            I placed on your burden a requirement to provide one, just one, example that refutes premise 1 – so that you could win your Nobel. That example must be supported evidentially, not through some pie-in-the-sky unsupported cosmological conjecture that says “it COULD happen.” It seems odd that a-theists (or agnostics) are always claiming we invented God, yet it is the a-theist who invents cosmological models with no evidence, panspermia, punctuated equilibrium, etc. They are all models – but with no evidence to support them. Sure they COULD be true, and the reason that it rained today COULD be that God is crying because you refuse to accept scientific evidence as scientific evidence. 🙂 Appeals to Star Trek do not quite do the job. I worked too hard for my degrees. 🙂 (I hope my snarkiness is not too off-putting? It is a carryover from my radical a-theist days. Please forgive me, in advance, and feel free to include your own. I love a-theists, I really do, because they are my former comrades.)

            Here is a short write-up on Sean Carroll’s slippery slope away from model testability, as it relates to this discussion: https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2014/12/22/george-ellis-and-joe-silk-attack-untestable-cosmologocial-theories-in-nature/ I personally see this as a sign of desperation on the part of the a-theist.

            Finally, your (apparent?) agnostic stance IS intellectually honest, provided of course that you are equally critical of a-theists when they make mind-numbing metaphysically impossible claims like “the universe created itself.” There are really only 2 possibilities here, Robin: either the universe is eternal or the first uncaused cause of the universe is eternal. At this point in time, it is quite disingenuous to not readily admit that the overwhelming evidence is that our universe had a beginning. (BGV most certainly does apply to our universe. It just so happens to apply to many others as well, if there be any. It even applies to the conjectured multiverse.) Most intellectually honest a-theists admit it and move on to premise 1. But, then they necessarily become absurdists. (This is where Hawking is right now, IMO.) So, it is a quandary. Nevertheless, I shall graciously assume you are a true agnostic, until proven otherwise, Robin. But, you can’t sit on the fence forever – because if theism, in general, and Christianity, in particular, are true, then there may be very important things riding on it. And, if a-theism is true, there is no objective reason not to get everything you can while you can. God bless you, Robin – thanks for the links!

          • http://www.robinlionheart.com/ Robin Lionheart

            ● “But, of course, under a-theism, there is no reason not to be deceptive, and every reason to be – if it will extend one’s life prior to annihilation.”

            Of course, under heliocentrism, there is also no reason not to be deceptive, and every reason to be – if it will extend one’s life. Because heliocentrism isn’t about ethics.

            Don’t poison the well with ad hominems, the arguments stand or fall on their own merits.

            ● “There are tons of data that support premise 1 – every single moment of every single day of every single life on this planet – thus far.”

            Once it was everybody’s experience that “what goes up, must come down”. Until we shot rockets into space.

            ● “In order to deny premise 1, all you need is one counterexample… you refuse to accept its plausibility, because there MIGHT be something in the future that will refute it”

            But I didn’t deny premise 1, I rejected it because it is plausibly false under modern cosmological models, in the present. And like I said before, if quantum cosmological models are correct, our universe itself is one counterexample.

            ● “the Kalam Cosmological Argument can be extinguished forever with just one counterexample to premise 1. But, it hasn’t magically appeared yet.”

            Ho ho, a creationist scoffing at scientists with the phrase “magically appeared”.

            Actually, we have evidence that pairs of particles and antiparticles are popping into existence all the time (like the Casimir effect and Hawking radiation). We do not fully understand the cause of certain quantum events, nor can we be certain they are caused per se. Not only may premise 1 be false regarding our universe itself, but also regarding matter within it.

            “Your South Pole argument would have been better if you had said…”

            Props for steelmanning!

            “I placed on your burden a requirement to provide one, just one, example that refutes premise 1.”

            Don’t try to shift the burden of proof.

            “There are really only 2 possibilities here, Robin: either the universe is eternal or the first uncaused cause of the universe is eternal.”

            No, the possibilities are: Either our universe is eternal or it’s not eternal. But not eternal does not entail such unfounded speculations about its hypothetical cause being itself uncaused, or eternal, or first.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Robin, you are really taking the position of “denier” here. I gave you both Guth and Vilenkin claiming a beginning, and you reply with “not the ultimate beginning of all reality.” Talk about obfuscation! But, the (conjectured) multiverse most certainly does not escape the BGV Theorem – it just extends it one more step backwards. BGV applies to our universe and any multiverse. Besides, even if there is a multiverse, Kalam is still plausibly proven – for our universe, and then for the multiverse. That’s what Guth and Vilenkin are saying! What’s so hard about admitting that the evidence points to our universe having a beginning?!? A fear of God? As an agnostic, I am sure you are equally open to the God Hypothesis as to the No God Hypothesis. 🙂

            As for “poisoning the well,” I most surely am not: you claim to be agnostic! Surely, you cannot be offended by an attack on a-theism, since you, as an intellectually honest agnostic, would be attacking a-theism every bit as much as theism. And, it is undeniable that a-theism allows for no grounding of objective moral values and duties. Even the “pope” and “cardinals” of a-theism agree: http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2014/01/16/an-atheist-explains-the-real-consequences-of-adopting-an-atheistic-worldview/

            No, I will only be poisoning the well when I attack agnostics. And, I WOULD attack agnostics, Robin, if I could find one thing that they actually stood for! 🙂

            You write “Once it was everybody’s everyday experience that “what goes up, must come down”. Until we shot rockets into space.” But, gravity was not repealed by shooting rockets into space, Robin. All your argument says is that prior to space travel, there was no space travel. But, what you are REALLY saying, as an agnostic, with regard to premise 1 is that you are betting that someday, somehow, nothing will cause something to come into existence. That’s not a technological improvement (like rockets). That’s religion.

            It is also everyone’s experience that everyone dies. Are you clinging to the hope that this one will be repealed? Larry Krauss did his best: he put a whole lot of somethings (matter, anti-matter, QM vacuum) together and called these somethings “nothing”, and then produced something. Obviously, that is disingenuous in the extreme, but at least he tried. There is your “quantum cosmological model!” Yet, you still desire to deny premise 1. Nothing is literally “nothing,” Robin. it’s not matter, anti-matter, or QM vacuums. It’s what rocks think about. 🙂

            You write: “How good of you to steelman my example of the south pole to the Huge Cookie Monster who lives at the south pole, because that’s so much stronger than what I wrote. Would that more disputants made their opponents arguments better before arguing against them.” So, now you believe in Huge Cookie Monsters at the South Pole?!? What’s next: Loch Ness, Bigfoot?!? Is agnosticism a delusion or just mere superstition? After all, there COULD be Huge Cookie Monsters at the South Pole. 🙂

            I didn’t shift the burden on premise 1 of Kalam – you did. Just in terms of human beings, we have 7 billion who have discernible causes. That does not even count all of the other physical phenomena that take place. I have you outnumbered 7 billion to zero, and you claim plausibility?!? It’s a good thing you aren’t an airplane designer! Here is Robin, in preliminary design review for the new Agnostic Series of airliners: “We have to design our planes to withstand the impact of Huge Cookie Monsters that might pop into existence (out of nothing) in mid-air!” Engineers, like myself who actually produce things, don’t have the luxury to deny premise 1 of Kalam: we save that for “scientists” who only have to produce journal articles. 🙂

            God bless you, Robin, and Merry Christmas to you and yours. (Sincerely.)

          • http://www.robinlionheart.com/ Robin Lionheart

            ● “Besides, even if there is a multiverse, Kalam is still plausibly proven – for our universe, and then for the multiverse.”

            No, if there is a multiverse, Kalam is even further from being proven.

            ● “What’s so hard about admitting that the evidence points to our universe having a beginning?!?”

            I’ll easily grant that evidence points that way. But it’s not yet proven, so Kalām still needs to establish that its premise is true.

            ● “Surely, you cannot be offended by an attack on a-theism, since you, as an intellectually honest agnostic, would be attacking a-theism every bit as much as theism.”

            It’d be silly for an agnostic to ‘attack’ both theism and atheism, since every agnostic is either a agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.

            ● “And, it is undeniable that a-theism allows for no grounding of objective moral values and duties.”

            No, that’s false. Atheism allows objective moral values and duties to be grounded in anything at all, except deities.

            ● “the “pope” and “cardinals” of a-theism”

            Atheism has no such authorities.

            ● “You write “Once it was everybody’s everyday experience that “what goes up, must come down”. Until we shot rockets into space.” But, gravity was not repealed by shooting rockets into space, Robin.”

            The law of gravity can’t be repealed. It’s not that kind of “law”.

            ● “All your argument says is that prior to space travel, there was no space travel.”

            No, my argument says that everybody’s everyday experience has changed before.

            ● “But, what you are REALLY saying, as an agnostic, with regard to premise 1 is that you are betting that someday, somehow, nothing will cause something to come into existence.”

            Not at all. Where is there a nothing to cause anything?

            ● “So, now you believe in Huge Cookie Monsters at the South Pole?!?”

            No, of course not.

            ● “I didn’t shift the burden on premise 1 of Kalam – you did. ”

            Not once have I shifted Kalam’s burden. That’s all you.

            ● “Just in terms of human beings, we have 7 billion who have discernible causes.”

            That’s not enough, because the premise you’re contending for isn’t “billions of things that begin to exist have causes”, it’s everything.

            It does not follow that, since over 7 billion things on earth are drops of water, therefore everything on earth is a drop of water.

            ● “I have you outnumbered 7 billion to zero, and you claim plausibility?!?”

            Ad populum, and your score’s still zero.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Kalām is not actually proven. And if there were a multiverse, Kalām would be even further from actually proven.” and “I’ll easily grant that evidence points that way. But it’s not yet proven, so Kalām still needs to establish that its premise 2 is actually true.”

            You are an agnostic: this is plausibility. If Kalam is shown to be more plausibly proven than not, and if the evidence points that way, then you would self-label as a deist or theist.

            “I am doing neither here. And agnostics can be either agnostic theists or agnostic atheists.” Well, which one are you?!? And, yes, you ARE arguing for a-theism. So, do you argue for theism on the a-theism sites?!? 🙂

            “Mr. Spock’s “needs of the many” credo”?!? I just spit my drink on my screen – you owe me a new monitor, Robin! As Wintery Knight so eloquently says “You are appealing to Star Trek?!?” 🙂 BTW, I love the original series. So, what “magic” are you “grounding” objective moral values and duties in today?!? 🙂 And no, making up rules is not grounding objective moral values and duties. To ground them, you need something that is transcendent, even when everyone thinks otherwise.

            You are no longer attempting to refute premise 1 of Kalam? If so, that is good. Now, you are behaving like a good deist. 🙂

            “Maybe you misunderstood what I was REALLY saying.” Well, if I misunderstood what you were REALLY saying, maybe you could explain it so that some human being on the face of the planet could understand it. Without appealing to Star Trek. 🙂 That’s the trouble with you Tribbles. 🙂 (City on the Edge of Forever is my personal fave.)

            “That’s not enough, because the premise you’re arguing for isn’t “billions of things that begin to exist have causes”, but everything.” I have 7 billion more pieces of evidence than you have. And, all you have to defeat me is to find one. Everything that we know of that exists has a cause. How’s that? All you need is one to refute, and then you may pick up your Nobel. 🙂 They will build statues of you and worship you for all eternity if you find one, Robin.

            Robin, you need to really ask yourself this question: if the overwhelming preponderance of evidence points toward the truth of the God Hypothesis, and very little, if any, evidence points toward the No God Hypothesis, then isn’t it kind of disingenuous to remain an agnostic? You said so yourself: the evidence points toward Kalam being true. Neither hypothesis can, at this time, be proven like a math proof. It is arguable that neither side can ever be proven in that certain sense. But the God Hypothesis is much more plausible given the current evidence and state of the knowledge. Be a deist with agnostic leanings.

            Happy New year and welcome back, Robin!

          • http://www.robinlionheart.com/ Robin Lionheart

            ● “If Kalam is shown to be more plausibly proven than not, and if the evidence points that way, then you would self-label as a deist or theist.”

            But Kalām is not “plausibly proven” — it is in actual fact not proven, period. Nor its premise 1, nor its premise 2.

            Did you perhaps mean to say premise 2 is plausibly true? Then I can simply counter that premise 2 is also plausibly false, if quantum cosmology models are correct.

            ● “And, yes, you ARE arguing for a-theism.”

            Refuting your argument against atheism isn’t the same thing as arguing for it.

            ● “As Wintery Knight so eloquently says “You are appealing to Star Trek?!?” :-)”

            The objective moral value “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” isn’t really original to The Wrath of Khan. “Mr. Spock’s credo” is just a fun name for it.

            ● “And no, making up rules is not grounding objective moral values and duties.”

            Yes, it is, when it’s an objective rule.

            ● “You are no longer attempting to refute premise 1 of Kalam?”

            Why should I, when it has never been proven?

            ● “Well, if I misunderstood what you were REALLY saying, maybe you could explain it so that some human being on the face of the planet could understand it.”

            If you need it spelled out, I was really disagreeing with that your Huge Cookie Monster was “better” that my example. But enough of your cookie monster, let’s stay on topic.

            ● “Everything that we know of that exists has a cause. How’s that?”

            A hasty generalization in a world with quantum physics, and possibly wrong.

            ● “All you need is one to refute, and then you may pick up your Nobel. :-)”

            And all you need is to rule out the possibility that one will come along to refute. But you can’t.

            ● “if the overwhelming preponderance of evidence points toward the truth of the God Hypothesis, and very little, if any, evidence points toward the No God Hypothesis, then isn’t it kind of disingenuous to remain an agnostic?”

            Seems to me the overwhelming preponderance of evidence points toward the truth of naturalism. Were you referring back to seven billion humans being caused? Because children coming from parents does not provide evidence for or against your god.

            ● “You said so yourself: the evidence points toward Kalam being true.”

            Don’t put words in my mouth. I did not and would not say that, because I do not believe that to be true.

            ● “But the God Hypothesis is much more plausible given the current evidence and state of the knowledge.”

            No, I think naturalism is more plausible given our current evidence and knowledge.

  • http://textsincontext.wordpress.com Michael Snow

    Atheists
    invent their own while most Christians do not care to even learn them
    nor teach them to their children–shows you where we need to focus.
    http://textsincontext.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/teaching-children-the-ten-commandments/

  • John Smith

    This is absolute fact. The only right way to live is sin free. God says the soul that sins it shall die. God has no sin therefore he lives forever. Lucky for us because without God there would be nothing. The real law governing the universe is sin. Atheist can disagree but God just laughs. The atheist will die in his sin and be lost forever, talk about irrelevant. And of course god is love. The atheist lives a life separated from God and his love. His whole life is a waste. How many fools out there never ask God what his will for their life is. And a life apart from God is dangerous, at any moment the trap may spring and the snare of death may catch you when you least expect it. Your buddy the devil who led you astray from God and taught you to hate your own father(GOD) laughs in evil joy over your destruction. Good luck atheists you in big trouble. The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord that means the atheist can never have wisdom since they refuse to begin by a good healthy fear of God. Repent atheists. Atheist beware, any rebuttals will be met with the pure Word of God in reply.

    • Jessica Armstrong

      That is, of course, if you’re not just some delusional crackpot and that there is an actual afterlife. The funny part is that with what atheists believe, if you’re wrong, you’ll never pay the price for being wrong about that. We believe that you just end when you die. Therefore, if you are wrong you won’t be punished for it. But Christians go about saying that atheists are going to hell because they don’t believe in God. So, where is the justice in that? And yet you people argue with us. And my life was never a waste. I made my life and if I leave this world having helped just one person make their life easier then my life will have been worth it. You put your faith in the fact that you think that you will be rewarded AFTER you are dead. With atheism, you are rewarded while you are still LIVING. But of course that is what Christians are all about. They think that people need to suffer in life and only be rewarded in death. Must make for a very dismal life.

      • John Smith

        Lean not on thy own understanding; but acknowledge him and he shall direct thy path.
        Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not wither thou goest; and how can we know the way?
        Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me.

      • John Smith

        Christians genuinely believe there is a hell and tell you out of love, if they hated you they wouldn’t tell you and let you go to hell. In regards to justice if there is no afterlife then people who have gotten away with hurting others will never pay and if that’s the case why not just be as evil as you can since there is no price to pay. Where is the justice in that? So Hitler won’t pay for his horrendous crimes; He got off easy with just a bullet to the head.

        • Jessica Armstrong

          Okay, have you ever been shot. It hurts like hell. And do you not think that Hitler may have suffered in life? Logical people know that if a person has to inflict suffering on other people it is usually to cover up the fact that they themselves are miserable. I doubt Hitler was a happy person. Atheists believe that you pay for your transgressions in life. If you hit a person, they are going to hit you back. If you say bad things about a person, they are going to get back at you in some way. That is what atheists believe. That you pay for your faults in life. When you accept the consequences of your actions, you take that into account. That is why we try to live moral lives. So that we don’t get punished so often.

  • chrisleduc1

    In the sense that they both are certainly aware of the existence of their subject of interest? Yes, you are right.

    • AnimeOtaku

      Well it is kind of hard not to notice religion, particularly at this time of year with Yule, Hanukkah and Christmas all coming together, when it’s pretty much everywhere, though not as much here in Scotland.

  • Jessica Armstrong

    Uh, because nowhere in the 10 Commandments does it state, “Thou shalt not rape” and “Thou shalt not have a slave”. Just a shot in the dark.

  • Jessica Armstrong

    Let me ask you a question. Why is it okay for Christians to promote their propaganda but when atheists do it we are attempting to “mock and denigrate theism”? If you want to work with us and promote honest discussion then you have to be willing to put forth that there is room for debate. Which there isn’t with Christians. Most Christians believe that their opinion is the only valid one, end of discussion. All atheists were trying to do with this article was to put forth their opinion on a subject that comes up ad nauseum and they are getting blasted from all sides for doing so. Discussion involves opinions. If you can’t accept the opinions of atheists then you can’t have a discussion with us.

    • Magister_militum_praesentalis

      Yes, but did you notice how I qualified my statement? I mentioned that there is a very specific kind of atheist that I think is responsible for much of the negativity. The same goes for certain kinds of Christians, too.

  • Spicy Ray Swinehart-Patrick

    Have fun with it then, it will be in vain, we will never lose our faith. Good luck in your endeavors though.

  • bowie1

    This morning our pastor said that with some people no matter how much evidence you present for an event, some people will simply still not believe. Seeing with your own eyes is not always leading to believing – now and in the time of Jesus. (Some people even deny the moon landing or the Holocaust no matter now how much proof is given.)

  • James Grimes

    Very well said. Thank you.

  • Truthhurts24

    Proverbs 16:25 There is a way that seems right unto man but the end of those ways are death

  • railhead

    “III. The sceintific method is the most reliable way to understand the natural world” Ok, so we can ’86 the big bang and evolution , based on the fact that neither of these have been verified through experimentation.

    “II. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not to believe what you wish to be true.” It is most likely true that life was created at some point, if we are to be honest. No one WANTS that to be true at the core of their being. I, for one, did not accept Christianity and Christ because it was the truth I wanted (at the time). It was the truth I was confronted with, that came along with the fact I was on my way to hell.

  • KurtUSA

    If we are really a just a biological happenstance, who are they to tell us how to behave or live our life? We do not have to answer to them. Arrogant hypocrites.
    If, however, there is a loving just God who created us and to whom we must give account to for how we lived our life, he has a right to insist we live by his rules.

  • Jo Hunter

    I agree, you don’t need to believe in God to have your own set of moral values.

    If only life is all about moral values. But the essence of Christianity states that it isn’t. So where does that leave atheists?