Deputy Clerk Hands Out ‘Gay Marriage’ Licenses Despite Kim Davis’ Imprisonment

Mason
Photo: Pablo Alcala/Lexington Herald Leader

MOREHEAD, Ky. — One of the deputy clerks under Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis issued “marriage” licences to homosexuals on Friday despite questions over whether the documents are even legal since Davis has refused to authorize any clerks to issue the licenses under her authority.

Brian Mason handed out four licenses today, surrounded by reporters and video cameras. After providing the documents, he shook the hands of those who came to obtain the signed documents and stated, “congratulations.”

But attorneys for Davis said that the licenses are illegal because they were issued without the authorization of the clerk.

“They are not being issued under the authority of the Rowan County clerk’s office. They are not worth the paper that they are written on,” Liberty Counsel’s Matt Staver told reporters.

U.S. District Judge David Bunning had called Davis’ deputy clerks into court yesterday to answer whether or not they themselves would be willing to issue the licenses. At that time, questions arose as to the legality of the documents since Davis had refused to grant permission under her authority. Bunning said that homosexuals would have to take that “risk” of whether or not their licenses would be legal.

“Here’s two things I know: She’s not going to resign and she’s not going to violate her conscience,” Staver told reporters after meeting with Davis in jail. “So however long that lasts, in terms of the consequences, she is prepared to accept them.”

“She will never violate her conscience or betray her God,” he said. “She’s doing what Martin Luther King Jr. wrote about in his Letter from the Birmingham Jail, which is to pay the consequences for her decision.”

  • Connect with Christian News

As previously reported, Martin Luther King, Jr., in his well-known “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” written during a time when he was imprisoned for violating the law, said that while some may question disobedience to civil law, a law is not a law if it violates the law of God.

“One may well ask, ‘How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?’ The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust,” he explained. “I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”

“How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law,” King continued.

“Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience,” he wrote. “It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire.”


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
  • MamaBear

    “and whether you were Corrie ten Boom or Adolph Hitler will not matter one whit”
    That’s really it! Without a moral God who will hold us responsible for what we do during life on earth, whether we do good or evil just does not even matter in the long run.

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      Yes, that is what really got me – that and the understanding that I would be forgotten rapidly (in the cosmic time scale) regardless of how “amazing” my technical accomplishments. Those two things tipped the scales for me.

      But, before I got there, I had to go through one relatively short period of time where I thought – please don’t laugh too hard (oh, go ahead – laughter is the best medicine! :-)) – I thought that I would be the first human to live forever. Yes, I really thought that! Really! (Please don’t de-friend me, MamaBear!)

      Now, on Christian theism, we DO live forever – we have souls and eventually resurrected bodies. But, I was operating with this thought on atheism, physical death and all. It didn’t last too long, since I realized I could get killed by a drunk driver tomorrow, but it lasted a lot longer than you might expect – months, if I remember correctly.

      But, one way or another, that is where atheism leads you: to a point of total absurdity or irrationality. It might not be on that issue – it might be on another one – but if the person is continuing to sincerely pursue truth and thought, he MUST arrive there. Life is totally absurd on atheism. The search for truth – a sincere search – WILL be rewarded:

      “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” — John 8:32

      • MamaBear

        Lots of people think they will “live forever” in the here and now. Yes, I laughed, but because it is more common than you think.
        Just read an article by a lady with stage IV breast cancer who thinks her remission will last forever. Never mind statistics say 98% with stage IV die of it eventually, 80% within 5 years, and she has not even hit the median survival point yet. People do not want to face the fact of their own mortality.
        Once we truly face that we are not immortal here, it is wonderful to know that we can be with our Lord forever. C.S. Lewis talked about our having wants because there is something to satisfy them, such as thirst and water. Using that argument, we want to live forever because we were made to live forever, just not here in this world.

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          Argument from desire – yes, one of my fave’s of Lewis!

  • Elie Challita

    WGC, that’s just plain low. I enjoy arguing with you, and you seem honest, but this is really beneath you.
    You’re completely redefining the question by saying “Of course gays have the same right to marry people of the opposite sex”. That’s not what it’s about, and you damn well know it. Please don’t be dishonest.

    How would you like it if some religious sect took over your country and said “You’re no longer allowed to marry the person you love. In fact, we’ll set up all our laws and regulations so that you can no longer marry anyone you’re attracted to. You can marry someone we think is acceptable, but if you try to go against our wishes we will jail you, chemically castrate you, or ostracize you for the rest of your life.”

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      “WGC, that’s just plain low.”

      Now, you are sounding like my wife, Elie! 🙂

      “You’re completely redefining the question by saying “Of course gays have the same right to marry people of the opposite sex”.”

      But, Elie, that IS what it’s about. It is about re-defining a thousands of years old definition of “marriage,” and asking if that has any unintended consequences. And it is a fact that many gay people who are serious about Christian theism DO marry people of the opposite sex, because they, like me, define “love” in the Christian context NOT the secular one.

      “How would you like it if some religious sect took over your country and said “You’re no longer allowed to marry the person you love.”

      1. We Christians have been shoved underground (not in the US though) for 2000 years. It’s like it’s our job or something. 🙂

      2. The purpose of life on Christian theism is NOT happiness, God is NOT our cosmic butler, and we are NOT His pets. So, it would not bother me one whit.

      3. We would just get married in the underground according to Biblical principles.

      4. A “religious sect” HAS taken over my country: liberal fascism. The “pope” of this sect is Satan – or Obama. I get them confused. 🙂

      5. You seem to be forgetting that you guys “won” already. You got your “right” which is nowhere found, intended, or implied in the Constitution – you “won,” OK? Go party like the universe is headed for a slow dark cold death. 🙂

      But, what your side did not do was to repeal the 1st Amendment right to religious freedom. So, your nowhere found, nowhere intended, nowhere implied, and invented “right” does not get to infringe on the found, intended, and explicit right in the Constitution to religious freedom – a right that not only does not require Kim Davis to put her name on gay “marriage” licenses but also does not force her to choose between her religious freedoms and her job, public or private.

      Now, if your side were the “tolerant” one and not the death threat one, you would be more than happy to drive an extra 10 minutes to not have Kim Davis forced to resign or put in jail. But, given the history of the “movement,” …

      Good talking with you tonight, Elie!

      (PS. BTW, I am NOT accusing you of condoning death threats.)

      • Elie Challita

        That thousand year old tradition has been redefined to death to begin with. Over the last couple centuries alone we outlawed polygamy, underage marriage, incestuous marriage, and allowed interracial marriage, as well as linking the act of marrying to several secular rights and privileges. If you go back further, that “hallowed institution” changes even more.

        1) Really? I must have missed the past 1700 years of Christian domination of Europe, and by colonialist extension, of most of the world.
        2) Good for you. But don’t expect anyone else to live by your restrictions.
        3) So you’re perfectly fine with being denied all rights and privileges in public life, as long as you could pretend to have your way in private?
        4) I sincerely hope that was sarcasm, but it’s pretty damned hard to tell.
        5) I thought that the constitution was supposed to impose checks and balances against governmental overreach, as opposed to granting you specific rights. Or are you implying that citizens only have the rights outlined in the Constitution, and that government can do whatever it damn well pleases otherwise?

        Religious freedom is not a blank check to interfere in other people’s lives or shirk your duties. If you are a county clerk, you have to hand out marriage licenses. If the basic requirements of your job conflict with your deeply held beliefs, then it’s your own moral responsibility to resign your job or reach a reasonable accommodation with your employer.

        As it currently stands, that accommodation has been reached: The clerks are handing out the licenses, while Davis cowers in her office and collects a paycheck for twiddling her thumbs all day. Now wasn’t that easy?

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          “2) Good for you. But don’t expect anyone else to live by your restrictions.”

          I’m not. I am asking you to recognize a right clearly found, intended, and explicit in the Constitution and not place your mythological “right” which is nowhere found, intended, or made explicit in the Constitution above that right. Pretty simple – if you are really on the side of “tolerance” and not on the side of death threats.

          “3) So you’re perfectly fine with being denied all rights and privileges in public life, as long as you could pretend to have your way in private?”

          Not at all – obviously Kim Davis is asserting her right in public life. I was answering the question as to what we Christians would do under Sharia or something like it. (Communism, for instance.) Or 8 more years of liberalism. 🙂

          “4) I sincerely hope that was sarcasm, but it’s pretty damned hard to tell.”

          Not sarcasm, but humorous nevertheless. And you said you don’t worship a “god.” 🙂 Is “O” your “god,” Elie? (I like to call him “Zero” myself. :-)) You know my philosophy: “Go to the lions smiling.” 🙂

          “5) I thought that the constitution was supposed to impose checks and balances against governmental overreach, as opposed to granting you specific rights.”

          Haha! Checks and balances?!? From the guy on the side of judicial tyranny, really?!? You made my day. But, you do owe me a new monitor since I was drinking when I read that. 🙂

          “Religious freedom is not a blank check to interfere in other people’s lives or shirk your duties.”

          I love it! Yes, Kim Davis is interfering in your life by making you drive another 10 minutes to the next county for your make-believe “right,” but you are NOT interfering in her life by sending her to jail for asserting her found, intended, and explicit Constitutional right to religious freedom?!? Hypocrisy, much?!? Pot meet kettle. 🙂

          “then it’s your own moral responsibility to resign your job or reach a reasonable accommodation with your employer.”

          Oh, but it is that part that you guys are not willing to deal with. “Bake me a cake or else I bankrupt you!” “Sign that “marriage” certificate or it’s off to jail for you!” Really, Elie, how much does it take for you to realize that your side is more KKK than MLK? Need I provide the classic 300 examples?!? 🙂

          And what is all that talk about “moral responsibility,” as if objective moral rights and duties exist on atheism? Do I need to break out the atheist quotes again, hehe? 🙂

          You guys WON, Elie – and you STILL aren’t happy. Party on, dude! Perhaps gay “marriage” did not fill that hole in your soul, huh? Only Jesus can do that, you know. Let’s hear you show Jesus the gay “love.”

          “while Davis cowers in her office and collects a paycheck for twiddling her thumbs all day.”

          Not true. She has other duties, obviously, and she is not cowering last I checked. Not with 5000 supporters around her. (But, she was also surrounded by some armed officers to keep you Gaystapo types from showing her your “love” and “tolerance.”) And those “marriage” licenses do not have her name on them, at least according to some reports. That is the accommodation she was looking for. Pretty simple actually.

          How come your “tolerant” side made her spend 6 days in jail, again? Oh yeah, because it has nothing to do with gay “marriage” for you guys. You cannot STAND having someone remind you that there is a God, because then you might have to be accountable to Someone other than yourself.

          Party on, Elie, you guys WON, remember? You should be HAPPY! Where is that gay “love” I keep hearing about?!? 🙂 Enjoy the ride – nothing you do matters one whit on atheism – the universe is headed toward a slow dark cold death, and there will be no one around to ever remember what anyone did in this tiny speck of time on this tiny pale blue dot, cosmically speaking, on atheism. Long before the final stages of universal death our sun will flame out, and long before that you will be forgotten from all of history, on your view. Your life only matters in your delusions and fairy tales – if atheism is true.

          Why so uptight about it? It’s almost like you believe in objective purpose and morality or something? 🙂

  • Elie Challita

    My DMV example is exactly the same situation: The fictional Mohammed is not issuing the licenses because at some point he would have to approve the procedure, or a subordinate would have to approve them in his name. So, would you give Mohamed that right or not?

    • John_33

      They are not the same. They may be very similar in that they both reject service because of religion, but the rejections are done for two entirely different reasons. In your example with “Mohammed,” he refused service because he judged that women shouldn’t drive; therefore, they shouldn’t have licenses. I don’t agree with that position, and Kim didn’t do that. She didn’t reject service because she objects to gays “marrying.” That may be her religious belief, but that isn’t why she rejected service. She rejected service because she does not want to be found guilty in God’s eyes for partaking in a sinful practice. That may seem to you like I’m splitting hairs, but it’s a huge difference, and it’s the difference between real religious conscience and bigotry. Christians such as Kim Davis will go to great lengths to avoid sinning against God. It’s not a matter of “fighting the gays” – that doesn’t even factor into it at all. This is simply about staying separate from sin. That’s the issue.

      • Elie Challita

        I appreciate that you realize that we see your position as splitting hairs, but I really wish you’d take that final step and realize that it is indeed splitting hairs.
        The problem with religious exemption from duties is that you simply cannot decide on any objective basis which exemptions are justified, and which aren’t. Not without deciding which religion is true, and I’m pretty sure we don’t want to open that particular can of worms.

        • John_33

          It’s never splitting hairs when it’s about sinning against God. I understand that you don’t believe, but Christians can’t take sin lightly.

          You are also mistaken on what I’m asking for. This is simply about fairness for everyone in society including those who believe differently from others. It has nothing to do with establishing a state religion. The US found ways before to fairly give accommodations while not choosing a religion. In WWII many refused to fight due to their religious beliefs despite the draft. The US granted religious accommodations to these men to avoid war, and instead of opening a can of worms, the accommodations actually strengthened society. Some conscientious objectors chose to become medics on the battlefield and were instrumental in saving lives. Three objectors in American history were given the Medal of Honor for their bravery in the line of fire, and all of this was done without the government choosing which religion is true. We can be fair to everyone. All it takes is to reasonably respect everyone’s consciences whether they are religious or not.

          • Elie Challita

            It is most certainly splitting hairs when your ideas about sin grant you arbitrary secular privileges. Can you imagine the flak I’d get at my software company if I told my manager I had a religious objection to working in the same office as women?

            The medics and corpsmen in 1940 were granted a religious accommodation because they could still perform battlefield roles. There are many duties in the army which don’t require you to shoot at anyone, such as medics or mechanics or supply and logistics specialists.

            A county clerk, on the other hand, has to deliver marriage licenses. It’s part and parcel of her job. Davis didn’t even have to sign off on them: She’s back in office now, and her employees are handing out the licenses without involving her. Her name doesn’t appear anywhere on the licenses either.

            She could have taken that route in the first place, instead of forbidding her subordinates from handing them out in the first place. But no, she had to be a pseudo-martyr.

  • WorldGoneCrazy

    “I’m not quite sure why that merits a smiley face at the end of it”

    Because you have bounced back and forth denying, then affirming, Premise 2.

    “Your premises and conclusions don’t line up the way you think they do.”

    How so? Here they are:

    Premise 1: If there is no God, then objective moral values do not exist.

    Premise 2: Objective moral values DO exist.

    Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

    “Yeah. That’s called empathy and human decency, and it requires no God. And you somehow never state why you think it does.”

    Empathy and human decency are subjective, Valri. When you are crying out to Someone or Something Objective, you are denying the worldview of the atheist. There is nothing objective to cry out to. It is a slow cold dark death with no memory of anything on this pale blue dot, on your view.

    “What fourth quote? From some random atheist? Was he speaking on behalf of all atheists on earth? See why your task is just a LITTLE harder than you thought it was? Quote Dawkins until your face turns blue. Lots of atheists disagree with him about MANY things.”

    Oh sure, but the consensus on this subject is that objective moral values and duties do not exist. You need to tell me why they are wrong and why the 3 additional reasons that I provided are wrong. Thus far, you have failed to do so.

    “Strange, because I’m living it just fine. Ever ask yourself why God won’t heal amputees?”

    Haha – I love it! Now you are getting desperate, Valri. Here is your “logic:”

    Premise: I do not know of any amputees being healed (outside of human involvement, that is).

    Conclusion: Therefore, God does not exist.

    You could pretty much put anything into your premise along those lines (why hurricanes, tsunamis, etc? Why did my ice cream melt too fast today?) but the conclusion does not follow based on any rules of logic, that is.

    “You act as though you’re quoting from the Atheist Bible or something which doesn’t exist.”

    No, but the Atheist Creed does exist:

    I, the atheist, believe:

    1. That the universe miraculously popped into existence out of nothing uncaused by anything.

    2. That life magically sprang forth from non-life when lightning hit some mud.

    3. That minds and morals evolved from molecules through monkeys.

    4. That there is no God, and I hate Him.

    “I’m free to disagree with Dawkins and I don’t have to turn in my Atheist Club Card.”

    Sure, you can disagree with him all you want, but when you cannot provide any rational reason for your disagreement, then don’t go around thinking you are the “rational” one.

    “What you don’t seem to get is that I have no problem with objective moral values and still don’t see why they depend on a God, because they don’t.”

    Take it up with your fellow atheists – over 200 years. And consider the future of the universe, in which no matter how you behave – Hitler or Ghandi – it will not matter one whit. On that view, your life cannot have any objective purpose or meaning or morality. Some people win, some lose – it’s all the law of the jungle and nothing else.

    “No God worth believing in would make permanent, eternal torture and burning conditional on anything.”

    How come? Sounds like you think, like Lynn pointed out, that you would make a better “god?” 🙂

    • Valri

      “Because you have bounced back and forth denying, then affirming, Premise 2.”

      Premise 2 is the one I take no issue with. It’s your premise 1 that is total nonsense. If there is no God there can ABSOLUTELY still be moral values. Therefore your premise 2 means nothing anyway.

      “How so? Here they are:”

      Yeah, and you’ve repeated them a thousand times. That doesn’t make them right. It isn’t just atheists that would laugh in your face over it. It’s anyone with any kind of critical thinking ability.

      I would like you to explain to me now, without cutting and pasting any William Lane Craig or Winteryknight or any other silliness, why you believe that there cannot be objective moral values without a God. In your own words, please.

      “Empathy and human decency are subjective, Valri. When you are crying out to Someone or Something Objective, you are denying the worldview of the atheist. There is nothing objective to cry out to. It is a slow cold dark death with no memory of anything on this pale blue dot, on your view.”

      Well, really I think it’s time you stopped telling me and other atheists what our worldview is, and maybe asked us instead. Of course there is something to cry out to. A parent. A friend. A teacher. Even a pastor. Other human beings are necessary and they aren’t God.

      “Oh sure, but the consensus on this subject is that objective moral values and duties do not exist. You need to tell me why they are wrong”

      The point of Dawkins’ comments is that if we want to love in a moral world, we should not expect any help from our DNA. That being said, we are the first species in history with the ability to overcome the selfish designs of our own DNA. The fact that you believe there is no right and wrong without a supernatural being, and specifically YOUR supernatural being, proves to me that you are not a moral person at all. If you need God to tell you that it is wrong to steal or kill and the only reason you don’t do those things is out of fear of eternal damnation you are not moral. You are a slave. Morality existed in our species long before Christ came along. Like everything else…it evolved.

      “Haha – I love it! Now you are getting desperate, Valri. Here is your “logic:
      Premise:
      I do not know of any amputees being healed (outside of human
      involvement, that is). Conclusion: Therefore, God does not exist.”

      Yet another premise and conclusion that are a strawman, in other words that is not what I said and certainly not what I meant at all. I asked you a simple question, why God won’t heal amputees. At no time did I say that was a reason for my atheism.

      “No, but the Atheist Creed does exist:”

      That was absurd and not worthy of the response of an educated human being. Atheists don’t believe that the universe miraculously popped into existence out of nothing uncaused by anything. Major, major strawman. If anything, that’s closer to YOUR belief. Atheists don’t believe that life began when lightning hit mud. And again, closer to your beliefs than mine – consider how close that is to God poofing everything into existence. And citation, please, if you expect me to take any of this seriously. Minds and morals may have evolved but it had nothing to do with monkeys, and atheists do not hate what they don’t believe exists. So your Atheist Creed is a joke, and I can’t think of a single atheist who wouldn’t find it insulting to their intelligence.

      “Sure, you can disagree with him all you want, but when you cannot provide any rational reason for your disagreement, then don’t go around thinking you are the “rational” one.”

      What rational reason did I fail to provide, and in what situation?

      “Take it up with your fellow atheists – over 200 years. And consider the future of the universe, in which no matter how you behave – Hitler or Ghandi – it will not matter one whit.”

      Do you actually believe that it takes an atheist mind to behave like Hitler, whom if I’m not mistaken, was a Christian? What on earth are you basing this on? I know many atheists and none are killers and none would ever even entertain the thought. And please don’t hide behind your usual “ontology/ epistemology confusion” statement, because it’s not.

      “On that view, your life cannot have any objective purpose or meaning or morality.”

      It has plenty. What a shame you can’t see that. I matter greatly to many people around me and my life has worth and I strive to be a good person. I don’t do it to please any higher power. I do it because it gives me pleasure to do it.

      “How come? Sounds like you think, like Lynn pointed out, that you would make a better “god?” :-)”

      Let’s put it this way, if such a God DID exist, he would not be worthy of my worship. “Believe in me and accept my free gift of eternal life, but I’ll torture forever if you refuse it.” Some gift.

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        “Premise 2 is the one I take no issue with. It’s your premise 1 that is total nonsense. If there is no God there can ABSOLUTELY still be moral values.”

        Saying it does NOT make it true, Vari. Take it up with Dawkins, Provine, Ruse, et al and publish it. Address my 3 points, too, but say-so atheism is so passe.

        “Yeah, and you’ve repeated them a thousand times. That doesn’t make them right. It isn’t just atheists that would laugh in your face over it. It’s anyone with any kind of critical thinking ability.”

        So, no evidence in favor of your position? Just “there can be objective moral values without God?” assertions?

        “I would like you to explain to me now, without cutting and pasting any William Lane Craig or Winteryknight or any other silliness, why you believe that there cannot be objective moral values without a God. In your own words, please.”

        I already gave you 3 reasons of my own – here they are again:

        1. Under naturalism, the only things that exist are those things described by and measured with science. Objective moral values do not apply. You cannot locate moral values in a test tube.

        2. Why would human beings, under Darwinism, have any objective moral value? We are, in that view, just byproducts of
        macro-evolution and social conditioning – no objective moral values there. In fact, rewind the clock and play evolution over again, and you will, based on the randomness involved, get something entirely different:

        “If … men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be any doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering.” Charles Darwin, “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,” p. 100.

        3. As for moral duties, we would have no more basis for them than any other animal. That means that, as in the animal kingdom, we can kill or rape for any reason whatsoever – animals are not restricted by some sort of “traffic cop” in doing so. There is no one saying “OK, Mr. Lion, you can take out that gazelle, but only if you eat him.” 🙂

        Read that 4th quote over too: objective moral values are really meaningless without an Objective Moral Standard, or God.

        “Of course there is something to cry out to. A parent. A friend. A teacher. Even a pastor. Other human beings are necessary and they aren’t God.”

        Nothing objective there – all with their own opinions and practices. Secular humanism cannot be the answer – it has failed miserably time and time again throughout history.

        “That being said, we are the first species in history with the ability to overcome the selfish designs of our own DNA.”

        Really?!? How so? That requires proof. Maybe you missed Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc?

        “proves to me that you are not a moral person at all.”

        Please provide your “proof” then – in premise-conclusion form. 🙂 Also, where are you getting objective “moral” from, Valri?!? You have not proven that it exists – and your fellow atheists say it does not. There you go stepping into epistemology and sociology again. Ontology is where you fail – you have not established it.

        “If you need God to tell you that it is wrong to steal or kill and the only reason you don’t do those things is out of fear of eternal damnation you are not moral.”

        “Wrong” and “moral” do not exist on your view – in an objective sense. Stealing and killing happen all the time in the animal kingdom, Valri – we are just a different species of animal on your
        view, right? Again, you have not established any reason to believe that objective moral values and duties exist, and your fundamental view of evolutionary naturalism contradicts such things existing. Stealing and killing are “good” things on macro-evolution – they are how the most adaptive survive! You have to deny your atheism NOT to steal and kill!

        “Yet another premise and conclusion that are a strawman”

        Great – give me your premises and conclusion then. Put something up. Show me how “rational” and “logical” atheists are.

        “Atheists don’t believe that the universe miraculously popped into existence out of nothing uncaused by anything.”

        Sure they do! That is the denial of Premise 1 of Kalam. Surely you are not throwing away science and denying Premise 2, are you?!?

        “Atheists don’t believe that life began when lightning hit mud.”

        Sure they do! That is some form of abiogenesis – now that you guys have given up on maggots miraculously materializing from meat. 🙂

        “atheists do not hate what they don’t believe exists.”

        Sure they do!

        http://winteryknight .com/2015/05/22/study-explores-whether-atheism-is-rooted-in-reason-or-emotion-3/#comments

        Excerpt:

        “At first glance, this finding seemed to reflect an error. How could people be angry with God if they did not believe in God? Reanalyses of a second dataset revealed similar patterns: Those who endorsed their religious beliefs as “atheist/agnostic” or “none/unsure” reported more anger toward God than those who reported a religious affiliation.”

        “What rational reason did I fail to provide, and in what situation?”

        You failed to provide ANY rational reason for being on the wrong side of 200 years of atheist thought.

        “Do you actually believe that it takes an atheist mind to behave like Hitler”

        Valri, try to keep up here. Please explain why there is any ultimate difference for behaving like Hitler versus Ghandi on YOUR view –
        when the universe is just going to die a slow dark cold death?

        “I matter greatly to many people around me and my life has worth and I strive to be a good person. I don’t do it to please any higher power. I do it because it gives me pleasure to do it.”

        None of that matters, Dude, in an ultimate sense, on your view. (See “slow dark cold death of the universe.”)

        “he would not be worthy of my worship”

        Exactly! That is precisely what Lynn said in her “gotcha” moment. 🙂

        • Valri

          “Saying it does NOT make it true, Vari. Take it up with Dawkins, Provine, Ruse, et al and publish it. Address my 3 points, too, but say-so atheism is so passe.”

          But Crazy, Dawkins, Provine and Ruse didn’t SAY that there could be no moral values without God. You have completely misunderstood and misinterpreted their quotes. AND, as has been pointed out to you countless times, they are just three atheists with three opinions that don’t speak on behalf of ALL atheists. It’s not a religion. We are all free to disagree with each other.

          AND – most importantly of all – with all the mumbo jumbo you keep trying to make fly here, you have NEVER – not even once – said why God is necessary. And you can’t DO that, because God cannot be proven, not with any of your premises/conclusions, not with anything. All you have is a belief. You don’t have a proof.”So, no evidence in favor of your position? Just “there can be objective moral values without God?” assertions?”

          If I give you evidence and you don’t believe it, it doesn’t mean I haven’t given you evidence. I have objective values and I have no God. So I’m living proof. You don’t LIKE that, do you? Isn’t that really your problem – you are so intent on telling me what I believe rather than actually listening to me that you can’t handle the truth?

          “1. Under naturalism, the only things that exist are those things described by and measured with science. Objective moral values do not apply. You cannot locate moral values in a test tube.”

          And what does that mean to you? It doesn’t mean a lot to ME. You can’t locate moral values in a test tube because you wouldn’t LOOK for them there. They are thoughts and ideas, they are not physical objects.

          “2. Why would human beings, under Darwinism, have any objective moral value? We are, in that view, just byproducts of macro-evolution and social conditioning – no objective moral values there. In fact, rewind the clock and play evolution over again, and you will, based on the randomness involved, get something entirely different”

          One question at at time. Why would human beings under Darwinism have any objective moral values? Because we are human beings with consciences, empathy, a sense of belonging, a sense of place, a sense of purpose, a sense of how to co-exist with our fellow human beings, a sense of what works best for us all to live together harmoniously. It doesn’t matter that nothing comes after this life. What matters is now. You seem to think that because we don’t believe in the Great Prize, the big Brass Ring at the end of the ride in this lifetime that it all comes to nothing. What a waste of a gift this life is under that way of thinking. Worrying instead about the next one that you don’t even know is going to happen.

          “If . men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be any doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering.” Charles Darwin, “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,” p. 100.”

          We are not insects. Next.

          “3. As for moral duties, we would have no more basis for them than any other animal. That means that, as in the animal kingdom, we can kill or rape for any reason whatsoever – animals are not restricted by some sort of “traffic cop” in doing so. There is no one saying “OK, Mr. Lion, you can take out that gazelle, but only if you eat him.” :-)”

          We are not other animals, either. Our brains don’t work the same way. Comparing a human being to a lion is as ridiculous as comparing a fish to a bicycle.

          “Read that 4th quote over too: objective moral values are really meaningless without an Objective Moral Standard, or God.”

          I did. It doesn’t say why I should. It’s just a statement and gives no reasoning.

          “Nothing objective there – all with their own opinions and practices. Secular humanism cannot be the answer – it has failed miserably time and time again throughout history.”

          All with their own opinions and practices learned from their moral parents and guardians, who learned them from THEIR moral parents and guardians, etc. I don’t think it’s intellectually honest of you to tell people who are living perfectly happy lives under secular humanism that they are miserable failures. But I’ve sure seen a lot of people living their life in fear of a God who’s going to burn them to death that they can’t function like
          regular people. It’s both objective AND subjective.

          “Really?!? How so? That requires proof. Maybe you missed Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc?”

          I know better than to refer you to The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, because I’ve seen how you mangle his quotes.

          “Please provide your “proof” then – in premise-conclusion form. :-)”

          All right, under the condition that you ditch the annoying smilies. Take the conversation seriously, please.

          Premise 1: You, the fundamentalist Christian, require a God in order to claim moral objectivity.

          Premise 2: The moral objectivity you claim is actually moral SUBJECTIVITY as laid out specifically by your God in your Bible.

          Premise 3: God’s subjective commands can involve killing, torture, murder, and other unsavory and amoral things.

          Conclusion: You are amoral, subscribing to the whims of a cruel and jealous God.

          “Also, where are you getting objective “moral” from, Valri?!? You have not proven that it exists”

          I told you a million times. I get morals from my family, my upbringing, and my developed sense of empathy. There it is. It exists. I live it. See?

          “and your fellow atheists say it does not.”

          No they don’t, Crazy. I think you’d be very hard pressed to make a case that Dawkins, Provine, Ruse and anyone else you’d care to name puts no value on the loved ones in their lives.

          “There you go stepping into epistemology and sociology again. Ontology is where you fail – you have not established it.”

          I don’t think you have the slightest clue what that means, and I’ve seen you use it many times to duck out of uncomfortable arguments you are losing. You’re sitting here raging at me, Dawkins, and any other atheist you can think of because you say we have no moral values, and then when we demonstrably show you that we do, you scream ONTOLOGY and
          EPISTOMOLOGY! What are you getting at here? What is the difference? Whether I tell you that I wouldn’t go out and kill people in the street or whether I tell you that I have no DESIRE to go out and kill people in the street, or whether I tell you that I would find it a repugnant act to go out and kill people in the street – what is the difference? Where, morally, are you having the issue with me if I tell you I don’t want to do those things and never would?

          “Wrong” and “moral” do not exist on your view – in an objective sense.”

          Now you’re just repeating yourself.

          “Stealing and killing happen all the time in the animal kingdom, Valri – we are just a different species of animal on your view, right?”

          Wrong. We are not animals and don’t behave or think like animals. If a lion taking out another animal for food is what it does to be a lion, I’m not going to expect it to behave like a bunny rabbit.

          “Again, you have not established any reason to believe that objective moral values and duties exist”

          Well, you should read my messages with your eyes open, then.

          “and your fundamental view of evolutionary naturalism contradicts such things existing.”

          Because you keep trying to compare human beings with bees and lions.

          “Stealing and killing are “good” things on macro-evolution – they are how the most adaptive survive! You have to deny your atheism NOT to steal and kill!”

          Crazy, I am a human beings. I’m not dependent on killing other people in order to survive. Why can’t you see this?

          “Sure they do! That is the denial of Premise 1 of Kalam. Surely you are not throwing away science and denying Premise 2, are you?!?”

          I think you know the answer to that, I’ve been saying your Kalam and genocidist William Lane Craig stuff is garbage from day 1, and I can give you a million websites that affirm that. Once again you’re trying to put all atheists in the same box and claim they all believe the same things. They don’t. This is why there IS no “Atheist code of ethics” or whatever you’re calling it.

          “Sure they do! That is some form of abiogenesis – now that you guys have given up on maggots miraculously materializi
          ng from meat. :-)”

          Even if a single atheist believes that life starts from lightning hitting mud, so what? The other several billion likely don’t. You’ve proven nothing.

          “Sure they do!

          http://winteryknight .com”

          Winteryknight is a moron, and I don’t think even HE would claim to speak on behalf of all atheists – it takes a reckless person to do so.

          “You failed to provide ANY rational reason for being on the wrong side of 200 years of atheist thought.”

          Loaded statement. I’m not on the wrong side. You are.

          “Valri, try to keep up here. Please explain why there is any ultimate difference for behaving like Hitler versus Ghandi on YOUR view –when the universe is just going to die a slow dark cold death?”

          You must be a glutton for punishment or something to expect me to repeat the same exact things over and over. Hitler was a monster who killed millions of people. If anyone wants to make a case that that was perfectly acceptable under atheism or any other belief system, they’re not atheists. They’re idiots.

          “None of that matters, Dude, in an ultimate sense, on your view. (See “slow dark cold death of the universe.”)”

          Once again, telling me what I think rather than asking me. Forcing a completely inaccurate view of atheism on me and trying to get me to own it. I don’t, and I won’t.

          “Exactly! That is precisely what Lynn said in her “gotcha” moment. :-)”

          I don’t even have a clue who you’re talking about, but if her “gotcha” moments were like the ones you try to pin on me, there likely haven’t been any.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “But Crazy, Dawkins, Provine and Ruse didn’t SAY that there could be no moral values without God. ”

            You WISH they weren’t saying what they are saying. and, thus far, you have provided no counterargument – just wishful thinking. And, it is delusional, because on atheism, the universe is just headed for a slow cold dark death, and nothing you do will matter in any ultimate moral sense.

            ‘”you have NEVER – not even once – said why God is necessary.”

            Sure I did: without an Objective Moral Standard there can be no objective moral values or duties. It is quite simple, for those willing to listen.

            “because God cannot be proven”

            What?!? I have given you lots of arguments in favor of the God Hypothesis and you have given me no arguments, other than wanting to be your own “god” that He doesn’t exist. In fact, merely the fact that you are spending so much time debating me on this subject is proof of God’s existence: you are behaving as if your life has an objective purpose but such does not exist on atheism. (See slow cold dark death of universe.) You are actually denying your atheism, pretending that your life has an objective meaning – by evangelizing theists. 🙂

            “If I give you evidence and you don’t believe it, it doesn’t mean I haven’t given you evidence. I have objective values and I have no God.”

            Valri, merely saying that you have objective values is not proof that they exist, any more than my saying I have a billion dollars is proof that it exists in my bank account.

            “Isn’t that really your problem – you are so intent on telling me what I believe rather than actually listening to me that you can’t handle the truth?”

            I don’t actually care what you believe, Valri. I care what is objectively true. What you believe is a measure of your feelings and psychological state – I am not interested in that – I am a theist, in search of truth, not feelings. That is a huge difference from my life as an atheist, I might add.

            “You can’t locate moral values in a test tube because you wouldn’t LOOK for them there. They are thoughts and ideas, they are not physical objects.”

            Are you now saying that moral values are supernatural? (above nature?)

            “Because we are human beings with consciences, empathy, a sense of belonging, a sense of place, a sense of purpose, a sense of how to co-exist with our fellow human beings, a sense of what works best for us all to live together harmoniously.”

            None of those things are objective, Valri – they are ice cream flavors that vary across individuals. Some like Hitler, others like Ghandi. A sense of purpose is not any objective purpose – it is just a grand delusion, on atheism. How can anything objectively matter when there will be no one around to remember it or you for that matter?

            “What a waste of a gift this life is under that way of thinking.”

            Life IS a waste on atheism. It is a big accident which has no ultimate meaning. It is absurd. Look at the universe around you: if that is all there is, then it is a huge waste. And you are a speck of a dot of waste, on atheism. Why are you pretending your life means anything, other than whatever you want to make up out of thin air – to satisfy a fairy tale of yours?

            “We are not insects. Next.”

            Nice try, but take it up with Darwin. He realized full well that we could be insects in a subjective moral sense if evolution had taken a different turn, and, BTW, aren’t insects our cousins or something?!? 🙂 You have not answered the question as to why Darwinian evolution is not just one giant craps table, and due to that, there are no objective moral values and duties? Darwin understood.

            “We are not other animals, either. Our brains don’t work the same way.”

            That is twice it sounds as though you are distancing yourself from macro-evolution, do I have that right? I thought we were just animals evolved to a different species, no better or worse? It almost sounds like you are saying, twice, that human beings are supernaturally different from insects and lions, not merely physically different? Speaking of lions (scroll down for more good images):

            http://www .powerlineblog .com/archives/2015/08/zebra-lives-matter.php

            “I don’t think it’s intellectually honest of you to tell people who are living perfectly happy lives under secular humanism that they are miserable failures.”

            I never said that. I said that you are deluding yourself into thinking your life has objective moral value and purpose and meaning. (And, for some strange reason, 97% of atheists do not give the same consideration to the human in the womb.)

            I know drunks and drug addicts who thought they were living perfectly happy lives too. They are as deluded as atheists. 🙂

            “It’s both objective AND subjective.”

            Equivocation.

            “All right, under the condition that you ditch the annoying smilies.”

            OK, but you didn’t warn me before this, so that is why I have annoying smilies above. (Uuugh! I SO want to put an annoying smiley here!)

            “Premise 1: You, the fundamentalist Christian, require a God in order to claim moral objectivity.

            Premise 2: The moral objectivity you claim is actually moral SUBJECTIVITY as laid out specifically by your God in your Bible.

            Premise 3: God’s subjective commands can involve killing, torture, murder, and other unsavory and amoral things.

            Conclusion: You are amoral, subscribing to the whims of a cruel and jealous God.”

            It would be nice to have these in IF-Then form, but OK, I will consider this as a step-wise proof. I would probably reword Premise 1, but I will allow it.

            Premise 2 is invalid. Even if you think that the Bible is a rule book (hint: it’s not), then you would need to show that. How is it that God’s Rule Book could possibly be subjective, since He is the Objective Moral Standard? Even if you believe that He is cruel and mean and all, how can that be subjective? What Higher Standard are you appealing to? Not God. Perhaps Valri?!?

            Premise 3 is also invalid, since it includes “subjective” and it smuggles in you placing your objective moral values and duties above God’s, which by the definition of “God” cannot be true. Same for the conclusion and, BTW, there are no rules of logic that would apply, even if Premises 1-3 were true, that would lead to the Conclusion. If I am wrong, please state the propositional logic rule that applies.

            “I get morals from my family, my upbringing, and my developed sense of empathy.”

            Yes, but those are not objective, Valri. Hitler got his morals that way too, as did Stalin. Hitler had tremendous empathy for the Aryan race.

            “Dawkins, Provine, Ruse and anyone else you’d care to name puts no value on the loved ones in their lives.”

            Oh sure, but they are stealing from theism to do so. They are denying their atheism and pretending that their lives, and those of their loved ones, have objective moral value, purpose, and meaning. This is why atheism is totally unlivable. For the atheist to spend this much time debating a theist, he MUST believe that there is something objective about that purpose. But, on the slow cold dark death of the universe, such objectivity means nothing of course.

          • Valri

            “You WISH they weren’t saying what they are saying. and, thus far, you have provided no counterargument – just wishful thinking.”

            And neither have you. And since we haven’t any of the three gentlemen here to confirm or deny what you’re saying, why don’t we do the honest thing and disregard them completely – since they are only three random
            opinions anyway. Or are you going to continue to cut and paste them to artificially bolster your arguments, every time this subject arises with others?

            “Sure I did: without an Objective Moral Standard there can be no objective moral values or duties. It is quite simple, for those willing to listen.”

            And given the number of people in this world that
            consider that OPINION (which is in fact all it is) to be completely wrong, you would offer what proof? More Kalam/Craig nonsense? Your objective moral standard isn’t objective at all. As I pointed out correctly in my last message to you, it’s your God’s SUBJECTIVE opinion. You’re just following it blindly. What is the difference if
            you get your morals from the words purported to be God’s coming from a book, and I get them from my parents? Aren’t both subjective?

            “What?!? I have given you lots of arguments in favor of the God Hypothesis and you have given me no arguments, other than wanting to be your own “god”
            that He doesn’t exist.”

            Just as you were looking to award a Nobel prize to the person who successfully refuted William Lane Craig, I’d likewise offer something similar to the man who proves God, which has never been done. Do I need to point out to you that “arguments in favor of the God hypothesis” is
            not proof?

            “In fact, merely the fact that you are spending so much time debating me on this subject is proof of God’s existence: you are behaving as if your life has an objective purpose but such does not exist on atheism.”

            I’m debating with you because your arguments here boil down to the same exact six or seven points which you cut and paste ad infinitum believing them to be authoritative when they are not. William Lane Craig, Winteryknight, your “Big 3” Dawkins/Provine/Ruse quotes, the Kalam
            crapola, the ice cream analogy, the insistence that objective moral values can’t exist without God, the tired old ontology/epistemology accusation, yadda yadda. Anyone who follows you on any of these forums sees you repeating yourself and saying the same things over and over. But insistence isn’t the same thing as winning a debate.

            “You are actually denying your atheism, pretending that your life has an objective meaning – by evangelizing theists. :-)”

            Point A, I don’t deny my atheism with anything you’ve said or anything I’VE said either, point B, my life has objective meaning – if the existence of God was the only reason I needed it would be very sad indeed, and
            point C, your smiley was misplaced, unnecessary and annoying. Point D, will you PLEASE stop telling me what I feel and how I think. If you want to know, ask me. I will not lie to you. You must get this through your head: You do NOT know my own thoughts and beliefs better than I do myself.

            “Valri, merely saying that you have objective values is not proof that they exist, any more than my saying I have a billion dollars is proof that it exists in my bank account.”

            So I am supposed to somehow figure out a way to prove to you that I am utterly content and happy without God, otherwise I am lying to you? How would you like me to do that, exactly – take a lie detector test?

            “I don’t actually care what you believe, Valri. I care what is objectively true. What you believe is a measure of your feelings and psychological state – I am not interested in that – I am a theist, in search of truth, not feelings. That is a huge difference from my life as an atheist, I might add.”

            What you have as a fundamentalist Christian is not truth. You are TOLD it’s truth, but all it is is faith. Not nearly the same thing, and what’s more, every single religion on earth teaches that it is the truth. From a theistic standpoint hat’s so problematic I can’t even begin to articulate it. And do you know, Crazy, what people do who are told they have the truth but all they have is faith? All sorts of things. Like fly airplanes into
            buildings, drink Kool-aid laced with cyanide, and post doomsday billboards in major cities. I would say you were better off as an atheist, at least common sense told you you shouldn’t kill people. Now you would do it if you believed God was telling you to. Do you still want to make the case that morals don’t exist without God? Because I’ve just made the case that they don’t look very good WITH God.

            “Are you now saying that moral values are supernatural? (above nature?)”

            No, I’m saying that moral values are not physical things such as what you might grow in a test tube. Why do you think they are?

            “None of those things are objective, Valri – they are ice cream flavors that vary across individuals. Some like Hitler, others like Ghandi.”

            Is there anything more ridiculous than your ice cream analogy, as though murdering another person would or could be so casually preferred to something otherwise mundane? Picking an ice cream flavor doesn’t result
            in murder or rape inflicted on the cashier or the next person in line just because you chose sherbet over cherry or plain vanilla over a swirl.

            With that out of the way, yes they are objective, and for what reason do you say they’re not?

            “A sense of purpose is not any objective purpose – it is just a grand delusion, on atheism.”

            Spoken like a true fundamentalist. I counter by saying your God is the grandest of delusions.

            “How can anything objectively matter when there will be no one around to remember it or you for that matter?”

            It matters during the time that it matters, Its importance is not lessened simply because it doesn’t last forever.

            “Life IS a waste on atheism. It is a big accident which has no ultimate meaning. It is absurd. Look at the universe around you: if that is all there is, then it is a huge waste.”

            Says you. I can look at a mountain or a rising sun right now and appreciate it for what it is. I don’t need it to always be there because I will not always be here.
            Accident or not, we can appreciate what we have every single day without worrying what comes next. And in your case, you spend half your time trying to make sure you aren’t going to burn eternally in torture by your loving God and the other half worshiping him for not sending you there.

            “And you are a speck of a dot of waste, on atheism. Why are you pretending your life means anything, other than whatever you want to make up out of thin air – to satisfy a
            fairy tale of yours?”

            Oh, you’re making this SO easy for me, Crazy. Why are YOU arrogantly pretending YOUR life means more than that of an atheist, just to satisfy a fairy tale of YOURS?
            Why do we need to be “saved” by the God who put us here in the first place just for some grand loyalty test? Let me ask my family if I’m a speck of a dot of waste and see what THEY say, keeping in mind they are also atheists (whom you do not speak on behalf of and whose thoughts you do not know, even though you keep insisting you do).

            “Nice try, but take it up with Darwin. He realized full well that we could be insects in a subjective moral sense if evolution had taken a different turn, and, BTW, aren’t insects our cousins or something?!? :-)”

            Your smiley problem borders on epidemic.

            I don’t think that’s what Darwin thinks, but again, if he does, so what? Our objective morals are not the same as those of insects. A bee’s goal is to protect the queen, create food (honey) and create more bees. Do I have to tell you that my life is a little more complicated than that?

            “You have not answered the question as to why Darwinian evolution is not just one giant craps table, and due to that, there are no objective moral values and duties? Darwin understood.”

            But YOU didn’t. Evolution is what it is. Things change and evolve over time. Despite its chaotic nature, why do you think we should not try to find our place within it to be comfortable and happy while we are on this earth? Why don’t I just commit suicide? Because life is valuable
            and worthwhile, even with its painful moments. And there are SO many religions that tell you what you must do to live forever – and how on earth does ANY of them know the answer to that when they haven’t died?

            “I thought we were just animals evolved to a different species, no better or worse? It almost sounds like you are saying, twice, that human beings are supernaturally
            different from insects and lions, not merely physically different?”

            Can a bee or lion believe in God? Do they need to? Are their lives meaningless without God? Do they find no pleasure while on this earth?

            “I never said that. I said that you are deluding yourself into thinking your life has objective moral value and purpose and meaning.”

            It’s not a delusion, I can prove you wrong simply by telling you that I am valued and have purpose and meaning based on my job, my hobbies, my relationships, all that I do every day of my life, and I require nothing more than that.

            “(And, for some strange reason, 97% of atheists do not give the same consideration to the human in the womb.)”

            Citation please. Not from Winteryknight.

            “I know drunks and drug addicts who thought they were living perfectly happy lives too. They are as deluded as atheists. :-)”

            And so you think exchanging one addiction (alcohol or drugs) for another (religion) is going to make it all better? No, of course you don’t…in YOUR case it has to be Christianity. And not just Christianity, but FUNDAMENTALIST Christianity. If it’s anything else we all burn in hell anyway, right? Isn’t that your view? “Turn or burn,” isn’t that one of your teachings?

            “Premise 2 is invalid. Even if you think that the Bible is a rule book (hint: it’s not), then you would need to show that. How is it that God’s Rule Book could possibly be subjective, since He is the Objective Moral Standard?”

            Premise two is entirely valid. Your religion teaches you that God is the Objective Moral Standard. That doesn’t make it so. If God’s Word is your Bible, then that’s subjective on God’s part. You have to follow it. It’s a club. Membership gets you into heaven but you have to
            follow this very subjective set of rules. It’s not a rule book? Ten Commandments, anyone?

            “Even if you believe that He is cruel and mean and all, how can that be subjective? What Higher Standard are you appealing to? Not God. Perhaps Valri?!?”

            Are you saying genocide is not cruel and mean? Are you saying your God didn’t dabble in genocide from time to time? According to your book, He did. Anyway, this isn’t my appeal, it’s yours. I’m not the one appealing to God.

            “Premise 3 is also invalid, since it includes “subjective” and it smuggles in you placing your objective moral values and duties above God’s, which by the definition of “God” cannot be true.”

            If it’s God who said it – and that’s what you Christians believe about the Bible – then how can it be anything BUT subjective? Sorry it offends you that my moral code finds things like murder and genocide and torture to be
            unsavory – do you have another word you’d care to use if I’m not allowed to call those objectively immoral, even though practically everyone in the solar system WOULD?

            “Same for the conclusion and, BTW, there are no rules of logic that would apply, even if Premises 1-3 were true, that would lead to the Conclusion. If I am wrong, please
            state the propositional logic rule that applies.”

            No thanks, not interested in semantics games where we constantly play by your senseless rules. The logic’s right there in black and white, so simple a child could see it. Your God does genocide. That’s God being subjective and you objectively obeying for the moral reason that it
            comes from God, and me objectively disagreeing because MY morality doesn’t come from a God so cruel but from a gentler place where there’s no killing involved.

            “Yes, but those are not objective, Valri. Hitler got his morals that way too, as did Stalin. Hitler had tremendous empathy for the Aryan race.”

            Please tell me why me getting morals from my family is not objective. So what if Hitler and Stalin got them the same way, and then went on to violate them or change their minds or do something different or whatever it was. The WRONGNESS comes from the imposing of one person’s will over the others. There – that’s my moral objectivity in action and it knows that you don’t kill people simply because it’s not anyone’s place to take another life, and it knows that without any kind of god or lord or
            emperor.

            “Dawkins, Provine, Ruse and anyone else you’d care to name puts no value on the loved ones in their lives.”

            Well, we know all about the way you’ve interpreted their words and we disagree about it, I don’t think there’s any more that needs to be said about them because we are deadlocked. I will reiterate one more time that all they are is three distinct opinions and not a rulebook for atheists.

            “Oh sure, but they are stealing from theism to do so.”

            Not at all. Not in any sense. They don’t even believe your God’s there, so there’s no one to borrow from.

            “They are denying their atheism and pretending that their lives, and those of their loved ones, have objective moral value, purpose, and meaning.”

            No pretending involved – they do. My son just told me he loves me. There you go.

            “This is why atheism is totally unlivable.”

            That will be very interesting news to all the people currently living it. I see no one suffering from it.

            “For the atheist to spend this much time debating a theist, he MUST believe that there is something objective
            about that purpose. But, on the slow cold dark death of the universe, such objectivity means nothing of course.”

            I debate you because you do not accept the life that I’m living very well, you do not accept that I have no need of a God, you never ONCE state why it’s the Fundamentalist Christian God who’s the real deal – NEVER, not once in all these exchanges – and I strongly suspect you are one of the breed who doesn’t even believe that atheists actually exist, that they are angry at God or hate him or whatever.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “And neither have you.”

            I don’t have to provide the counter-argument, you do. Why would I do that anyway? I provided 3 good supporting arguments that prove that what the famous atheists say makes perfect sense. You’re welcome. 🙂

            “And given the number of people in this world that consider that OPINION (which is in fact all it is) to be completely wrong, you would offer what proof?”

            I am not making an argument from consensus here. Most people who have done any science at all know that you have to have an objective standard, like the meter or yardstick or something. A lot of money is spent keeping world-wide standards in place, so it MUST be more than an opinion.

            “What is the difference if you get your morals from the words purported to be God’s coming from a book, and I get them from my parents? Aren’t both subjective?”

            Not if the Book is objective. For instance, I have a LOT of engineering books with standards and stuff, and they certainly are not subjective. That is the difference.

            “I’d likewise offer something similar to the man who proves God, which has never been done. Do I need to point out to you that “arguments in favor of the God hypothesis” is not proof?”

            I agree 100%. I have given science and math and logic and philosophy in favor of the God Hypothesis and you have offered very little in those areas in favor of the No God Hypothesis. I am fine if you have good reasons to believe in the No God Hypothesis – I just want to encourage you to seek them out and not be gravitating toward a blind faith sort of atheism. (Christians do this too on our side, so I am NOT picking on you here.)

            “yadda yadda”

            How did you know my favorite flavor of ice cream is yadda yadda?!? 🙂 My second fave is yabba dabba do. 🙂

            “Anyone who follows you on any of these forums sees you repeating yourself and saying the same things over and over.”

            Yes, I do that in engineering too. Good arguments are worth repeating, just as good engineering designs are worth repeating.

            “point B, my life has objective meaning”

            How can your life, on atheism, have any objective or ultimate meaning? (Recall the slow cold dark death of the universe.)

            “You do NOT know my own thoughts and beliefs better than I do myself.”

            i am sorry I am coming across that way. I merely want you to know that there are consequences for adopting ANY worldview, including atheism – for coherence purposes. That is what the atheist quotes are supposed to show. You don’t get to be an atheist and then start lecturing how “evil” the Christian God is – that is not coherent or rational. You can have one or the other, but not both. Take this information back to your fellow tribe members.

            “So I am supposed to somehow figure out a way to prove to you that I am utterly content and happy without God, otherwise I am lying to you? How would you like me to do that, exactly – take a lie detector test?”

            Yes, I have the same setup as the one in Meet the Parents. 🙂 Again, drunks and drug addicts think they are happy too – but they are delusional. You can be happy all you want, but that does not mean your life has objective meaning. I used to be “happy” at the 3rd beer.

            “You are TOLD it’s truth, but all it is is faith.”

            Haha – I get that all the time. Trust me, Valri, one does not go from 42 years of atheism to Christian theism without VERY good reasons. Who wants restrictions on their life after all?!?

            I hear this a lot from those who are not theists, and I am really surprised by it because it is a mis-understanding of the word “faith” in the Bible, which actually would be better translated as “trust.” Christian faith goes like this: you are in need of a serious surgery. You investigate all the best surgeons in that field around the country and pick those you believe to be the top 3. You interview them and decide on the one you believe is the best. On the morning of the surgery, you get to the hospital early to fill out the forms. One of these forms is the authorization for the surgeon to operate on you. When you sign that form, it is then that you have placed your trust (faith) in that surgeon. In Christianity, the Surgeon is Jesus.

            For me, as a former atheist, it took a lot of unsupported faith to believe that the universe popped into existence out of nothing (Big Bang) uncaused by anything and that life sprang forth from non-life when lightning hit some mud (or some variation of this). Those are mega-miracles by comparison with the Creator of a universe filled with 100 billion galaxies raising Someone from the dead. Such a
            “miracle” would be child’s play for Him.

            A good example of blind faith on the atheist side would be when Stephen Hawking, a super-brilliant scientist, said “the universe created itself.” Now, he is convinced that the universe had a beginning (Premise 2 of Kalam), and he knows the logical suicide of a scientist trying to deny Premise 1, so to avoid a Cause for the universe, he has it creating itself – a clear violation of basic logic and metaphysics. So, I guess I would end this by saying that everyone has faith in something – the question is “is that faith mis-placed or does it have evidence to support it?”

            “Do you still want to make the case that morals don’t exist without God? Because I’ve just made the case that they don’t look very good WITH God.”

            There you go again, Valri, do you see it? Do you see where you smuggled in an objective moral value that does not exist on atheism? Look at that last “good” you wrote. Just Who or What Objective Moral Standard are you appealing to in order to apply that? Point to it. You?!? Can’t be objective. Some people think flying planes into buildings is “good,” others think killing those people before they fly planes into buildings is “good.” (Obama thinks giving nukes to people who fly planes into buildings is “good.” :-)) Nothing objective there!

            “No, I’m saying that moral values are not physical things such as what you might grow in a test tube. Why do you think they are?”

            How do those things even exist on atheism? Sounds like they are supernatural?

            “Is there anything more ridiculous than your ice cream analogy, as though murdering another person would or could be so casually preferred to something otherwise mundane?”

            Take it up with Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and many others who felt that killing some for the good of others was a very “good” thing. (So do pro-aborts, I might add, and 97% of atheists are pro-aborts.) Those guys LOVED that flavor of ice cream, and I can assure you that they were MOST causal about killing millions of human beings.

            “Spoken like a true fundamentalist. I counter by saying your God is the grandest of delusions.”

            Sure, but you have not answered the question as to why you think your life has objective purpose and meaning when the universe is going to die a slow cold dark death?

            “It matters during the time that it matters, Its importance is not lessened simply because it doesn’t last forever.”

            So, you agree that your life does not matter in any objective or ultimate sense, right?

            “Says you. I can look at a mountain or a rising sun right now and appreciate it for what it is. I don’t need it to always be there because I will not always be here.”

            So, it is a waste right, your life, on atheism?

            “And in your case, you spend half your time trying to make sure you aren’t going to burn eternally in torture by your loving God and the other half worshiping him for not sending you there.”

            Strawman. What if I worship Him for creating and sustaining me? That seems pretty reasonable, no?

            “Why are YOU arrogantly pretending YOUR life means more than that of an atheist, just to satisfy a fairy tale of YOURS?”

            Oh, because if there IS a God, then life can have objective meaning, but not if there is not. We have already shown, and you seem to agree, that life is a cosmic waste, in any ultimate sense, if there is no God. No one will ever be around to know that anything or anyone existed on your view.

            But, of course, on my view, we have an objective purpose: to know, love, and serve our Creator and Sustainer. And we will get to spend an eternity doing so. On your view, your life, this planet, the sun and solar system, the galaxy, and even the universe is a cosmic waste. Pretty simple.

            “Let me ask my family if I’m a speck of a dot of waste and see what THEY say, keeping in mind they are also atheists”

            If they have thought through their atheism, then they KNOW you are a waste and so are they. They are cosmic accidents and so are you, on atheism. In fact, if atheism is true, then everything in the universe is an accident and waste – by science! That is just good science right there.

            “Your smiley problem borders on epidemic.”

            It’s like an addiction or something. 🙂 Whoops!

            “I don’t think that’s what Darwin thinks, but again, if he does, so what?”

            Well, it shows that, on Darwinism, our moral values and duties are an accident, which means they cannot be objective in any sense. They did not HAVE to evolve this way. it is no more objective than the randomness of a Roulette wheel.

            ” Why don’t I just commit suicide? Because life is valuable and worthwhile, even with its painful moments.”

            It is not “valuable” or “worthwhile” in any ultimate sense. No proof there.

            “And there are SO many religions that tell you what you must do to live forever – and how on earth does ANY of them know the answer to that when they haven’t died?”

            Doggone it – you snuck a GREAT question in there, I almost missed it! I think that it helps to have Someone Who comes back from the dead to provide some authority in answering that question, like Jesus of Nazareth.

            “Can a bee or lion believe in God? Do they need to? Are their lives meaningless without God? Do they find no pleasure while on this earth?”

            Some find pleasure by copulating, others by copulating and biting the heads off of their mates. It’s all very confusing. 🙂

            Yes, their lives are ultimately meaningless if there is no God – just remember the cold slow dark universe death.

            “I can prove you wrong simply by telling you that I am valued and have purpose and meaning based on my job, my hobbies, my relationships, all that I do every day of my life, and I require nothing more than that.”

            That is my point – nothing objective there. None of it matters one whit on atheism, in any ultimate sense, right? Have fun, sure, but why work so hard when it all goes bye bye on the sun’s flame out or long before? Besides, you could be out murdering people at night, and that would have precisely the same amount of objective purpose – none.

            “Citation please. Not from Winteryknight.”

            http://www .secularcensus .us/BlogForChoice2012

            “If it’s anything else we all burn in hell anyway, right? Isn’t that your view?”

            Haha – but it’s better than on your view, where everyone burns or freezes in death for all of eternity.

            “Your religion teaches you that God is the Objective Moral Standard. That doesn’t make it so. If God’s Word is your Bible, then that’s subjective on God’s part.”

            How so? How does God’s Textbook make it any more subjective than my many engineering textbooks?

            “Membership gets you into heaven but you have to follow this very subjective set of rules.”

            That may be Islam you are referring to, Valri. we do not follow rules, we follow the Rule Maker. Christian theism is a Relationship rooted in reality, not a bunch of rules.

            “Are you saying genocide is not cruel and mean?”

            No, I am not saying that. I am asking you what Objective Moral Standard you are appealing to to make that claim, given that many people throughout history have been most comfortable with genocide? Big difference. You can’t appeal to the human conscience – that has failed over and over again. (97% of atheists support abortion, proving that atheists are most comfortable with genocide.)

            “If it’s God who said it – and that’s what you Christians believe about the Bible – then how can it be anything BUT subjective?”

            It would be objective if God said it, NOT subjective.

            “Sorry it offends you that my moral code”

            My point exactly! Your moral code says one thing, many dictators’ moral codes say quite something different. Nothing objective there.

            “The logic’s right there in black and white, so simple a child could see it.”

            So, you cannot provide the logical rule that connects the premises to the conclusion? That is a failed argument.

            “Your God does genocide.”

            Is that it – your “big” problem?!? You don’t think that the Author and Sustainer and Creator and Resurrector of life should be allowed to physically kill off His creatures as He desires?!? Who are YOU to say that, when you cannot even control the timing of your next bowel movement? You crack me up, Valri!

            “a God so cruel”

            There you go again! Cite Objective Moral Standard, please. You cannot help yourself. 🙂

            “Please tell me why me getting morals from my family is not objective. So what if Hitler and Stalin got them the same way”

            Some people are raised to do destructive things – are you under the delusion that all parents are good teachers of morality?

            “There – that’s my moral objectivity in action and it knows that you don’t kill people simply because it’s not anyone’s place to take another life”

            Excellent! You are one of the few atheists I know who is anti-abortion. Thank you. 🙂 (Waiting for excuse-making now – “but the fetus cannot dunk a basketball, so he is not human.”)

            “I will reiterate one more time that all they are is three distinct opinions and not a rulebook for atheists.”

            You still have not told me why they are wrong. i think they are right.

            “They don’t even believe your God’s there, so there’s no one to borrow from.”

            Like you, and most atheists, they smuggle theistic objectivity into their conversations without even knowing it. They play both sides of the fence, because atheism is unlivable – in a consistent and coherent sense.

            “My son just told me he loves me.”

            Cute kid. But, his love for you matters not one whit in any ultimate cosmic sense, on atheism. In fact, on naturalism, you cannot even prove that love exists. Please provide scientific evidence for the existence of love. Love MUST be supernatural. Are you a supernaturalist yet? 🙂

            “That will be very interesting news to all the people currently living it. I see no one suffering from it.”

            Except for the 58 million pre-born humans since Roe v. Wade who have suffered for it.

            “you do not accept that I have no need of a God”

            For your life to be objectively meaningful, we have already seen that you DO need God.

            “that they are angry at God or hate him or whatever.”

            We have proof for that actually:

            http://winteryknight .com/2015/05/22/study-explores-whether-atheism-is-rooted-in-reason-or-emotion-3/#comments

            “At first glance, this finding seemed to reflect an error. How could people be angry with God if they did not believe in God? Reanalyses of a second dataset revealed similar patterns: Those who endorsed their religious beliefs as “atheist/agnostic” or “none/unsure” reported more anger toward God than those who reported a religious affiliation.”

  • Bryttany Nikole

    And out of the 2.1 Billion Islamics (Muslim) people, only 2% practice Sharia law.

    Wonder why the others don’t follow the minority?

    Could it be similar to Christianity where only 3% are far right wing hell bent on destroying individualism and independence for everyone, especially minorities.

    Christian version of Sharia law.

    • Omega Awareness

      Only 2%? That’s 42,000,000 muslims practicing sharia law. Also what is your source?

  • Bryttany Nikole

    Jesus was with God, Jesus adamantly stated he was not God, that he was the son of god, as was the rest of humanity.

    “Good Teacher, What must I do to have eternal life?” Jests replied, “Why do you call me good? For there in none good, but one, that is God.”

    “I do not do these things on my own, but by He who sent me.”

    “These words I speak are not my own, but the words of my Father in heaven.”

    Many many places in the Gospels where Jesus, himself, delineated himself as being a completely separate entity from God.

    “I will be seated at the right hand of power.”

    And especially Revelations 20 and 21.

    Jesus made sure to establish God above him, to pray to God, not him, to ensure that God was better than him.

    Thus by Jesus own testimony in the 4 Gospels, Jesus is not God.

  • Kerry Hall

    I’ve never argued that the points you make. The Constitution was, “THE PEOPLE’s” document to limit government… Anything above and beyond the Constitution is outside the authority the government has been given by US, The People. You really ought to read it sometimes. Especially the first line which tells you right off the bat who the document was from and then goes on to tell what it’s for. It really is a wonderful document , if you know what it says.

    • Elie Challita

      You’re kind of late to the party, but here goes:
      By striking down DOMA, and state-level laws such as the ones in Obergefell, SCOTUS essentially ruled that the government had overstepped itself by limiting marriage to heterosexual unions.

      Until a constitutional amendment reverts that, or a subsequent court overrules that verdict, any law preventing homosexual marriage is effectively null and void, and any provision limiting marriage licenses or marital benefits to heterosexual unions are similarly voided.