Religious Sanctuary Thread

Where should I start...

Ironically, the oldest reference to atheism I can locate is contained amongst the oldest of the Holy Bible's books, in a scripture purported to be authored by histories wisest individual, King Solomon, under the influence of the holy Spirit; " A fool in his heart says there is no God."

An appeal to an authoritarian text, as well as assuming the validity of Christianity over other religions.

From a secular humanist perspective. By this I'm meaning to address those atheists, such a s Joseph Stalin, who were responsible for the genocide of multiple tens of millions of human beings.

That's like me saying that because you're religious you're the same as fine, upstanding people like Pope Innocent III, Pius XII, Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, etc.

Atheism's greatest triumphs. For example; Communist China and the now quasi-defunct USSR, North Korea, Cuba, North Vietnam. What si the human rights records? How have the populations of these various countries fared under atheistic regimes?

Notable atheists:

Karl Marx, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Yasser Arafat, etc.

See above, although I would hardly put Marx in the same class as Stalin and Mao. Moreover, the U.S. and most democracies qualify as atheist, in that their leadership is explicitly secular. I could just as easily link theism to such marvelous countries as Pakistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Europe during the Dark Ages.

What does atheism have to offer? Truth? A truth that can nowhere be substantiated? But isn't that succinctly the atheist complaint against deity? Never once has the ghost of an atheist returned from the dead to proclaim in triumph "There is no God!"

It's known as Occam's Razor: don't make additional assumptions without evidence in favor of that assumption. If I wanted, I could believe the Moon was made of green cheese, and that the Moon landings were faked. But I don't, because there's no evidence for it.

Conversely, history ancient and modern is replete with chronicles of N.D.E.'s, with multitudes of individuals describing encountering an afterlife and the existence of God, and untold hundreds of millions have reportedly given witness to encounters with a divine creator as well as the angelic and demonic.

One of the requirements for an experiment to be considered valid is its reproducibility, i.e. another person can replicate it under controlled conditions and get the same results.

Freud used the abbreviated word "Id" in characterizing part of his view of the psychological make-up of the human persona representing 'self,' derived from the Greek word 'Idios', from which we get our modern word "idiot." Thus, self-centeredness is idiocy.

Point 1: meanings of words can change over time. For example, the word "hierarchy" literally means "sacred rule" in Greek, but now we use it to refer to a system of various ranks. Point 2: the word "idiot" comes from the Greek word "idios", which meant someone who didn't participate in politics. It literally means somethings like "without ideas"

My earlier words were described as ad hominem, which is unfortunate, and undeserved, and I'll be glad to go into further detail givng an account of the lifestyle of the atheists I've known closely, once myself being probably numbered amongst their ranks, althought I more accurately might have been described as an agnostic.

Your words were ad hominem. You were describing atheists you have known in unflattering terms, and by implication extending that description to every atheist.

The Holy Bible describes a Christian by their conduct, certainly, and it also describes what is not a Christian.

A Crhistian is someone who believes in Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of God. Frankly, there are so many different sects of Christianity who all believe wildly different things and claim exclusive possession of the truth, it's impossible to gene

 

Atheists - leave. I know this sounds horrible on my part, but I let you have a sanctuary thread and the religiosos stayed out, leaving you to discuss the issues that surrounded atheism and agnostic ideas, answering questions from neutral people or those just not "in the know."

If people want to make certain allegations, they can make them. If those same people seek outside input to clarify their statements, show them as right or wrong, then that is their perogative. It is not good form to come in and start shouting your opinions from the rooftops. The Atheist Sanctuary did beat up organized religions, but there have been no major flame wars or actions taken because of it. Has the Atheists' Sanctuary been left alone? Yes, it has.

Let those who want to talk about religion talk about religion in this thread, who want to talk about the negative aspect of atheism in their lives. It is their sanctuary. You have yours, let them have theirs.

If you have questions, comments or concerns, PM me. Do Not Complain About My Policy In This Thread.

 

Persecution, at least as far back as the early Church in ancient Rome.

Sorry but, if you take the Bible as a historic book also, you will note that non-religious or atheist people persecuted and attacked religious people way before the Romans. The church as we know it was instituted after Jesus's death, but the Jews had a form of church which existed almost from the beginning, and it has been persecuted since.

Also it is curious to me how atheists claim to be moral, when morality needs a parting point, who makes up the atheist morality if it not a christian morality or point of view?, because all morality as it exists today started from one source, and that is the Bible/God, so if atheists claim to be moral without acknowledging the existence of God, then who/what do they use as their reference point?, to me that proves what was said before, that atheism CANNOT exist without theism and therefore is self-defeating.

 

there are so many different sects of Christianity who all believe wildly different things and claim exclusive possession of the truth, it's impossible to generalize any further

WRONG! denominations, not sects, also these denominations believe wildly in the same things, not differently, the differences are of preference or interpretation, but the basic belief and root is the same, and such differences, while minor, are the such as prophesy, song, speaking in tongues, etc. which are of minor consecuence, which even the Bible states as being, the truly important and basic belief is Jesus, and since He encompasses everything, then we believe in the same.

 

Catholic Church.

Would you be willing to include our beliefs in that statement?

 

My statement? Sorry but when i mentioned Jesus, i was including all Jesus believing people, not separating anyone, sorry if it seemed that way.

 

Very well then.

.

 

Okay first of all I am religious(or at least spiritual) however I am not Christian and I was an atheist about 2.5 years ago.

Or how about my atheist history teacher who constantly says to the whole class "And if you believe there is a god, then you're just wrong, and you need to get over yourself."

Did you try complaining to your school? Cause that's really...not right.

Let's face it, most drug dealers aren't religious.
The vast majority of rapists aren't religious.
The vast majority of murderers aren't religious.
Well, for simplicity's sake, lets say in fairness, the vast majority of criminals across the board aren't "religious," at least not going into the Bighouse.
Prisons in America aren't known for the piety of their inmates.

Not meaning to be insulting, but are there any facts to back that up? As far as I know no one has ever bothered to take a survey of prison inmate's religion. Although that would be interesting if you do know of one...

Practically speaking, if you were on the inner city street alone at night and a group of young men were walking your way, can you truthfully say that if you knew they were a part of a Christian association you wouldn't feel safer?

Of course you would.

Actually no, no I wouldn't, I don't think it would make one bit of difference.

Also it is curious to me how atheists claim to be moral, when morality needs a parting point, who makes up the atheist morality if it not a christian morality or point of view?, because all morality as it exists today started from one source, and that is the Bible/God, so if atheists claim to be moral without acknowledging the existence of God, then who/what do they use as their reference point?

When I was an atheist, I looked in side myself, thought about various things, observed the world, and came up with what I believed in my heart to be right and wrong, moral and immoral. Interestingly enough, some of my theist friends thought my morals were too high. Oh and I believe other people have said what atheists use as their starting point for morality is...common sense. I don't need a Bible to tell me what is right and wrong, I can figure out what I believe in my heart to be right and wrong. Interstingly enough, my morals haven't changed very much since I became a theist(about 2.5 years ago). And my morals aren't based on any religious scripture since my religion has no religious texts.

 

Hi Cailina, i think you didn't interpret my point correctly, see, your morality comes from an influence, a point of view, a certain "inyection" of morality from other sources, just go to a different country and you will see different "morality", so yours was influenced. So if your morality was influenced, from a country which believes in God, for the most part, then your atheist morality did come from Christians, or a Christian point of view. Take away christianity or any religion and atheists are left with nothing, put a person on an island where there is no influence and you will see an example of atheist morality, there would basically be none. Create an atheist country and what will you get? no morality, the USSR was destroyed because the people were seeking religious freedom, the US was created because of the same, because humans have a need, and religion fulfills that need. But don't misinterpret Political Correctness with morality, they are NOT related, and atheists use PC as morality.

 

1997 prison figures:


By Rod Swift
I have expanded the figures to provide a % of the total respondents, and I have ranked them (they were presented to me alphabetically). These stats were obtained from their computer on 5 March 1997.


Dear Mr. Swift:

The Federal Bureau of Prisons does have statistics on religious
affiliations of inmates. The following are total number of
inmates per religion category:

Response Number %
---------------------------- --------
Catholic 29267 39.164%
Protestant 26162 35.008%
Muslim 5435 7.273%
American Indian 2408 3.222%
Nation 1734 2.320%
Rasta 1485 1.987%
Jewish 1325 1.773%
Church of Christ 1303 1.744%
Pentecostal 1093 1.463%
Moorish 1066 1.426%
Buddhist 882 1.180%
Jehovah Witness 665 0.890%
Adventist 621 0.831%
Orthodox 375 0.502%
Mormon 298 0.399%
Scientology 190 0.254%
Atheist 156 0.209%
Hindu 119 0.159%
Santeria 117 0.157%
Sikh 14 0.019%
Bahai 9 0.012%
Krishna 7 0.009%
---------------------------- --------
Total Known Responses 74731 100.001% (rounding to 3 digits does this)

Unknown/No Answer 18381
----------------------------
Total Convicted 93112 80.259% (74731) prisoners' religion is known.

Held in Custody 3856 (not surveyed due to temporary custody)
----------------------------
Total In Prisons 96968


I hope that this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Denise Golumbaski
Research Analyst
Federal Bureau of Prisons

From this page:

The results of the Christians vs atheists
in prison investigation

 

personally i'd like to see in here how atheists and non religious types have emotionally scarred you guys, or just made your life difficult by ramming their non religion down your throat unprovoked.

Ariana, good call.

They speak of Christians trying to ram religion down their throats, while doing precisely the same to the religiously minded here.

Uh, excuse me for one sec? If you're going to say something about cydonia, then why not just direct it at cydonia? Sound fair?

Do me a favor, find me any post in the non religious sanctuary where i've told a christian who decided to post there that i didn't want them there. One post.

Also, since i will be just reading and not posting, could you go into detail about why my simple comment/question is so unreasonable? Thanks.

cydonia out.

 

So if your morality was influenced, from a country which believes in God, for the most part, then your atheist morality did come from Christians, or a Christian point of view.

I really don't think so...considering the differences between my atheistic morality and the Christian point of view I really don't think my atheist morality came from Christians. It just doesn't make sense.

But don't misinterpret Political Correctness with morality, they are NOT related, and atheists use PC as morality.

Okay let's give an example. When I was an atheist I viewed animal life as equal to human life(still do for that matter), and if I could avoid killing an animal I would therefor I didn't(and don't) eat meat. I would likewise only kill a human if I needed to for self-defense or some such thing. Explain to me how that is either PC or influenced from Chrisian morality....I just don't get it.

 

i would just like to point out two things, one that in the Atheist Sanctuary Thread there has been repeated interaction from mainly christian posters, so dont go saying its just for those of us who don't believe in gods or other religious manisfestations.
Secondly that thread was created mainly because of the sheer number of christian related threads in this forum, and the whole point of the sancutuary is to redress this imbalance and keep this forum open to all, not just christian americans...you guys already have like a dozen active religious threads alone on the front page, its alittle rich saying you need sanctuary, its like sending food aid to Canada, totally redundant and a political gesture

 

The opening post has been changed because it was just wrong. Not everything has been changed, just things toned down.


I'd also like to openly and honestly discuss specific individuals personally known, who were self professed atheists. I've never met a superlatively moral atheist, although I've known quite a few who put up a very respectable front, but were truthfully adulterers, drug abusers, alcoholics, philandering hedonists with little true regard for fellow human beings beyond using them for purposes of self-interest. Yes, I have a number of former friends and acquaintances in mind with these words. Business associates who dressed impeccably, with well groomed cuticles, $200 dollar imported leather footwear, and a friendly broad smile, who'd throw their own mother into a sack full of agitated rattlesnakes if the price was right, and destroy coworkers for far less. - I intend to argue this later. I'd say you are using hyperbole to propogate a stereotype.

 

I see this is turning into a debate...so much for the Santuary. And no, I've never gone into the non-relgious sanctuary thread to debate an issue.

 

I am wondering, is this truly a "Religious" sanctuary thread, or is it a Christian sanctuary thread?

 

This is a religious sanctuary. All religions are welcome, even those that clash (Christianity and, say, Satanism). It is to discuss your beliefs, your troubles with them and find strenght and, haha, sanctuary with others like you.

 

IMHO, it doesn't even have to be a "religion" sanctuary thread, because that implies organized religion. It should simply be, in my opinion, the "Theist" thread. Believe that a God exists? Come here!! That's MY belief on what this thread should be.

 

1st AD,
This thread was intended for inclusion of any individual adhering to theistic belief systems who wishes to comment, not just Christians alone.


I am a Christian, so it is to be expected that I will be speaking from that stance. If we were speaking about murder, then I'd probably cite relevent quotes from the Holy Bible. A Moslem would be free to cite from the Koran. Ad infinitum.


I'm interested in the areas of commonality between the faiths regarding various specific topics.

I don't want it to turn into a Christian versus Moslem versus Mormon, etcetera. Rather, that it be an exploration on topics from our common perspectives, or from a standpoint of civilly explaining any divergencies the various faiths have such as might be discussed while exploring capitol punishment for example.

 

Lord Bane,

Firstly, I wouldn't address you publicly, so to speak, but the vast majority of your comments have been made in this arena.




Your words-"The opening post has been changed because it was just wrong. Not everything has been changed, just things toned down."




"Toned down." No problem, so long as it's judiciously impartial and fair across the board. It's my intention to obey the guidelines as outlined per my agreement in gaining access to this forum. I only expect everyone to be kept to the same standards applied to me, in the name of consistent integrity.


"Just wrong." By what standard? I've come from my perspective having been an agnostic the first 27 or so years of my life, raised in an agnostic environment, and having only non-religious friends as well as the majority of my family members and business associates up until that time.

I'm coming from a religio-ethical perspective as outlined by the doctrines of my faith.
There is no debate here according to my faith. This discussion precludes the necessity of any debate involving apologetics, which is partially the explicit intention of this forum.






Your words-" I intend to argue this later. I'd say you are using hyperbole to propagate a stereotype"







What is your particular brand of religion? Which is the faith you devotedly adhere to in your day to day life?

You may be the moderator, and your job may entail moderating this thread for infractions of policy, but unless you are religious you really have no business posting in this thread. Or is it that moderators are extended the partiality of a bully's carte blanche?



(I only say this because you seem really agitated by this thread, and intent on undermining it's specific intention, while apologizing to the atheist vanguard, who imposed their presence in here, for asking them to respect the purpose of this thread. All the while skirting the perimeter of TF.N's forum policy guidelines it would appear. Your tacit and overt actions seemingly raise questions as to the integrity of your position, simultaneously placing yourself between TF.N and their standardized policy. I can offer further clarification if it pleases.)




Also, my opinions and personal experiences are not "JUST WRONG," and my opinions and experiences are not yours to give to me, and definitely aren't up for debate by you with me.

And how do you intend to "ARGUE" my opinions and experiences?

From a religious standpoint how are you going to tell me I'm wrong when the verses contained in the Epistles and Gospels in my Holy Bible tell me I'm right? The Pentateuch also confirms this as truth, further buttressed by the Koran.


You've referred to my personal experiences as "HYPERBOLE," suggesting nothing you could attempt to argue could be very substantial or particularly valid. I mean, you just single-handedly attempted to invalidate my contributing experiences, with absolutely no actual justification in fact or reality for doing so.

Your own earlier comments edited into my post demanded facts be presented, then edited out my comments based on the facts of my personal experiences.



HAVING SAID ALL THAT, YOUR SUPPOSITIONAL ARGUMENT

The First Commandment is [from Exodus chapter 20], " I am the LORD thy GOD....thou shalt have no other gods before me."

"...visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me."(Obvious in application.)


"Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy GOD in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain."(Again, obvious.)

"Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy."(an atheist cannot possibly keep this while denying the existence of God.)

"Thou shalt not bear false witness..." (Certainly, if there is a God, and there is, then the atheist is breaking this law in denying deity.)


From the doctrinal standpoint of at least Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the highest moral conviction is the acknowledgment and worship of God, and upon

 

Lord Bane,

Additionally,


I'm in here interested in discussions that defeat atheism, not in debating and defeating atheists. You might say this isn't a level playingfield, to which I can only say this was never intended to be a thread operating from the basis of a secularly socio-mythological standpoint.

Later, it's my intention, depending on how the cards fall, to discuss 19th and 20th century philosophers and to show the motivation of their pontificating on atheism was for paychecks, noteriety, and properly that the endeavor was to dispense with traditional morality to quasi-justify
their own personal lifestyles. Aldous Huxley has my greatest admiration for publicly being on record admitting to these motivations.



The intrinsic intellectual dishonesty in atheism is easy to spot; being that they assume there is no proof for deity so they then proceed to intellectually contridict themselves by asserting their belief in no deity is rational when there is no proof that there isn't deity. It's really a flimsy construct at best. They assert that disavowel of deity has the single greatest merit of "truth", while they cannot positively ascertain that it is the "truth."
Therefore, it's a sort of pick and choose decision at best. They can argue all day long that since there is no God to disprove, it is irrational to expect them to verifiably disprove the existence of God, but that still doesn't negate the validity of my words. It falls into the realm of saying," There is no absolute truth." It self destructs. The speakers assertion contridicts the premise. So does atheism.


Agnosticism, on the other hand is more openly rational. It's an open question, not a firm denial without qualification.
The agnostic doesn't say, as does the atheist, "There is no God!" The agnostic doesn't attempt to rely upon an unsustainable construct.





An atheist by would be hard pressed to rationally explain a belief in love without undoing their intellectual integrity. Any standard that can be applied to love can be applied to God so far as I know.



(The easter bunny is an example given in defense of their assertion, however, the easter bunny can certainly be disproven. It is a historical fiction that can be traced historically to it's origin.
If we use history as our guide in attempts to disproving God in the same way, we can only come up with more credible information in favor of the possibility of the existence of God.)





You see, if you leave me alone to play with my blocks, I think I can offer some interesting 'fodder' for the atheists who occasionally venture in and read this, while they will also feel free not to expend invaluable energy debating me, as they will soon see my resoluteness as merely symptomatic of my "invincible ignorance".

If what they say is true, then they can rest easy that I'm merely effacing myself with each subsequent post.

Could they say it any better?

 

Well i guess i can post here being that i am an agnostic and not an athiest.

Brooks- by your logic wouldn't agnostisism be the best way of thinking because we do not know if there is or there isnt a god?
There is no way of proving the existence of a god just like there is no way truly disproving it. Also there is no way of cocluding that one religion is the only truth. So this leads to agnostisism.

I do believe in something, but i realize that my puny human brain cannot begin to comprehend what this force, god whatever youd like to call it, would be. If ther is an alll powerful force that created everything, I dont find it reasonably possible that mankind would be able to undersatnd it. That is what religion does, it attempts to do this imppossible task.

 

Sleazo( don't like calling you that),

Yeah. I wrote a little on my view of agnostics above, which agrees with your own words.

However, I don't subscribe to the idea that "truth" is unknowable.

The approach of agnositicism is legitimately rational to my understanding. It is absolute truth to admit what one doesn't know a certain fact at a given time.

Understanding that much, that absolute truths do exist in at least temporal fluidity, I was still left with the knowledge absolute truths exist in reality.

When I was younger I was agnostic, realizing my limitations. Generally having no bone to pick with God, I certainly didn't know if the Creator was really existant and living, never having encountered anything I personally ascertained to be conclusive evidence, up to that point.

Conceptually, I had to concede God certainly existed on at least some levels. Real in the thoughts and actions of those adhering to world faiths. In the same conceptual sense that the Easter Bunny and Santa Clause exist.
Which is to concede fictional nouns have at least that much existence.


Therefore, I was left with the knowledge that absolute truths do exist and are knowable, and that on at least some intellectual levels the concept of God is real.


I certainly couldn't verify that God didn't exist somewhere. Heck, I didn't even bother to completely memorize the entire periodic table, meaning only that my knowledge was incomplete even on information presented to me during my early education.

I also understood that I safely took for granted that some nouns existed despite the fact I'd no personal experiential knowledge. For instance, an historical figure like Julius Ceaser, or a nation such as Japan. Knowing that men could be, and often are liars, the only way I could possibly resolutely verify that there was such a country as Japan was to journey there myself.

Therefore, I realized that there was definitely grounds for trusting that human beings didn't lie all the time and could prove to be reliable witnesses. Such that people who claimed to hear from God could actually be telling the complete, accurate, and whole truth. That possibility existed.

My entire educational experience was generally built on the back of dead people and the knowledge they reliably passed on from generation to generation; algebra, for instance.


I mean, there's a whole universe out there and I've never even been anywhere except planet Earth, and then my personal experiences are very limited spacially and temporally. I don't possess all knowledge of just this planet's history, geography, flora, fauna, etcetera. And, if I did possess that total knowledge, I'd then have wisdom to learn, ad infinitum. Basically, I haven't been all places at all times.


Point being, I could never tell anyone with a straight face that the absolute truth is that there is no existant and living God apart from merely a conceptual identity. To have offered that as "absolute truth" to someone would have made me an 'absolute liar.'



Agnositicism seemed the only answer on my part that could be 'absolutely truthful' and correct from my understandings.
The plain "truth" was that I didn't have any verifiable proof to offer "truth" on the subject.


"Hard Atheism" was simply a fallible construct created by fallible men. Since that was philosophically undone, there is sparkling brand new "soft atheism." Some people don't know when to quit.



A couple of years ago I had an ongoing debate with an atheist that lasted over a month and a half. I warned him going in that eventually he'd have his back against the wall, and that he couldn't support his atheism. Incredibly bright fellow, intellectual no doubt my better, but he made some glaring oversights. I told him to begin with I couldn't defeat an agnostic position out rightly, suggesting he change his stance from hardline atheism. We both agreed from the onset to adhere to certain conditions and to swallow any pride when it came to conceeding defeat. Eventually, I had him down to a single question,

 

You make some pretty good points. I agree that hard athiesm is flawed, but i also think that hard theists are flawed for the exact same reasons that you mentioned.

As for god being a benevolent being, i would tend to believe that god is neither good nor evil, these are human constructs, and to attribute good or evil to god is to anthropomorphize god(im trying not to use he or she here as well, so that is the reason for my redundant use of the word god). The resons you give for god's benevolence can be attributeed as the byproducts of the evolution of homo sapiens sapiens.

My major problem is with the person who believes that their religion is the only truth and that all others are flawed. The fact is that there is no way of knowing which particular religion is right if any.

I also have problems with religions that seperates man from nature. Not only does this do a great disservice to all of the other creatures which are living, but it also hinders our ablity to know ourselves.



I m glad this thread is becoming less hostile. There is also agray area where agnostics fit, so we should be allowed to post in both of the sanctuaries. I just hope this does not turn into a purely Christian place, like alot of the threads around here.
I 'll be back on monday, im going home from work.
Peace



Oh and its okay to call me sleazo, all my friends do.
It doesnt offend me, if you want to know the full reasons behind it pm me and i'll give you a pg version

 

Wow, Brooks, you proved me way off in your other thread. All of my "generalizations" were just sick, weren't they? Now I understand why you couldn't anwer my question over there: I asked for a Christian to "answer by using at least some part of human intelligence when you respond," or something similar.

I've gathered many, many quotes from this thread which you wrote before insulting me. I can't believe how far off my "insults" from that other thread go. And I know that you won't read any of these, because you'll probably just run from the problem again, instead of offering any intelligent, NON-INFLAMATORY material. Pathetic.

"According to the pertinent doctrine of these faiths, no atheist could possibly be moral, being all true morality is built upon concepts of deity."

You represent your faith flawlessly, Brooks. How could anyone get the idea that Christians are ego-maniacle braggarts that hold themselves up much higher than others? You obviously don't believe in such silly ideas as those atheists, because they can't prove a single word what they say. What a distant step to find you right behind them. Brooks, you are a very dim man, and quite the coward, for condenming me after you had written much worse and more blatant insults and generalizations.

"What sense in my trying to convince the atheist that his/her 'religion/world view' is wrong?"

I know, Brooks! I'm sure if an atheist tried to ask you any serious questions about your religion, you'd respond right away! Somehow I don't see you just scampering off to lock any thread like that!

"1.) Some of you didn't entirely read the initial post above, or simply ignored my intent as expressed."

Wait, what kind of people would skip entire posts because they might possibly contain flames? Who are these creatures?

"As suggested by my comments, basically I just mirrored what I saw in the other sanctuary."

I don't believe for a second you could be capable of such a thing, Brooks. Not for a second...

"I'm certain there are some 'good' atheists."

PROPOSTOROUS! HOW COULD THAT BE? Oh, I see, you said "I'm certain..." which could be read as "but maybe there really aren't..." Phew! Glad you stuck that in there, 'cause everyone knows those wacky atheists are all about death, destruction, and anarchy... but now I'm just repeating the obvious, right?

"A fool in his heart says there is no God."

"Why does something so simple seem to elude you?"

FLAME! FLAME! Fla--- oh, all right, I won't point this obvious insult out to you, just as long as it's directed at one of those atheists...

"You believe in materialism. There's a natural universe, it's material, and that's it. Well, we both certainly believe there is a material universe.
Beyond that you believe in nothing."

Well, it's good to see that somebody around here doesn't try to always try to read other's minds, or ignorantly portray them as bad guys, eh? I can't see why non-Christians would ever label you hypocritical, self-absorbed, or arrogant, you obviously don't criticize anyone else for doing the exact same thing you just did, do you, Brooks? Naahhh...

"Though it must be understood, not all atheists are mass murders. Some are truly upstanding individuals."

Some are good guys? Some? I would perhaps write "Most." Your priests are molesting children, and you cannot deny that! So should I say "Catholic priests are molesting children, but you have to remember that some of the ones left are good, right?"
No, of course I can't say that! That would suddenly make me just a stupid troublemaker just to be ignored.

"Is atheism a moral evil? Considering the first Commandment... the answer is yes."

That almost insinuates that the people who are atheist are... No, couldn't be!

"Atheism seems to derive itself in personal incorporation from either despondency, rebellion, or mere self-interest. ...from which we get our mod