Ways to Attack Atheism!!!

[holyspirit]

Ways to Attack Atheism

By asking questions

Atheism is an intellectual position. What reasons do you have for holding that position? Your reasons are based upon logic and/or evidence or lack of it. So, is there any reason/evidence for you holding your position that you defend?

If you say that atheism needs no evidence or reason, then you are holding a position that has no evidence or rational basis? If so, then isn't that simply faith?

If you say that atheism is supported by the lack of evidence for God, then it is only your opinion that there is no evidence. You cannot know all evidence for or against God, therefore you cannot say there is no evidence for God.
If you say that atheism needs no evidence to support it because it is a position about the lack of something, then do you have other positions you hold based upon lack of evidence...like say, screaming blue ants? Do you hold the position that they do not exist or that you lack belief in them, too?

By using logic

How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God? The laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute, they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute). So, how do you account for them?

This approach is a bit more complicated. If you use this one, first be familiar with The Christian Worldview, the Atheist Worldview, and Logic.
First of all, when using logic, you should be familiar with basic laws of logic and logical fallacies. It is very useful to point out the various logical fallacies to atheists as they commit them. Therefore, please be familiar with Logical Fallacies or Fallacies in Argumentation.

The laws of logic are conceptual by nature and are always true all the time everywhere. They are not physical properties. How do atheists account for them from an atheist perspective?
Everything that was brought into existence was caused to exist. Can you have an infinite regression of causes? No, since to get to "now" you'd have to traverse an infinite past. It seems that there must be a single uncaused cause.

Why can't that be God?
Examples of logical absolutes:

Examples of logical absolutes are: something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time (Law of non-contradiction). A thing is what it is (Law of identity). A statement is either true or false (Law of excluded middle). These are simple, absolute logical absolutes.

If atheism is true: The universe has laws. These laws cannot be violated. Life is a product of these laws and can only exists in harmony with those laws and is governed by them. Therefore, human thought, feelings, etc., are programmed responses to stimuli and the atheist cannot legitimately claim to have meaning in life.

Human constructs?

If the laws of logic are human constructs then how can they be absolute since humans think differently and often contradictorily? If they are produced from human minds, and human minds are mutually contradictory, then how can the constructs be absolute? Therefore, the laws of logic are not human constructs.

The Universe exists
The universe exists. Is it eternal or did it have a beginning? It could not be eternal since that would mean that an infinite amount of time had to be crossed to get to the present. But, you cannot cross an infinite amount of time (otherwise it wouldn't be infinite). Therefore, the universe had a beginning. Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence.

What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it. The Bible promotes this sufficient cause as God. What does atheism offer instead of God? If nothing, then atheism is not able to account for our own existence.
The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old.

Uncaused Cause
Objection: If something cannot bring itself into existence, then God cannot exist since something had to bring God into existence. Answer: Not so. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes lest an infinity be crossed (which cannot happen). Therefore, there must be a single uncaused, cause.
All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that did not come into existence.

Responding to Atheist Statements about God
"I lack belief in a God."
If you say that atheism is simply lack of belief in a god, then my cat is an atheist the same as the tree outside and the sidewalk out front, since they also lack faith. Therefore, your definition is insufficient.
Lacking belief is a non-statement because you have been exposed to the concept of God and have made a decision to accept or reject. Therefore, you either believe there is a God, or you do not, or you are agnostic. You cannot remain in a state of "lack of belief."
If you lack belief in God, then why do you go around attacking the idea of God? If you also lack belief in invisible pink unicorns, why don't you go around attacking that idea?

"I believe there is no God."
On what basis do you believe there is no God?
"I don't believe there is a God."
Why don't you believe there is no God?
"There is no God."
You cannot logically state that there is no God because you cannot know all things so as to determine that there is no God.

"There is no proof that God exists"
To say "there is no proof for God's existence" is illogical because an atheist cannot know all things by which he could state that there is no proof. He can only say he has not yet seen a convincing proof; after all, there may be one he hasn't yet seen.

"All of Science has never found any evidence for God."
That is a subjective statement. There are many scientists who affirm evidence for God's existence through science.

Your presupposition is that science has no evidence for God, but that is only an opinion.

Science looks at natural phenomena through measuring, weighing, seeing, etc. God, by definition, is not limited to the universe. Therefore, it would not be expected that physical detection of God would be found.

"What is God?" or "Define God."

God is the only Supreme Being who is unchanging, eternal, holy, and Trinitarian in nature. He alone possesses the attributes of omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence. He alone brought the universe into existence by the exertion of His will.

"Prove your God is real."

I can no more prove to you that God is real than I can prove to you that I love my family. If you are convinced I don't love my family, no matter what I say or do will be dismissed by you as invalid. It is your presuppositions that are the problem, not whether or not God exists.

I can no more prove to you that God is real than you can prove that the universe is all that exists. Your demand of proof precludes acknowledgement of many types of evidence because your presuppositions don't allow it.
The universe exists. It is not infinitely old. If it were it would have run out of energy long ago. Therefore, it had a beginning. The universe did not bring itself into existence. Since it was brought into existence by something else, I assert that God is the one who created the universe.

When the atheist complains, ask him to logically explain the existence of the universe. Point out that opinions and guesses don't count.
Responding to Atheist Statements about the Bible

"The Bible is full of contradictions."
Saying the Bible is full of contradictions does not mean it is so. Can you provide a contradiction that we can examine in context? There are many websites that address alleged contradictions. Here is one: www.carm.org.
Responding to Atheist Statements about Evolution and Naturalism

"Evolution is a fact."

That depends on if it is micro or macro. Micro variations occur, but macro variations (speciation) have not been observed. The best we have are fossils and they have to be interpreted. Besides, there are plenty of gaps in the fossil record.

Have you read any books that discuss the contrary evidence to evolution? If not, then how can you say you are educated enough to say it is a fact?
"Naturalism is true; therefore, there is no need for God."
Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. If all things were explainable through natural laws, it does not mean God does not exist since God is, by definition, outside of natural laws since He is the creator of them.
Responding to Atheist Statements about Truth

"There are no absolute truths."

To say there are no absolute truths is an attempt to state an absolute truth. If your statement is true, then it is self-contradictory and not true, and you are wrong.

http://i1007.photobucket.com/albums/af196/HolySpirit3/bizarro_atheists1228979950.jpg?t=1272143955

http://thehelper.faithweb.com/HolySpirit.htm

[amethyst2009]

Why would you want to attack it? if you do not believe in atheism, then just ignore it, as I ignore religion.

[shankers]

Interesting thread.

I like the line of thinking concerning the origin of the laws of logic; I don't come across this one every day.

The laws of logic are not physical, as you say, so they do not need to be 'created'. They could, though, be 'human' in their origin if one sees them not so much as conceptual information in terms of discrete entities, as in on the Lockean notion of concepts as 'ideas' (quasi-reified things in one's mind), but as 'tools' to use in a Wittgensteinian 'language game'. As such, logical 'laws' will only be around so long as they use them.

Logical laws are 'absolute' in the sense that they are fundamental- they admit neither of radical subjectivity, nor of relativity. This is because they are preconditions of all other types of thought. In every culture everybody subscribes to laws such as p, therefore not not-p, or 'a triangle has three sides'. If one said a triangle has two sides, then you would not know what a triangle was. Human minds vary at the socio-cultural level, not at the logical level.

The issue of evidence is interesting, for the blue ants example shows atheists are quite unusual. However, nobody is claiming the existence of the blue ants. Even if their existence was being claimed, it would not be significant. Wars are not fought over it. Worldviews are not shaped in that way. The significance of the existence of God and the corollories of such affect every aspect of how we live, from wars, to medical ethics, to the culture of the societies in which we live. Atheism, then, takes a significant stand on these issues.

More challenging is the philosophical argument pertaining to infinite regression, otherwise known as the cosmological argument. Either there is an infinite regression of cause and effects/potentiality and actuality/ energy, or there is a God which stops the inifinite regression by starting off the causal chain. Such an argument can be traced back to Muslim thinkers who adapted the work of Aristotle. This is a compelling argument for the existence of a Being, but this could easily be the non-interventionist, deistic Prime Mover of Aristotle, or the deistic god of Hume and Flew. On the other hand, why posit a denial of an infinite regression? Moreover, who created God? Is an eternal being coherent? How can an eternal being interact with a temporal strand?

[mephibosheth]

A state of non-belief in God or any other fictional character is the default for human beings. God is not something a human beings can simply open their eyes and perceive, like the sun in the sky. People are not born with an innate knowledge of the existence of a thing they understand as 'God'. Thus, the only real question here is for believers--why do they believe in God, why do they choose to believe in such a concept? For, in all honesty, any person who lacks a belief in a 'god' only need to respond to the question of 'why don't you believe??' with 'why should I?' To which there is no truly absolute and robust answer.



By asking questions


LOL, as soon as questions get asking, theists fall to pieces or retreat to the mantric repetition of dogma. But hey, no human has all the answers. At least atheists, if they are rational, will never refuse the inquisitive spirit or deny the path of knowledge through continual questioning and revision of beliefs. Unlike theists, who often simply come to a point where they must vehemently protest that not only are certain questions invalid, but the whole process of questioning itself is invalid.



If you say that atheism is supported by the lack of evidence for God, then it is only your opinion that there is no evidence.


There is no evidence, only heresay, speculation, and spurious deductions from questionable premises. That is why theists cling to their belief through faith. And why logicians are not automatically theists.



If you say that atheism needs no evidence to support it because it is a position about the lack of something, then do you have other positions you hold based upon lack of evidence...like say, screaming blue ants? Do you hold the position that they do not exist or that you lack belief in them, too?


Atheism may also be a position that asserts that theism is false. For example, if there was a cult of the blue ants, whose main belief was that 'blue ants exist', an a-blue-antist need only assert that 'blue ants exist is false', with their support being that there are, in fact, no blue ants anywhere in existence, that is, that the existence of blue ants cannot be demonstrated; in short, that the premise 'blue ants exist' cannot be shown to be true. Now, if a blue ant should appear in some corner of the universe, such an a-blue-antist would have to reject their position and accept the truth of the blue ant premise. No doubt that should God be shown to exist, atheists would correspondingly adjust their beliefs, if they were rational, of course.



By using logic


Something theists tend to shy away from.




How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God?


A million other ways.

The supposition of 'God' is certainly not the only, nor the most evident, nor the most reasonable, nor the most efficient, nor the most simple, nor the default, explanation for any law that we observe about reality, logical or not.



The laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute, they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute). So, how do you account for them?


How does God account for them?

Seriously, asking atheists to solve the mystery of existence isn't a realistic or reasonable method of 'attacking' their position. Theists can't answer such questions either except for the vague assertion that 'God made it that way', which is clearly uninformative.

No doubt very clever and insightful philosophers have suggested answers to this question that do not involve a god-being at the source. But there is also the possibility that such a question can't be anwsered or that it isn't even coherent in the first place.




Therefore, please be familiar with Logical Fallacies or Fallacies in Argumentation.


Theists practically argue exclusively through logical fallacies, so this is a bit of a joke, I take it.



Everything that was brought into existence was caused to exist. Can you have an infinite regression of causes? No, since to get to "now" you'd have to traverse an infinite past. It seems that there must be a single uncaused cause.

Why can't that be God?


Why should it be 'God'?

Meanwhile, there is nothing wrong with an infinite regression, except that is defies human understanding. So just because we can't wrap our heads around infinity, why should we try to create in its stead something that is easier for us to understand, even if it isn't supported by any evidence whatsoever? Just to ease our minds perhaps?

Meanwhile again, there is no reason to assert that there must be a 'single' uncaused cause. Why not an infinite number of them all occuring simultaneously, or occuring periodically relative to one another. Should we postulate an infinite series of 'gods' behind them all?



If atheism is true: The universe has laws.


How does this follow?

Is it atheism's primary assertion that 'the universe has laws'?

Laws, afterall, are human constructs, not parts of the universe. They are an attempt by our intellect to explain and communicate patterns we observe, nothing more. And the more we come to know about the universe, the less these seem to be truly 'absolute' and the more room for deviation and surprises emerges.



These laws cannot be violated. Life is a product of these laws and can only exists in harmony with those laws and is governed by them. Therefore, human thought, feelings, etc., are programmed responses to stimuli and the atheist cannot legitimately claim to have meaning in life.


False.

You don't need God to create meaning or values. In fact, if one accepts that human beings, by virtue of the type of beings they are, are the source of values and meaning, then one sees oneself as responsible for establishing meaning in a world that is, in itself, meaningless. Hence, the responsibility of free human consciousness is great, for it is the vehicle through which value arises in the world, and only by virtue of those 'laws' that make humans what they are. And, as such, a human that accepts a world for which there is no meaning assigned is also justified. For the source of the creation of a thing may either produce such a thing profusely and fill the world with it, or not at all. Those that choose not to create value or accept the repsonsibility for creating value (and look to some external source to provide it, in vain), will thus live in a world without value.


Etc, etc...

The burden of proof is on the theist, not the atheist or the normal human being born into the world that has no concept of a 'god'.

And there isn't a single argument generated by a theist to this day that is perfectly convincing and utterly irrefutable or self-evident. The only argument that has, imho, promise, is the ontological argument.

But even so, such an argument supposes a being that might be labelled 'God' but that is as far from the typical theist's idea of 'God' as a pink unicorn. In other words, philosophy and science might provide grounds for believing in some kind of divinity, but not in any particular version. They will never, for instance, come to the conclusion that 'Jesus is God' as opposed to 'Allah is One' or something similar.

8)

[innerlight]

unfortunate that christians always have to fight against something. usually its themselves, then its atheism, then its muslims...then its......never ending

[shankers]

Burden of proof is definitely with the theist; theists are making extraordinary claims.

[actaeons_revenge]

That cartoon picture would actually be accurate if they responded "We're nihilists" instead.

[michael christopher]

Why do you give a shit if someone's an atheist? Look in the other direction. It's none of your business what other people believe unless they're trying to shove their bullshit down your throat - like you are.

[octopusrex]

My favorite way to attack atheism:

Where Is Suki? Peyote Way Church - YouTube

[energi]

My favorite way to attack atheism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6smfRZZlp_8

Yup :D

[infidelyork]

My favorite way to attack atheism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6smfRZZlp_8

How is a video of random pictures an attack on atheism?

[rhydra]

How to attack atheism, join a church, burn a few old ladies who just might be witches(they have cats you know), frequent with dodgy priests who run orphanages for prepubescent children, ignore anything rational and attack scientific evidence, believe that some geezer came back from the dead (plagiarised from numerous Greek and other regional belief of the region) and imagine that there will be some sort of reward and punishment after death so you should jolly well do what you are told when you are alive. Blame everything bad you do on the devil, great excuse for naughtiness.;)

Then again that might not be a good way to attack it!:D

[infidelyork]

Then again that might not be a good way to attack it!:D

It makes as much sense as a video of random pictures....

[ben87]

How to attack atheism, join a church, burn a few old ladies who just might be witches(they have cats you know), frequent with dodgy priests who run orphanages for prepubescent children,ignore anything rational and attack scientific evidence, believe that some geezer came back from the dead (plagiarised from numerous Greek and other regional belief of the region) and imagine that there will be some sort of reward and punishment after death so you should jolly well do what you are told when you are alive. Blame everything bad you do on the devil, great excuse for naughtiness.;)

Then again that might not be a good way to attack it!:D

Good post!

[ben87]

holyspirit=gimp

[drooh]

holyspirit=gimp

I'm an athiest/humanist with a grasp for logical fallacies.

This here was a non-sequitur/ad hominem variant am I right? ;)

[lifeofbrian]

Ways to Attack Atheism

By asking questions

Atheism is an intellectual position. What reasons do you have for holding that position? Your reasons are based upon logic and/or evidence or lack of it. So, is there any reason/evidence for you holding your position that you defend?

If you say that atheism needs no evidence or reason, then you are holding a position that has no evidence or rational basis? If so, then isn't that simply faith?

If you say that atheism is supported by the lack of evidence for God, then it is only your opinion that there is no evidence. You cannot know all evidence for or against God, therefore you cannot say there is no evidence for God.
If you say that atheism needs no evidence to support it because it is a position about the lack of something, then do you have other positions you hold based upon lack of evidence...like say, screaming blue ants? Do you hold the position that they do not exist or that you lack belief in them, too?

By using logic

How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God? The laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute, they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute). So, how do you account for them?

This approach is a bit more complicated. If you use this one, first be familiar with The Christian Worldview, the Atheist Worldview, and Logic.
First of all, when using logic, you should be familiar with basic laws of logic and logical fallacies. It is very useful to point out the various logical fallacies to atheists as they commit them. Therefore, please be familiar with Logical Fallacies or Fallacies in Argumentation.

The laws of logic are conceptual by nature and are always true all the time everywhere. They are not physical properties. How do atheists account for them from an atheist perspective?
Everything that was brought into existence was caused to exist. Can you have an infinite regression of causes? No, since to get to "now" you'd have to traverse an infinite past. It seems that there must be a single uncaused cause.

Why can't that be God?
Examples of logical absolutes:

Examples of logical absolutes are: something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time (Law of non-contradiction). A thing is what it is (Law of identity). A statement is either true or false (Law of excluded middle). These are simple, absolute logical absolutes.

If atheism is true: The universe has laws. These laws cannot be violated. Life is a product of these laws and can only exists in harmony with those laws and is governed by them. Therefore, human thought, feelings, etc., are programmed responses to stimuli and the atheist cannot legitimately claim to have meaning in life.

Human constructs?

If the laws of logic are human constructs then how can they be absolute since humans think differently and often contradictorily? If they are produced from human minds, and human minds are mutually contradictory, then how can the constructs be absolute? Therefore, the laws of logic are not human constructs.

The Universe exists
The universe exists. Is it eternal or did it have a beginning? It could not be eternal since that would mean that an infinite amount of time had to be crossed to get to the present. But, you cannot cross an infinite amount of time (otherwise it wouldn't be infinite). Therefore, the universe had a beginning. Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence.

What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it. The Bible promotes this sufficient cause as God. What does atheism offer instead of God? If nothing, then atheism is not able to account for our own existence.
The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old.

Uncaused Cause
Objection: If something cannot bring itself into existence, then God cannot exist since something had to bring God into existence. Answer: Not so. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes lest an infinity be crossed (which cannot happen). Therefore, there must be a single uncaused, cause.
All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that did not come into existence.

Responding to Atheist Statements about God
"I lack belief in a God."
If you say that atheism is simply lack of belief in a god, then my cat is an atheist the same as the tree outside and the sidewalk out front, since they also lack faith. Therefore, your definition is insufficient.
Lacking belief is a non-statement because you have been exposed to the concept of God and have made a decision to accept or reject. Therefore, you either believe there is a God, or you do not, or you are agnostic. You cannot remain in a state of "lack of belief."
If you lack belief in God, then why do you go around attacking the idea of God? If you also lack belief in invisible pink unicorns, why don't you go around attacking that idea?

"I believe there is no God."
On what basis do you believe there is no God?
"I don't believe there is a God."
Why don't you believe there is no God?
"There is no God."
You cannot logically state that there is no God because you cannot know all things so as to determine that there is no God.

"There is no proof that God exists"
To say "there is no proof for God's existence" is illogical because an atheist cannot know all things by which he could state that there is no proof. He can only say he has not yet seen a convincing proof; after all, there may be one he hasn't yet seen.

"All of Science has never found any evidence for God."
That is a subjective statement. There are many scientists who affirm evidence for God's existence through science.

Your presupposition is that science has no evidence for God, but that is only an opinion.

Science looks at natural phenomena through measuring, weighing, seeing, etc. God, by definition, is not limited to the universe. Therefore, it would not be expected that physical detection of God would be found.

"What is God?" or "Define God."

God is the only Supreme Being who is unchanging, eternal, holy, and Trinitarian in nature. He alone possesses the attributes of omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence. He alone brought the universe into existence by the exertion of His will.

"Prove your God is real."

I can no more prove to you that God is real than I can prove to you that I love my family. If you are convinced I don't love my family, no matter what I say or do will be dismissed by you as invalid. It is your presuppositions that are the problem, not whether or not God exists.

I can no more prove to you that God is real than you can prove that the universe is all that exists. Your demand of proof precludes acknowledgement of many types of evidence because your presuppositions don't allow it.
The universe exists. It is not infinitely old. If it were it would have run out of energy long ago. Therefore, it had a beginning. The universe did not bring itself into existence. Since it was brought into existence by something else, I assert that God is the one who created the universe.

When the atheist complains, ask him to logically explain the existence of the universe. Point out that opinions and guesses don't count.
Responding to Atheist Statements about the Bible

"The Bible is full of contradictions."
Saying the Bible is full of contradictions does not mean it is so. Can you provide a contradiction that we can examine in context? There are many websites that address alleged contradictions. Here is one: www.carm.org.
Responding to Atheist Statements about Evolution and Naturalism

"Evolution is a fact."

That depends on if it is micro or macro. Micro variations occur, but macro variations (speciation) have not been observed. The best we have are fossils and they have to be interpreted. Besides, there are plenty of gaps in the fossil record.

Have you read any books that discuss the contrary evidence to evolution? If not, then how can you say you are educated enough to say it is a fact?
"Naturalism is true; therefore, there is no need for God."
Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. If all things were explainable through natural laws, it does not mean God does not exist since God is, by definition, outside of natural laws since He is the creator of them.
Responding to Atheist Statements about Truth

"There are no absolute truths."

To say there are no absolute truths is an attempt to state an absolute truth. If your statement is true, then it is self-contradictory and not true, and you are wrong.

http://i1007.photobucket.com/albums/af196/HolySpirit3/bizarro_atheists1228979950.jpg?t=1272143955

http://thehelper.faithweb.com/HolySpirit.htm

Hello there.

I consider myself an atheist. By doing so, I try to live life as morally and ethically correct as my limited mind can encompass. If I have such a thing as a soul, I trust my honest actions will send it to wherever it is ment to go.

The teflonproof armour of atheism protects me from being sucked into all sorts of perverted neo-nazism new age CRAP.

I am not better than anybody else, I don't belong to any 'caste'.

Do you reckon you are one of the 'chosen ones'?

Stay real.

[holyspirit]

Hello there.

I consider myself an atheist. By doing so, I try to live life as morally and ethically correct as my limited mind can encompass. If I have such a thing as a soul, I trust my honest actions will send it to wherever it is ment to go.

The teflonproof armour of atheism protects me from being sucked into all sorts of perverted neo-nazism new age CRAP.

I am not better than anybody else, I don't belong to any 'caste'.

Do you reckon you are one of the 'chosen ones'?

Stay real.

Atheists have no foundation; they are like a mayfly in a single dance:



It’s obvious to me that atheists seem to love this world and its material comforts tossing the truth aside. Additionally, God is forsaken for a world of lust and pleasure and the moral code has to meet this atheist agenda. No real code of conduct do atheists have, because their lives are found in worldly courts were justice is set in mendacity and morals are only convenient for an atheists self interest. Simply put, atheists can’t stand the truth and their code of morality changes to fit the common modes of the day. Atheists laws are on paper so the lay of the law can be changed unlike the God of the bible who set his law in stone, which never changes. It would be not farfetched to say that atheists suit Satan’s will as to abstain to a God of the bible and never deviate from Satan’s way. Atheists constantly refer to the Council of Nicea as their only hope that Christ was just a fraud! Yet Pilate was real and sentenced him to be crucified as we all did as sinners crucified Christ since the inception of sin.

Why must an atheist end up in hell, where evil resides? Outright the reason is an atheist denies Christ and his Mighty work! Yes some atheists find a change in heart and find faith in Christ and put away the foolish atheist concept. This is all I wish for you, is for you to escape a hellish abode and also come to know the truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9ALi...eature=related

On his day of sacrifice

In his being

He turns men to mice

The mighty one walks

While with fear demons shake

On his day of conquering

Eternity shall awake

This mighty king

God’s great son and his pride

Who will come to know him?

And in his merciful peace abide

Look at the great king

In his power great love does he bring?

The master of the universe

I listen as he calls to me

But it is I that should seek him

With him forever

In my humility

Who and how can you satisfy

Such a master

Oh wait my love and devotion is all he

Wants you see

Give omega to Jesus Christ for he is perfection

Satisfying the Father eternally

[exford]

I'm an athiest/humanist with a grasp for logical fallacies.

This here was a non-sequitur/ad hominem variant am I right? ;)

Two of many........It's amazing how such a short statement can be fallacious in so many ways!