re free moral agency andrew newell tan psuvm psu edu wrote i think you re letting atheist mythology confuse you on the issue of webster myth a traditional or legendary story a belief whose truth is accepted uncritically how does that qualify indeed it s almost oxymoronic a rather amusing instance i ve found that most atheists hold almost no atheist views as accepted uncritically especially the few that are legend many are trying to explain basic truths as myths do but they don t meet the other criterions andrew the myth to which i refer is the convoluted counterfeit athiests have created to make religion appear absurd rather than approach religion including christainity in a rational manner and debating its claims as the are stated atheists concoct outrageous parodies and then hold the religious accountable for beliefs they don t have what is more accurately oxymoric is the a term like reasonable atheist bill divine justice according to the most fundamental doctrines of christianity when the first man sinned he was at that time the you accuse him of referencing mythology then you procede to launch your own xtian mythology this time meeting all the requirements of myth here s a good example of of what i said above read the post again i said acoording to which means i am referring to christian doctrine as i understand it if i am speaking for myself you ll know it my purpose in posting was to present a basic overview of christain doctrines since it seemed germane bill with those who pretend not to know what is being said and what it means when atheists claim that they do not know if god exists and don t know what he wants they contradict the bible which clearly says that everyone knows the authority of the bible is its claim to be should i repeat what i wrote above for the sake of getting it across you may trust the bible but your trusting it doesn t make it any more credible to me if the bible says that everyone knows that s clearly reason to doubt the bible because not everyone knows your alleged god s alleged existance again i am paraphrasing christian doctrine which is very clear on this point your dispute is not with me bill refuted while the species wide condemnation is justified those that claim that there is no evidence for the existence of god or that his will is unknown must deliberately ignore the bible the ignorance itself is no excuse no they don t have to ignore the bible the bible is far from universally accepted the bible is not a proof of god it is only a proof that some people have thought that there was a god or does it prove even that they might have been writing it as series of fiction short stories as in the case of dionetics assuming the writers believed it the only thing it could possibly prove is that they believed it and that s ignoring the problem of whether or not all the interpretations and biblical philosophers were correct there are people who have truly never heard of the bible again read the faq here again you miss the point the bible itself is not the point it s what it contains it makes no difference who accpets the bible or even who s unaware of its existence christians hold that it applies universally because mankind shares the same nature and the same fate and the same innate knowledge of god see above if you read my post with same care as read the faq we wouldn t be having this conversation bill freedom you are free to ignore god in the same way you are free to ignore gravity and the consequences are inevitable and well known in both cases that an atheist can t accept the evidence means only bzzt wrong answer gravity is directly there it doesn t stop exerting a direct and rationally undeniable influence if you ignore it god on the other hand doesn t generally show up in the supermarket except on the tabloids god doesn t exert a rationally undeniable influence gravity is obvious gods aren t as i said the evidence is there you just don t accept it here at least we agree bill secondly human reason is very comforatble with the concept of god so much so that it is in itself intrinsic to our nature human reason always comes back to the question of god in every generation and in no human reason hasn t always come back to the existance of god it has usually come back to the existance of god in other words it doesn t generally come back to the xtian god it comes back to whether there is any god and in much of oriental philosophic history it generally doesn t pop up as the idea of a god so much as the question of what natural forces are and which ones are out there from a world wide view human nature just makes us wonder how the universe came to be and or what force s are currently in control a natural tendancy to believe in god only exists in religious wishful thinking yes human reason does always come back to the existence of god we re having this discussion are we not bill i said all this to make the point that christianity is eminently reasonable that divine justice is just and human nature is much different than what atheists think it is whether you agree or not you certainly are not correct on human nature you are at the least basing your views on a completely eurocentric approach try looking at the outside world as well when you attempt to sum up all of humanity well this is interesting truth is to be determined by it politically correct content granted it s extremely unhip to be a wasp male and anything european is contemptable but i thought this kind of dialogue the purpose of a a was to get at the truth of things but then i remember the oxymoron reasonalble atheist and i understand bill
