Summations Only

I'm not an agnostic, either.Creationists commonly associate evolution and much else in science with atheism. Hence we're treated to a constant barrage of phrases like "atheistic evolution", "Godless cosmology" and "immoral science". They'll mix and match adjectives and nouns to their heart's content, but the message is always the same: those who reject creationist views are atheists who reject or even hate God.When the ID controversy in Dover, Pennsylvania, erupted into public acrimony, those on the side of science were condemned as atheists. It didn't matter if you were a church going Christian who taught Bible class and ran a summer Bible camp (specifically, Bryan Rehm and his wife), if you were against creationism then you were an atheist.I disagree with Creationists because they are wrong, deeply and fatally wrong. It has nothing to do with atheism.--PercyPS - Miscellaneous forum?

You're addressing the wrong point. What's at issue isn't whether I can actually prove that creationists are "deeply and fatally wrong." Thinking scientifically, I cannot prove anything. I can only support my position with evidence that can never become "proof", a concept that doesn't exist within science..The topic of this thread is why creationists insist on demonizing opponents by characterizing them as atheists when they are not.So what's going on in the minds of creationists who do this?Do they rationalize, "I have brought the enemy evolution low by falsely characterizing a person of God who was running for school board as an atheist, thereby causing him to lose the election."Or do they think, "He accepts evolution, and evolution is against God, therefore he must be an atheist, even though he goes to church and teaches Bible class."--Percy

So what you're saying is that the atheist label is not given for accepting evolution, but for putting forth nonsense. What has being illogical or irrational or just plain nonsensical to do with atheism? The label still seems wholly inappropriate.Perhaps the real question should be, "Why do some Christians feel the need to assign derogatory and inapplicable labels to people they don't agree with?" It isn't just the "atheist" label, there's plenty of others, like the ever-popular, "He's not a true Christian."--Percy

I question the logic, but this isn't really what I'm talking about. Anyone can make an honest mistake about someone else's position. I'm talking about when they know someone isn't an atheist and accuse him of it anyway because within their community it is perhaps the most horrific accusation one can make. Honesty, integrity and accuracy all go out the window in an attempt to change discussion from a debate about evidence into a contest of who can do the best job demonizing the other side.I gave my best example of this in my opening post: Why did some very devout churchgoers in Dover accuse other very devout churchgoers of being atheists, not once by mistake about people they didn't know, but over and over and over again about people they knew very well?My own answer is that when the facts are on your side then you push the facts, and when the facts are against you then you find excuses for doing very effective but unchristian things.The atheist label has little effectiveness for scaremongering here at EvC, but creationists often find it useful to deflect attention from the real issues.--Percy

Suspensions are only handed out for persistent violations of the Forum Guidelines. Give them a read and you'll see they are strictly about behavior and process, not content. If you get suspended it will only be for persistent guidelines violations.--Percy

You responded to Message 1, so perhaps you hadn't read the rest of the thread? Anyway, later in the thread I make clear I'm a deist. Although I'm not a Christian and do not accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, I do believe in a higher purpose.But this thread is about atheism, so why do you ask about a very specific religious belief? It wouldn't make sense to consider anyone who doesn't share your religious beliefs to be an atheist, so I can't see why you're asking.--Percy

The discussion about Satan makes it clear that Christianity has never been able to separate itself fully from belief in more than one God. It all depends how you're willing to look at it, but leaving the devil out of the discussion for the moment, the Christian perspective is that the trinity of God, Jesus and the holy spirit is just one God. The angels are a projection of God's will, and so are also part of the one God.But once you add the devil to the equation it can no longer be considered that there is just one God. He is not part of God, and he is not a projection of God's will. He is an independent supernatural entity with apparently far more power and initiative to do evil than God has to do good.My deistic beliefs are that there is just one God about whom we haven't happened to uncover any hard evidence as of yet.Quick aside: I saw an FSM symbol on a car for the first time yesterday. It was in the same fish shape as the one used by Christians and by the Darwin fish but with squiggly lines emerging from it and the letters FSM in the body. Pretty neat!--Percy

No, of course not. The question under consideration is, "How many supernatural beings do Christians believe in?" Man isn't a supernatural being.So if the Father, Son, Holy Ghost and angels are actually just one collective being known as God, and if that were the only supernatural being Christians believed in, then it could be argued that Christians believe in one God.But Satan is another supernatural being independent of God's will in whose existence Christians also believe. That's two gods.--Percy

Applying logic to the conditions you two have provided:

• Satan is an evil being created by God
  ​
• Satan can do nothing that isn't God's will.
  ​
• Satan projects evil upon the world.
  ​
• Evil is God's will.

Can I guess that now we're back to, "You have to believe it before it makes sense?"--Percy

But you also said, "I have never found where the devil had free will and could do what he wanted to do."Therefore it is God's will that there be, using your own words again, "an opportunity to decide what man thinks is evil and what is good."It can't be the devil's will, right? He has no will of his own, so giving us a choice between good and evil is God's will.You also say, "Therefore I believe the devil will and has taken everything in his power and used it to get people to not accept God's offer of a free full pardon since the incident in the garden with the first man." Therefore, because the devil cannot do anything that is not God's will, it must be God's will that the devil work hard to make people reject God's forgiveness. And it doesn't.--Percy

You didn't address the point I made.You said that "the devil will and has taken everything in his power and used it to get people to not accept God's offer of a free full pardon since the incident in the garden with the first man."You also said the devil has no free will but can only do God's will.Therefore, it is God's will that the devil work at getting people to reject God.You said it doesn't have to make sense and I agreed. If you don't think it has to make sense, why do you keep trying to explain why it makes sense?--Percy

You've now ignored my main point twice in a row, so for the third time, you said that "the devil will and has taken everything in his power and used it to get people to not accept God's offer of a free full pardon since the incident in the garden with the first man."You also said the devil has no free will but can only do God's will.Therefore, it is God's will that the devil work at getting people to reject God.Right?--Percy

In my Message 116 I say: To which ICANT replies in his Message 124Anyone (besides ICANT) care to comment?--Percy

It was the precisely right word, your meaning was perfectly clear. Get used to ICANT's misinterpretations when he doesn't have an answer, which is often. Half the replies to ICANT begin with, "That's not what I meant" or "You missed the point."--Percy

This issue about whether Satan's actions are God's will sprang from my point that Christians believe in at least two gods, two supernatural beings, God and Satan. ICANT gets around this by explaining that Satan is just another angel, just another projection of God's will. In this view Satan is not another supernatural being, but just another manifestation of the one God.But if that's not the case, if as you say Satan is not carrying out God's will, if Satan is not just another manifestation of the one God, then Christians believe in two gods, one who they worship, another who they fear.--Percy