God Doesn't Believe in Atheists

I saw this on Dr Dino's site:God does not believe in atheists.
His presence from creation is quiet clear.
God does not believe in atheists.
It takes a fool to tell him he’s not here.God believes atheists can get born again
And become a new creation,
But they’d best admit the world around them first
And ask for their salvation
But to only cry, Recycle! is the worst.God believes atheists do have certain rights
To seek and search the scriptures
It says, Come now, let us reason that’s for them.
But it doesn’t give them reason to
Make up what God is saying
Until it’s no true benefit to them.Blee dop, sklee dop, sklee dilly dilly
Bah donna bee on a Saturday night.
If that sounded like nonsense to you too,
Those schools have got some books for you.Does anyone know if this a well known song in creationist circles?It seems that God doesn't believe in atheists, but he believes atheists can get born again, and atheists have certain rights.It is a strange God this who believes certain things about something he doesn't believe in.What is the first line of the last verse about, is it when Kent gets asked to define a 'kind'?Brian.

This song referes to Romans 18-19 that states The song is using the term atheist in two senses: that of inward profession and that of outward profession. According to the bible, all people are inwardly believers, but outwardly, some deny their inward belief. So inwardly, there are no athiests, but outwardly there are those who profess a "lack of belief" and others a "disbelief" in God.The first line of the last paragraph is what you get when you deny the foundation of your epistemology. When you allow the validity of self-contradiction into your thinking (outward denial of inward belief), then you can deduce anything that is nonsensical, including the theory that free-thinking man is the result of un-intentionality which would result in determinism and moral disaster as we could blame every "evil" on how the molecules just played out their chemical reactions.

Hmmm. Something else it's wrong about!

This shows the ignorance of the authors of the Bible, if they had done their homework they would know that any Buddhist would prove this Bible idea as incorrect. This seems pretty pointless, why deny something that you know to be true? On the other hand, creationists and inerrantists do this all the time. Oh I see now, when you deny the origin of true knowledge then you turn into a Pentecostal. I am glad I bypassed that choice. A slight flaw in your explanation is that if you only ‘believe’ something inwardly then it really isn’t that big a deal to deny it outwardly. However, to ‘know’ something inwardly and to deny it outwardly would be dishonest, and hence a lot more difficult to deny. I know inwardly that there is no God and I am honest enough to tell everyone that there is no God.Then we get to the Bible literalist, who knows inwardly that creation has been disproved, that there was never a worldwide Flood as described in Genesis, there was never an Exodus, there was never a King David, there was never a Samson, there was never a Solomon, there was never a united monarchy, but this doesn’t stop them outwardly claiming that all these things are true. This makes them dishonest, and they should be more like atheists and simply accept reality, it is very liberating.Thank you for taking the time to reply, I know that your explanation is based on set premises and I appreciate your time.Brian.

Or, we could blame every evil on an invisible, all-wrong god of badness who is the arch enemy of the invisible, all-right god of goodness.'Course that doesn't explain how an omnipotent God can be theatened (have an enemy). And it doesn't explain why the omnipresent God isn't hanging out with the other one in Hell. Or is he? And how do we know that good and evil are not an inherent attribute of the one-god?

quote:

---

"I form the light and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil:
I the LORD do all these things." Isaiah 45:7 King James Version

---

db------------------
Doesn't anyone graduate Sunday School?

So state the proof instead of foot noting it. Because you don't want to be subject to it. Giving up autonomy is not comfortable, nor is it physically satisfying because the obligations that come with it go against the atheist desire to fulfill their pleasure. Everyone does this to a certain degree. Claiming that creationists and inerrantists do this doesn't remove the atheist from this category.

Why do theists assume that atheists believe what they do because they're motivated by pleasure?I didn't become an atheist to escape cosmic rules about what I could and couldn't do. I became an atheist because I had no other choice. It has not allowed me to explore any more desires than when I was a Christian. It was simply a realization I came to when I fully explored the consequence of something I knew - that there was no evidence for god.Don't they say "ignorance is bliss?" Given that, why would anyone assume that atheists - who know the real, lonely truth about man's place in the universe - have anything at all to be blissful about?

If there were no God, and man were simply the working out of physical and chemical reactions with no intention behind their final form, then there could be no "evil" to speak of. There would only be bags of electrons bumping into other bags of electrons. Your Darth Vader theory presupposes the very God that that atheist suppresses in unrighteousness. Not sure what you mean by hanging out, but I'm sure God is not ignorant of what is going on in Hell. That doesn't mean he's suffering the pains of it. Your point? Because He reveals that evil is not an inherant attribute of Himself. Before you can claim any kind of evil, you need some objective referent from which to guage good and evil. The autonomous man can't do this because he begins with himself as the authority of what counts as good and bad.

I don't mean to say that atheists are so because it feels good to the senses, but rather the freedom from moral obligation. And of course, if there are no moral obligations, then you can watch whatever movies you want, drink as much as you want, date whoever and whenever you want [insert laundry list of desires here]. I'm not equating pleasure with a harem, but freedom from obligation which could include a harem if one were so inclined. Sure it did. You probably don't feel any moral obligation to change the channel on your t.v. when a couple begins to make out. You probably don't feel any need to protect your child from the public school system that sees no problem with gay marriages, or teaches anything antithetical to the bible. You are now exploring your new found freedom from the chains of Christianity. Were you relieved when you "found out" that there is a school of thought out there that believes like you that there is no evidence for God?I would contend that everything is evidence for the existence of God.[This message has been edited by Transcendasaurus, 07-28-2003]

Your dogma is my dogma.

Hmm, methinks this thread should be moved to Faith & Belief...

quote:

---

I don't mean to say that atheists are so because it feels good to the senses, but rather the freedom from moral obligation. And of course, if there are no moral obligations, then you can watch whatever movies you want, drink as much as you want, date whoever and whenever you want [insert laundry list of desires here]. I'm not equating pleasure with a harem, but freedom from obligation which could include a harem if one were so inclined.

---

Careful. Some other religion might consider polygamy a virtue. Others consider incest a virtue, while others promote celibacy.Is moral obligation released from the atheist? I have no opinion over this, but an atheist who gave his penny to a starving homeless guy without expecting anything in return is more altruistic than a Christian/Muslim/any theist who does the same because he thinks the penny can buy his way to heaven. Conversely, a theist might do immoral acts such as killing infidels or coercing conversion because his moral compass is overridden by religion.However, many people cannot reach pure disinteredted altruism without having something to encourage them, hence the flourishing of religion. Do good and you go to heaven. Mess around with society and you go to hell. Just like that. And religions are very good at promoting altruism to otherwise-destructive people.

quote:

---

You are now exploring your new found freedom from the chains of Christianity.

---

...as if Jesus worship is the only religion that matters. What about Buddhism? Islam? Haitian voodoo?

quote:

---

Were you relieved when you "found out" that there is a school of thought out there that believes like you that there is no evidence for God?

​

I would contend that everything is evidence for the existence of God.

---

God is where you want Him to be. Everywhere, then He is everywhere. Somewhere, then He is somewhere. Nowhere, then He is nowhere.

Transcendasaurus responds to crashfrog:

quote:

---

I don't mean to say that atheists are so because it feels good to the senses, but rather the freedom from moral obligation.

---

Excuse me? Since when did recognition of the arbitrariness of morality mean it no longer existed?The rules of Monopoly are completely arbitrary. They even change from place to place (some people play that all the money collected from the Chance and Community Chest cards goes under the Free Parking space and anybody who lands there gets whatever money happens to be there at the time.)Does this mean the rules of Monopoly don't exist? That if you break them you're not cheating? That the people whom you are playing with won't extract penalties against you, including the possibility of no longer letting you play, when they catch you?

quote:

---

And of course, if there are no moral obligations, then you can watch whatever movies you want, drink as much as you want, date whoever and whenever you want [insert laundry list of desires here].

---

Not if those things are bad. Just because you and I get to decide and agree what "bad" is doesn't mean there's no such thing as "bad." It simply means that you and I constructed the concept of "bad" and have agreed to the social contract abiding it.How is the definitions of good and bad coming from god any different from them coming from you and me?

quote:

---

You probably don't feel any moral obligation to change the channel on your t.v. when a couple begins to make out.

---

That's an awfully big assumption. You are assuming that atheists are hedonists. What makes you think that all atheists are comfortable with public displays of affection? It is impossible for an atheist to think that by exploiting sexual activity, reducing people to objects, and removing the mystery of intimate activity by displaying it at every opportunity, it contributes to the moral decay of society and thus does what he can to work against that attitude?By your logic, the producers, actors, and crew on that TV show are all atheists since only atheists would create such a thing and expect people to watch it. And since such programs are quite popular, that must mean most of the country are atheists and we know that isn't true. Very few people are atheists.

quote:

---

You probably don't feel any need to protect your child from the public school system that sees no problem with gay marriages,

---

Um...by this definition, the Quakers and the Unitarians are atheists since they perform gay marraiges. Quite strange for people who worship god.

quote:

---

or teaches anything antithetical to the bible.

---

"The Bible"? Since when did "religion" come to mean Christianity? It doesn't occur to you that Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists might also teach things "antithetical to the bible"?

quote:

---

You are now exploring your new found freedom from the chains of Christianity.

---

When did "religion" come to mean Christianity? Jews have no morals? Hindus are just as likely to kill you as say hello?

quote:

---

I would contend that everything is evidence for the existence of God.

---

A theory which explains everything actually explains nothing.The explanatory nature is just as much defined by what it excludes as by what it includes. If your procedure is consistent with every single outcome no matter what, then how on earth can you tell that it is actually happening? Is the sky blue? Then that's proof of god. Is it green? That's proof of god. Is it yellow with orange and lavender spots? That's proof of god. If every single outcome is proof of god, then that's the same as saying that there is no god because nothing would be different: An outcome from a procedure without god is identical to one with god.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

There is no imperative that morals require belief in God. Better to behave morally from compassion and empathy for your fellow man than just to get to heaven.Religion *is* an extremely effective cultural context in which to instill and encourage a moral perspective, but in many western countries the everpresent Christian backdrop renders unnessary actual membership and attendance in a church for communication of moral codes.--Percy

Are you saying that atheists repress their belief in god? If your god is omipresent (everywhere at once), then he must be in hell as well. And HOW does he know if not because he is everywhere present? Does Christ suffer when we suffer? Is Christ God? Perhaps I mistook you for a Christian. Just one of his creations? Something he provides for us? "I ... create evil." Isaiah 45:7 Like the Levitical law? Or your inherent sense of right and wrong? That you argue in favor of your god's moral values, demonstrates your personal judgement of what counts as good and evil. We all judge good and evil according to the society in which we are raised.Is your god the authority on good and evil? You judge it to be so. Your opinion is the authority on which you base that judgment. It is your decision, based on your own authority.I don't know what you mean by "the autonomous man." Sounds like you are talking about the sociopathic man.db------------------
Doesn't anyone graduate Sunday School?

11-10-03
Hello!You quoted this in a response to one individual's posting back in July. i was looking up a book and came across the site. i usually don't respond to these type of things for fear of not knowing what to say. However, GOD is growing me and has given me more desire to share his truth in love.So, Isaiah 45:7 in the KJV says God is the origin of both good and evil. In the New International Version (NIV), the verse reads:
"I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and creat disaster; I the LORD, do all these things."I am not a biblical scholar, but I know that the translators of the NIV referred directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts (which, i admit, i do not know much about). Thus, the more understandable and relevant word to our modern language would be "disaster" rather than "evil." Words change meaning over time. i would assume that is the case here. Also, disaster does seem like a very evil thing when one experiences it.The verse in context refers to GOD's love as a Father to Israel. The people of Israel would fall away and worship idols instead of the one, true GOD. To bring them back to HIM, GOD would often allow other nations to subdue the Israelites. (Afterall, it is when we are at our lowest points that we finally submit and cry out to the GOD who cares for us.)This same concept is reiterated in the New Testament in Hebrews 12:
"Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it" (10-11).Those are just some thoughts i had when i read your response.GOD is the author of all good:"Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows" (James 1:17, NIV).Still, HE uses even evil circumstances (like disaster and death and war)and the works of Satan for HIS complex good. "GOD works for the good of those who love HIM, who have been called according to his purpose"(Rom. 8.28).Anways, have a good day and thanks for reading.
lindey k. nelsonWhen you die, do you know where you will be going?