Atheism: an irrational philosophical system

In Message #1, Grace states the following opinions (among many others):* These questions (regarding the morality of slavery, killing, etc.) and many others like them demonstrate how atheism can not deal with the world in a rational or consistent manner.* Furthermore, these examples (are intended) to show that atheism fails to deal with many issues that it must adequately deal with if it is to be considered a rational position.* I think it is quite clear that atheism as a system of thought is quite lacking. In comparison, Christianity can deal with these issues in a consistent and accurate way.* Core doctrines are not subjective since there is revealed scripture.*I will respond to as many comments as possible time permitting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Greetings, Grace:Grace, if you have time, please tell me how a Christian Theocracy, totally unrestrained by secular (and God forbid, secular humanist) laws or courts, would deal with violators of Biblical Law regarding, just for an example, adultery.For reference, the following biblical legal determinations are given:Leviticus 20:10
(Moses speaking) "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife-with the wife of his neighbor-both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."Mark 10:11/12
He (Jesus) answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."In order there not be a claim of "taking out of context," please feel free to refer to Mark, Chapter 10 in its entirety if you like.In order not to overburden your time, I am just asking for a response to this one question at this time rather than having to address all the other examples that one might drag out regarding the Inquisition and sundry witch trials.Peace.

Grace:We're waiting, dear.

In Message #1, Grace makes many unsupported claims regarding his views alleging atheism's inability to address social issues, and insinuates his intent to respond to those who would debate his views.In Message #33, after copious counterpoints from those who disagreed in great detail with Grace's viewpoint, Grace's sole reply is:"roboto85, Thanks for the positive comments... I'm glad that you understand my points and agree with them. Take care and God bless,
Richard M"I have not researched the Forum's policy on initiating a thread with a contentious message, promising to reply (as time permitted him) to those who would debate, and then sitting back like a wimpy voyuer until a surrogate synchophant did the dirty work, then surfacing only to pat the puppet on its back.But I do have a comment on the tactic: It's a bankrupt and corrupt form of debate.P.U. Grace2u[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 01-28-2004]

Transcendasaurus:Thank you for your thoughtful insight and reply to Message #4. Let me digest a few thoughts and get back with you on your topics. We may want to discuss it on another thread.I do not intend to participate on this thread at this time since Grace's puppeteer and carnival sideshow tactics of debate (bait, wait, manipulate/dodge/switch, etc.) are deplorable and not worth the time of day.Actually, I am very apprehensive about any form of theocracy. I am not familiar with the term "theonomy" and should look into it before replying to your response.Again, thank you for your reply, your subject matter, and the opportunity to continue the discussion.Peace.