Can Atheists be Moral?

[MedfordMan]

So let me ask

Can a religious person be immoral?

Sure. Why not?

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

So the entire premise of this thread is a farce.

One does not need a god to be moral or to lead a good life.

The man who lives a good life because he is afraid of some eternal punishment if he doesn't is a cowardly man

The man who lives a good life knowing that there is no reward that in fact there is nothing beyond this life is the better of the two men

The problem is that the 2nd man definition of a "good" life is one that serves himself.

That man doesn't see the point of serving anyone but himself.

The 1st man knows he should act selflessly. While he occasionally does so, he too acts in his own interests all too often.

Neither man is good and neither lives a "good" life.

Still, the 2nd man is lazy and simply going with the flow of his base instincts, while the 1st man, while often failing, strives to rise above his base instincts.

Both men are condemned to Hell, but the first man understands he can't ever do enough good to make up for all the bad. That man submits himself to the saving grace of God and receives salvation as a free gift (not something earned).

The 2nd man spends his whole life pushing God away from himself and then complains when he ends up in Hell, which is simply the absence of God.

The 1st man is foolish, but redeemed by a just God. The 2nd man is just a fool.

 

[sealybobo]

Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.

This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.

Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International

I heard the Vatican has one of the largest gay communities in the world.

Imagine if Christianity was just a total scam invented by gays. When you look at all the men in robes and abuses, it sure does seem like it.

So us atheists know enough about morality than to join defend or support a corrupt religion like catholicism

 

[Mindful]

Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.

This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.

Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International

I heard the Vatican has one of the largest gay communities in the world.

Imagine if Christianity was just a total scam invented by gays. When you look at all the men in robes and abuses, it sure does seem like it.

So us atheists know enough about morality than to join defend or support a corrupt religion like catholicism

The latest scandal.

The Australian Cardinal.

Why do they target children, and not adult women?

 

[ding]

So let me ask

Can a religious person be immoral?

Sure. Why not?

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

So the entire premise of this thread is a farce.

One does not need a god to be moral or to lead a good life.

The man who lives a good life because he is afraid of some eternal punishment if he doesn't is a cowardly man

The man who lives a good life knowing that there is no reward that in fact there is nothing beyond this life is the better of the two men

The problem is that the 2nd man definition of a "good" life is one that serves himself.

That man doesn't see the point of serving anyone but himself.

The 1st man knows he should act selflessly. While he occasionally does so, he too acts in his own interests all too often.

Neither man is good and neither lives a "good" life.

Still, the 2nd man is lazy and simply going with the flow of his base instincts, while the 1st man, while often failing, strives to rise above his base instincts.

Both men are condemned to Hell, but the first man understands he can't ever do enough good to make up for all the bad. That man submits himself to the saving grace of God and receives salvation as a free gift (not something earned).

The 2nd man spends his whole life pushing God away from himself and then complains when he ends up in Hell, which is simply the absence of God.

The 1st man is foolish, but redeemed by a just God. The 2nd man is just a fool.

That is one of the best posts I have ever read. Bravo.

 

[ding]

It takes a good man to know just how bad he is. ~C.S. Lewis.

 

[Taz]

So let me ask

Can a religious person be immoral?

Sure. Why not?

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

So the entire premise of this thread is a farce.

One does not need a god to be moral or to lead a good life.

The man who lives a good life because he is afraid of some eternal punishment if he doesn't is a cowardly man

The man who lives a good life knowing that there is no reward that in fact there is nothing beyond this life is the better of the two men

The problem is that the 2nd man definition of a "good" life is one that serves himself.

That man doesn't see the point of serving anyone but himself.

The 1st man knows he should act selflessly. While he occasionally does so, he too acts in his own interests all too often.

Neither man is good and neither lives a "good" life.

Still, the 2nd man is lazy and simply going with the flow of his base instincts, while the 1st man, while often failing, strives to rise above his base instincts.

Both men are condemned to Hell, but the first man understands he can't ever do enough good to make up for all the bad. That man submits himself to the saving grace of God and receives salvation as a free gift (not something earned).

The 2nd man spends his whole life pushing God away from himself and then complains when he ends up in Hell, which is simply the absence of God.

The 1st man is foolish, but redeemed by a just God. The 2nd man is just a fool.

That is one of the best posts I have ever read. Bravo.

He's as delusional as you are.

 

[Mindful]

It takes a good man to know just how bad he is. ~C.S. Lewis.

Prefer Tolkien.

 

[ding]

It takes a good man to know just how bad he is. ~C.S. Lewis.

Prefer Tolkien.

No one is perfect.

 

[Mindful]

It takes a good man to know just how bad he is. ~C.S. Lewis.

Prefer Tolkien.

No one is perfect.

Another logical disconnect.

 

[ding]

So let me ask

Can a religious person be immoral?

Sure. Why not?

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

So the entire premise of this thread is a farce.

One does not need a god to be moral or to lead a good life.

The man who lives a good life because he is afraid of some eternal punishment if he doesn't is a cowardly man

The man who lives a good life knowing that there is no reward that in fact there is nothing beyond this life is the better of the two men

The problem is that the 2nd man definition of a "good" life is one that serves himself.

That man doesn't see the point of serving anyone but himself.

The 1st man knows he should act selflessly. While he occasionally does so, he too acts in his own interests all too often.

Neither man is good and neither lives a "good" life.

Still, the 2nd man is lazy and simply going with the flow of his base instincts, while the 1st man, while often failing, strives to rise above his base instincts.

Both men are condemned to Hell, but the first man understands he can't ever do enough good to make up for all the bad. That man submits himself to the saving grace of God and receives salvation as a free gift (not something earned).

The 2nd man spends his whole life pushing God away from himself and then complains when he ends up in Hell, which is simply the absence of God.

The 1st man is foolish, but redeemed by a just God. The 2nd man is just a fool.

That is one of the best posts I have ever read. Bravo.

He's as delusional as you are.

Says the guy who denies the science of the Big Bang.

 

[ding]

It takes a good man to know just how bad he is. ~C.S. Lewis.

Prefer Tolkien.

No one is perfect.

Another logical disconnect.

Present company excluded. Better?

 

[Taz]

Sure. Why not?

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

So the entire premise of this thread is a farce.

One does not need a god to be moral or to lead a good life.

The man who lives a good life because he is afraid of some eternal punishment if he doesn't is a cowardly man

The man who lives a good life knowing that there is no reward that in fact there is nothing beyond this life is the better of the two men

The problem is that the 2nd man definition of a "good" life is one that serves himself.

That man doesn't see the point of serving anyone but himself.

The 1st man knows he should act selflessly. While he occasionally does so, he too acts in his own interests all too often.

Neither man is good and neither lives a "good" life.

Still, the 2nd man is lazy and simply going with the flow of his base instincts, while the 1st man, while often failing, strives to rise above his base instincts.

Both men are condemned to Hell, but the first man understands he can't ever do enough good to make up for all the bad. That man submits himself to the saving grace of God and receives salvation as a free gift (not something earned).

The 2nd man spends his whole life pushing God away from himself and then complains when he ends up in Hell, which is simply the absence of God.

The 1st man is foolish, but redeemed by a just God. The 2nd man is just a fool.

That is one of the best posts I have ever read. Bravo.

He's as delusional as you are.

Says the guy who denies the science of the Big Bang.

See? You're delusional, making me right again.

 

[ding]

So the entire premise of this thread is a farce.

One does not need a god to be moral or to lead a good life.

The man who lives a good life because he is afraid of some eternal punishment if he doesn't is a cowardly man

The man who lives a good life knowing that there is no reward that in fact there is nothing beyond this life is the better of the two men

The problem is that the 2nd man definition of a "good" life is one that serves himself.

That man doesn't see the point of serving anyone but himself.

The 1st man knows he should act selflessly. While he occasionally does so, he too acts in his own interests all too often.

Neither man is good and neither lives a "good" life.

Still, the 2nd man is lazy and simply going with the flow of his base instincts, while the 1st man, while often failing, strives to rise above his base instincts.

Both men are condemned to Hell, but the first man understands he can't ever do enough good to make up for all the bad. That man submits himself to the saving grace of God and receives salvation as a free gift (not something earned).

The 2nd man spends his whole life pushing God away from himself and then complains when he ends up in Hell, which is simply the absence of God.

The 1st man is foolish, but redeemed by a just God. The 2nd man is just a fool.

That is one of the best posts I have ever read. Bravo.

He's as delusional as you are.

Says the guy who denies the science of the Big Bang.

See? You're delusional, making me right again.

If only you could have seen the Big Bang with your own eyes maybe you wouldn’t deny the universe was created.

 

[Mindful]

So the entire premise of this thread is a farce.

One does not need a god to be moral or to lead a good life.

The man who lives a good life because he is afraid of some eternal punishment if he doesn't is a cowardly man

The man who lives a good life knowing that there is no reward that in fact there is nothing beyond this life is the better of the two men

The problem is that the 2nd man definition of a "good" life is one that serves himself.

That man doesn't see the point of serving anyone but himself.

The 1st man knows he should act selflessly. While he occasionally does so, he too acts in his own interests all too often.

Neither man is good and neither lives a "good" life.

Still, the 2nd man is lazy and simply going with the flow of his base instincts, while the 1st man, while often failing, strives to rise above his base instincts.

Both men are condemned to Hell, but the first man understands he can't ever do enough good to make up for all the bad. That man submits himself to the saving grace of God and receives salvation as a free gift (not something earned).

The 2nd man spends his whole life pushing God away from himself and then complains when he ends up in Hell, which is simply the absence of God.

The 1st man is foolish, but redeemed by a just God. The 2nd man is just a fool.

That is one of the best posts I have ever read. Bravo.

He's as delusional as you are.

Says the guy who denies the science of the Big Bang.

See? You're delusional, making me right again.

Seriously. Do you know what he is talking about?

 

[Taz]

The problem is that the 2nd man definition of a "good" life is one that serves himself.

That man doesn't see the point of serving anyone but himself.

The 1st man knows he should act selflessly. While he occasionally does so, he too acts in his own interests all too often.

Neither man is good and neither lives a "good" life.

Still, the 2nd man is lazy and simply going with the flow of his base instincts, while the 1st man, while often failing, strives to rise above his base instincts.

Both men are condemned to Hell, but the first man understands he can't ever do enough good to make up for all the bad. That man submits himself to the saving grace of God and receives salvation as a free gift (not something earned).

The 2nd man spends his whole life pushing God away from himself and then complains when he ends up in Hell, which is simply the absence of God.

The 1st man is foolish, but redeemed by a just God. The 2nd man is just a fool.

That is one of the best posts I have ever read. Bravo.

He's as delusional as you are.

Says the guy who denies the science of the Big Bang.

See? You're delusional, making me right again.

If only you could have seen the Big Bang with your own eyes maybe you wouldn’t deny the universe was created.

By whom?

 

[Taz]

The problem is that the 2nd man definition of a "good" life is one that serves himself.

That man doesn't see the point of serving anyone but himself.

The 1st man knows he should act selflessly. While he occasionally does so, he too acts in his own interests all too often.

Neither man is good and neither lives a "good" life.

Still, the 2nd man is lazy and simply going with the flow of his base instincts, while the 1st man, while often failing, strives to rise above his base instincts.

Both men are condemned to Hell, but the first man understands he can't ever do enough good to make up for all the bad. That man submits himself to the saving grace of God and receives salvation as a free gift (not something earned).

The 2nd man spends his whole life pushing God away from himself and then complains when he ends up in Hell, which is simply the absence of God.

The 1st man is foolish, but redeemed by a just God. The 2nd man is just a fool.

That is one of the best posts I have ever read. Bravo.

He's as delusional as you are.

Says the guy who denies the science of the Big Bang.

See? You're delusional, making me right again.

Seriously. Do you know what he is talking about?

Dingbat? Rarely. He makes no sense and can't back up what he says.

 

[ding]

That is one of the best posts I have ever read. Bravo.

He's as delusional as you are.

Says the guy who denies the science of the Big Bang.

See? You're delusional, making me right again.

If only you could have seen the Big Bang with your own eyes maybe you wouldn’t deny the universe was created.

By whom?

As long as you keep denying the science behind the creation of the universe it doesn’t make much sense to even have that discussion.

 

[ding]

The problem is that the 2nd man definition of a "good" life is one that serves himself.

That man doesn't see the point of serving anyone but himself.

The 1st man knows he should act selflessly. While he occasionally does so, he too acts in his own interests all too often.

Neither man is good and neither lives a "good" life.

Still, the 2nd man is lazy and simply going with the flow of his base instincts, while the 1st man, while often failing, strives to rise above his base instincts.

Both men are condemned to Hell, but the first man understands he can't ever do enough good to make up for all the bad. That man submits himself to the saving grace of God and receives salvation as a free gift (not something earned).

The 2nd man spends his whole life pushing God away from himself and then complains when he ends up in Hell, which is simply the absence of God.

The 1st man is foolish, but redeemed by a just God. The 2nd man is just a fool.

That is one of the best posts I have ever read. Bravo.

He's as delusional as you are.

Says the guy who denies the science of the Big Bang.

See? You're delusional, making me right again.

Seriously. Do you know what he is talking about?

Pay better attention.

 

[ding]

That is one of the best posts I have ever read. Bravo.

He's as delusional as you are.

Says the guy who denies the science of the Big Bang.

See? You're delusional, making me right again.

Seriously. Do you know what he is talking about?

Dingbat? Rarely. He makes no sense and can't back up what he says.

Says the guy who denies the creation of the universe from the Big Bang.

 

[Mindful]

That is one of the best posts I have ever read. Bravo.

He's as delusional as you are.

Says the guy who denies the science of the Big Bang.

See? You're delusional, making me right again.

Seriously. Do you know what he is talking about?

Pay better attention.

I would, if..................