re: The “Freedom From Religion Foundation” warns Auburn University

quote:

---

yet we enforce our morality upon them

---

Irrelevant

Pedophilia is against the law based upon the 14th Amendment and their inability to consent, as defined by the laws in our society.

First off none of you were present and have no idea what really happened. Freeze didn’t baptize the player he helped the preacher there dunk the player who attended the service . The kid was a football player and became emotional realizing he had never been baptized and wanted to get baptized. Freeze went into the water and helped the pastor dunk him since it’s a big football player.

quote:

---

First off none of you were present and have no idea what really happened.

---

/Board

The Bill of Rights does not restrict people.

It restricts govt from restricting people.


The Bill of Rights protects people from govt.

Arguing a point not raised

Sounds like a bunch of moonies

quote:

---

So who is the sun free person that baptized you? I’ll wait for an answer!

---

I think his name was Nandor the relentless. Something like that.

I for one was excited to see this at Auburn.

quote:

---

If this is your worldview, and you have no issues proselytizing to those who don’t want it because you (not they) believe someone to be “living in sin”, then you absolutely cannot complain when an atheist (as dumb as they also might be) for pushing their views loudly into the public sphere.

---

Since it's not simply pushing views that I'm concerned about, but pushing true views, I can certainly complain about others pushing falsehoods in the public if I like, but that's not really what I'm concerned about here. It's not simply people saying whatever they want, but people living in contradiction to their espoused worldviews, as the atheist does when he makes claims that assume objective truth claims exist when they expect to be listened to in the public square.

The atheist is being irrational when he condemns anyone (e.g., a Christian who is preaching the Gospel to others) and when he expects his condemnation to mean something to anyone beyond themselves. Most people don't act as if morality is mere opinion, even if their worldview reduces morality to nothing more that very thing, and what I like to do is draw attention to the inability of the atheist to act consistently within his worldview, and show how the Christian worldview is to be preferred based on the necessity of its truthfulness in order to make sense of the world around us.

Since objective moral reasoning is impossible in the atheist's presupposed position, it is irrationally inconsistent to act as if morality is objective and then expect others to live according to an objective moral standard that doesn't exist. To be consistent, the atheist should treat all actions as if they were examining how one animal acts towards another animal in the wild. If a cat takes the food of another cat, that isn't an immoral act of theft. If a lion kills a zebra, it isn't an immoral act of murder. When a dog mounts and copulates with another dog, that isn't an immoral act of rape. Those are just things that one purposeless object does to another purposeless object in a purposeless, meaningless universe.

Humans impose arbitrary standards of morality, but morality doesn't actually exist in an objective way in the atheist's worldview. If one society--let's say through a majority democratic vote--decided that it was morally acceptable to enslave a minority class of people in that society and to do whatever they wanted with them (rape them, kill them, abuse them for gain, etc.), then why would that be morally wrong to do those things in that society when the moral standard was reached and accepted? The short answer is that it wouldn't be immoral.

In the end, what I'm complaining about isn't the atheist speaking out against Christians, but the atheist acting like his protest is meaningful outside his own mind in any real sense. It's a complaint about the arbitrary and irrational actions of the atheist who doesn't realize that his rejection of his creator makes his protests absolutely silly.

quote:

---

Man wrote the book because he needed to impose his order on other men.

---

Did he? How do you know?

quote:

---

It’s easier to do that (especially back then) with fear and stories.

---

I'm sure it's easier to control people with fear and stories, but how do you know the Bible was written for that purpose? How does teaching people to fear God above your own rulers benefit those rulers who just want to control others for their own gain? Or do you believe that those rulers were extremely self-sacrificing and valued the order of society at-large more highly than their ability to control others for their own gain?

quote:

---

Over the years, societies formed around laws, many still having some of the same principles. We should teach the laws of the society we live in, not the guidance of the past.

---

Why "should" we do anything at all? You speak as though there is a universal moral imperative that we all have to obey in abiding by a certain set of laws that may currently exist, which were likely put in place based on principles and guidance from the past (which you have stated that we should not use, against all wisdom that we should use the past to guide the present due to learning from the past).

quote:

---

Both were created by man, but only one is actually broadly applicable to all as guidance today.

---

The moral law of God is applicable to all as guidance today and in every place and time while the laws of any given society are not universal, especially since they often change over time. God's moral law can apply differently based on cultural contexts, but the basis for what is morally right and wrong does not change because God does not change, unlike societies of man.