MyNews24 is a user-generated section of The stories here come from users.

Comments: 67
Article views: 4
Latest Badges:

View all Keita's badges.

A study on atheism for christians - a rebuttal

06 November 2013, 09:26

Adam, all I’m going to say as a preamble is that I’m almost ashamed for you. Almost. I say ‘almost’ because it’s hard for me to believe that anyone could be this ignorant. I must therefore assume that your ignorance is wilful, and if that is indeed the case, I should pity you rather than be ashamed for you. I simply cannot let this stand, and though I’m sure the atheists here will make short thrift of your ramblings, I can’t help but correct you anyway. I spent too many years at university to allow such obvious misconceptions and errors to stand.

So let me get started.

“In a bid to understand the more intricate disciplines of the atheist’s motivations and subsequent mindset, I came across some of the jewels depicting the pinnacle of the atheist cause.”

Okay, let me stop you right there. Let us get something straight right away. There is no such thing as an ‘atheist cause’. The ‘atheist cause’ exists, like the ‘gay agenda’, only in the minds of various deluded Christians. I realise that you firmly believe that such a ‘cause’ exists, because you cannot conceive of a group of people who hold a similar view that do not have a cause. After all, Christians have a cause, and therefore atheists must too, right? Get that out of your mind right now. Or at least try to.

“Individuals defining themselves as front runners and the authority on building a society run with a distinct atheist agenda.  The atheist want to build a society without God and His influence on people, vigorously trying to destroy any voice depicting any “other” (than the atheist agenda) envisioned outcome. “

This is downright false. I would go so far as to call it lies. Propaganda, even. I’ll refrain from calling it statistics, however. Jokes aside, seriously, what are you smoking? You have clearly never heard of the separation between church and state. Or you have, but you don’t have the foggiest idea of what it means. That is understandable. Christianity have for many, many years enjoyed special protection under the government. You know the British, right? You do know that the Queen is not just the Queen, but also titular head of the Anglican church? The Brits were in charge here for...a very long time. The British kings knew the power of religion, and as a counter to the power of the pope, they created their own church, with the king as pope. It therefore placed both religious and secular power in the hands of the monarchy. When the Brits left, the old NP government picked that idea up and ran with it. By endorsing a particular religion/denomination, they gained an additional avenue to power. The church and the state in this country was therefore nearly inseparable. It’s probably only natural for you to assume that this is still the case, and that atheists, being a different “religion” in your view would try to insert themselves in government to somehow legislate Christianity out of existence. This is so false I don’t even know how to begin to correct you. However, I shall try. Point number one: South Africa is a secular state. That means there is no official state religion, and that there is a separation between church and state. That means that the state cannot claim religious authority, and that no church can lay claim to state power. We also have such a thing as religious freedom, which means you are free to believe in any religion you choose. It also means that any given religion can only claim authority over adherents of their own particular doctrine. Rest assured, Adam. According to the constitution of this country, atheists (although not a religion, but you still perceive it as such and so for the sake of this article, let’s assume it is) cannot legislate Christianity out of existence even if they wanted to. Aren’t you glad you live in a country with a secular government? Of course, it also means you can’t legislate them out of existence, but I suppose every silver lining must have a cloud.

So what have we learned so far? There is no atheist agenda to destroy god. That being out of the way, and with the knowledge that even if such an agenda existed, it cannot come to fruition because it’s unconstitutional, the entire premise of your article becomes moot. Still...I shall persevere, because I can’t possibly ignore all the rest of it.

“They would like to “protect” society at its core, by “protecting” the individual from God; thus: an atheist envisioned “free man”. This “free man” is able to do what ever he wants, as long as such an individual does not violate the “freedoms” of the society he lives in…, a man having the liberties of a god (Man being god of his own life and withholding {revoking his right to}, his ability to enforce “evil” on society), because there supposedly is no God… They unfortunately, conveniently forget that an individual living without a moral conscience is without morals.”

Let’s start with the “freedoms of society”. They are called human rights, and are enshrined in the bill of rights, which forms part of the constitution. Little things like freedom of association, freedom of religion, the right to not be discriminated against, the right to an environment that’s clean and not harmful to your health. There are more of course. Don’t assume that just because I don’t mention them all they don’t exist. Google it. Or go to any government office. They’ll happily provide you with a copy. (I’m not kidding. The government really would be overjoyed if more people would bother to actually read the bill of rights, and know what the associated clauses in the various legislation means, which not only gives force to the rights, but also explains their limitations and their associated responsibilities.) So the ‘free man’ you speak of isn’t an atheistic free man, but a secular free man, and it doesn’t matter what religion he is. Everyone have the same freedoms, the same limitations to those freedoms, and the same responsibilities. You are correct when you say that the ‘free man’ is free to do what he wants, but you are wrong when you say it is within the freedom of society. You should have said “within the law of the land.” I think you got confused and assumed that “secular” and “atheist” mean the same thing. It doesn’t. A secular government doesn’t mean the individual members of said government are atheists. It merely means that those people in power cannot use state power to enforce religious law. Those people can individually be of any religion whatsoever, or adhere to none if that is their choice.

As for morality without god...why can’t you have morals without god? Humans have an intrinsic knowledge of what is right and what is wrong. It comes built into us. You don’t need to be religious to know that it’s wrong to kill, or rape, or steal. If this wasn’t true, then Hindus would universally have no regard for such basic human rights. I trust you’ve been keeping up with the news, so you know how outraged India was when the gang-rape of a young woman was revealed. That indicates to me that India, a predominantly Hindu country, have the same basic morals that Christians advocate. So which is it here, Adam? Do Hindus have morals without the benefit of god, or do all the Hindu gods also exist to instil morality in them? It’s one or the other here, I’m afraid. There’s no other option, I’m afraid.

“Their agenda is thus just as bigoted as any religious institution (the leaven of the Pharisees); by failing to truly liberate any individual. They conveniently make a rule of “no-rules”, as to unburden their own conscience from the constraints their current disposition in a Godly moral society (which is a dubious term, considering South Africa’s current state); yet they and their peers are still “forced” to adhere to. They experience a form of a “mind chain” of religious morality, still burdening their in cumbered hearts, forcing them to admit to having sin, due to their involvement in a secular society, that still reveres Godly morality as its basis, even thou the existence of Godly morality within that society is severely hampered and disfigured at best.”

Oh! Ouch! You really put your foot in it there, Adam. Since there is no agenda, and no rule of no rules, as you so eloquently put it, the rest of this rather weak argument makes no sense whatsoever. There is no “current disposition in a godly moral society” because there is no union of church and state. Atheists are therefore not constrained to live by godly law because the law of the land is based on the constitution and the bill of rights, not on the bible. Since atheists are not adherents of Christianity, they are not in any way constrained by godly law RIGHT NOW. They are only “constrained” by the law of the land...but the same also applies to you. You willingly chose to accept the additional constraint of godly law unto yourself, and they chose not to. As is their constitutional right. They, or indeed anyone else, are not forced to adhere to anything more or anything less. It is completely irrelevant what other members of society chooses to adhere to because the basis of society is not godly morality, but the constitution. Whatever else individual members of society believes, the constitution limits their rights in such a way that no single group can gain the right to enforce its own morality on any other. In case you hadn’t noticed, Adam, there’s nothing in the law of the land that prohibits divorce, or prevents you from wearing clothing of mixed fabric. Atheists are in no way forced to admit to having sin. Adam, please. Don’t tell me you didn’t know that society included atheists, pagans, Hindus, Muslims and the various “others” mentioned in the latest census. Are you speaking for them too when you speak of “society”? Or do you exclude them and assume that society is synonymous with Christians? Which is it, Adam? Fact of the matter matter what one particular group within society thinks, they do not have the right to dictate to any other. You claim that atheists are seeking to create an atheistic society. But didn’t you yourself just claim that we live in a Christian society right now? And are you not saying that this is good and proper for everyone, including non-Christians, in spite of their constitutional right to freedom of religion? Isn’t this a case of the pot calling the kettle black, Adam? But given that the agenda you speak of doesn’t exist, it comes down to you accusing yourself. You are guilty of what you claim atheists are trying to do.

“Communism is one example of such “liberty”, the liberal post modern atheist man another…; both moderate to extreme versions of atheist ideology dismembers morality at its core, with the best of intentions, by trying to dismember Godly morality. They then enslave the future generations by not giving it a clear grasp of what is moral and just to do, by disregarding the cornerstone of morality. “

Wrong in every single point. Communism and atheism have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with each other. Atheism means simply that a person doesn’t believe in the existence of any god or gods. That is ALL atheism means. Nothing more and nothing less. There is no such thing as atheist ideology, because there is no central doctrine that atheists adhere to. Atheism means one thing, and that one thing is “There Is No God.” Fullstop. Period. Fin. Finito. The End. Amen. The Fat Lady Have Now Officially Sung. Elvis Has Left The Building. Do you understand? Communism didn’t grow out of atheism. Nor did atheism grow out of Communism. They are two entirely different concepts. One is a philosophical position on the existence of god(s), and the other is an economic movement to create a classless, moneyless and stateless social order. You do not need to be an atheist in order to be a communist, nor is it necessary for a communist to be an atheist. The two are not associated with each other, nor was one created as an extension of the other. Sure, an atheist codified the principles of communism for the first time, but that doesn’t mean that communism was formulated because of atheism, or to push an “atheist agenda”. It also doesn’t follow that just because an atheist dictator picked up the idea and ran with it that they were trying to advance atheism. That simply wasn’t the case. Stalinism is a perversion of communism, and really, when you look at it, wasn’t communism at all. What did Stalin, or any of his successors do to advance the principles of communism? Did they attempt to advance things to the point where a state was unnecessary? Did they try to abolish classism? Did they in fact follow any of the principles of communism? When the Russian government ordered the engineering of cars, did they order the construction of only one type of vehicle? No. They didn’t just build Ladas and Skodas, they also built Volgas, Zils and Tatras. Vehicles exclusively for the use of party members. In other words, for the ruling class. Does that sound like communism to you? Did they make an attempt to lead the people to the point of not needing a state? They created the KGB to ensure the people had no way to toss them out of power. Does that sound like communism to you? So if the Russian government didn’t adhere to the founding principles of communism, was it communism they were practicing? No. It was Stalinism. This was achieved through the creation of a personality cult around Joseph Stalin. This created a pattern that was followed by almost every subsequent leader of the communist party in Russia, with the possible exception of Nikita Khrushchev, who was recalled by his party for not strictly adhering to the party line, and who, incidentally, was responsible for the temporary “thaw” in the cold war. Of course, none of this has anything whatsoever to do with atheism. The banning of religion in Russia was not to advance atheism, but to remove a rival to power. The Orthodox church have always been powerful in Russia, and for the communist party to secure their rule, they had to neutralise that power. It was political, and not to advance atheism. I suggest you read up a bit on Russian history, old boy.

“How can that happen with the best laid plans of moral education? How can you debar all rules except one, and expect a fair and just society? The atheist agenda endeavor to instill a conscience of morality in the future generation by giving them a non-religious education in morality. But, how is this viable? “Do as you please as long as you do not violate the “freedoms” of society”, and then enforce a moral conscience upon a young person, who is without the understanding (knowledge), of what actions could actually violate the freedoms of a society? And even if he has full knowledge of his actions, am in no ways bound to “do as he is told”, because he has in effect a “no-rules” ideology…?”

With all due don’t know what you’re talking about. What rules have been debarred? Please, name me one. Please, also point me in the direction of the rule which states that a parent may not teach their own children? Please show me the rule that transfers all parental authority to the state? You go on and on and on about an agenda that exists only in your imagination, and speak of the suspension of rules that have in absolutely no way been suspended. Seriously, where do you get this claptrap from? How can you possibly say that children are not taught what the rules of society are? Do children not go to school? I do believe that children are still taught that killing, stealing, raping, pillaging, piracy and whatever else you care to name is being taught at school level. The only thing that isn’t being taught is that stuff about the Christian god being the only god, and that you may not worship any other. Which actually makes sense when you think about it. After all, not everyone in the class is going to be Christian. Why should they by default be indoctrinated with YOUR faith? Are they not allowed their own? And you accuse atheists of trying to indoctrinate people? Seriously Adam...

And there is no atheist IDEOLOGY. Ideology implies doctrine, which you find only in religion, and repressive regimes. Like Stalinism. Like capitalism. Like Christianity. All of those have principles upon which they are based, ideals they try to achieve. Given the world economy now, can you honestly tell me capitalism is any better? As with Soviet Style communism, the rich keep getting richer at the expense of the poor. Governments try every dirty trick they can to stay in power, and both spied horribly on other countries and their own “citizens”. And in both cases, the people on the ground don’t really have any say in which system to use. The politicians never present them with all the possible choices. You usually get a choice between two bowls of s**t. Slightly different in flavour, but in essence not really that different. Again, none of which have anything to do with atheism. So please go barking up another tree.

“For a person to respect another he has to be aware of his misconduct (sin) that could infringe or impede the liberties his neighbor.”

Let’s get our terminology straight here. “Misconduct” is not “sin”. “Sin” implies misconduct in the eyes of a deity. It is therefore up to said deity to punish “sin” as he/she/it/them see fit. Misconduct is a minor contravention to secular law. I’m sure what you mean here is “crime”, and once again, “crime” and “sin” are not synonyms. Stop pretending they are. Also stop pretending that it is the state’s responsibility to enforce godly law. Only the deity can enforce godly law. The state doesn’t have godly authority. Nor does the deity have authority, or recognition, to enforce secular law. The deity is not a member of government, or a law enforcement officer. Sure, you can pretend that your deity’s law is superior to state authority, but I’m absolutely positive that the police will arrest you before your deity gets around to correcting their “mistake” should you be stupid enough to commit a crime, even though your deity told you it was okay for you to commit said crime. Seriously, Adam, how can you possibly pretend to be so ignorant of the law that you have absolutely no idea of what would constitute a crime? If you are really that ignorant, I can direct you to a website. It’s got all the legislation right there. Or, alternatively, you can visit your local library. Or just ask any police officer. Don’t go to a lawyer though. They’ll charge you. Just some friendly consumer advice there...

“He has to live and breathe obedience to an authority, and the laws that govern it. He in effect can not live and be; the atheist propaganda slogan: “…I am my own god, because there is no God…” An atheist is therefore a subsequent slave to the laws and rules of society, and definitely not its master, because an Atheist society has no reward for good behavior but only punishment for disobedience. God rewards “god fearing biblical good behavior”, and punishes bad (disobedient to God/sin), behavior at Judgment Day.” are being inconsistent. How can atheist be slaves to laws that, according to you, they created? How can they both say they choose not to listen to the law, and be its slave? You can’t be both at once, Adam. You can’t be a free slave. You can only be free OR a slave. That being said...I disagree that there’s no reward for adhering to the law of the land. If you obey the traffic laws, for example, you have a better chance of arriving at your destination in one piece. Sure, the traffic officers don’t pay you not to speed, but hey, you got to your destination alive and without bodily harm. Seriously Adam, why do you need to be rewarded for being a good person? If you are a good person, you won’t pedal drugs, or beat your wife, or shoot your neighbour in the face, or rape a child. Are people who choose not to do these things really slaves of society or the law? Is it only the law that prevents people from doing these things? Adam, look at me. I am not a Christian. I have also never committed any of these crimes. I have also not smuggled cycads, or poached Rhinos. Would those two things be bad, Adam? Or is poaching Rhino not a sin? No? Where in the bible does it say that I’m not allowed to smuggle cycads or poach Rhino? Exactly nowhere. So I wouldn’t be a sinner if I did that, would I? Aren’t you grateful though, that you live in a secular society in which laws can be made to correct these little godly oversights, and can enforce them without having to wait for the poachers to roast in hell? Seriously, Adam, you need secular law, because biblical law simply can’t cope with modern crime. It is therefore best to leave the bible to those who believe in it. You can go ahead and adhere to it, okay?

“An atheist is a bar-coded man (faceless number) of a propaganda system, not master of his/her “world” at all. Atheism merely gives an illusion of grandeur, - saying: “…our knowledge is the only “Truth…” (conveniently forgetting that a few hundred years ago secular science considered the earth as flat). In my opinion it depends on what you know…, and not what someone else tells you, you should know, or is the norm (fashion) of the day…? Atheism deem to punish immoral behavior without giving the person a “will” to obey it – enslaving its follower because its followers doesn't comprehend the “will” to obey the statute”

Do you know how science works, Adam? Actually, why am I asking? Obviously, you don’t, or you wouldn’t make such an obviously ignorant statement. In very broad strokes, science works like this: a scientist will see something happening. Let’s say he sees a ship sail away and disappear over the horizon. The next step is asking a question: why does the ship disappear over the horizon? This is called the question statement. Now he can go on and attempt to answer the question by looking at all the reasons a ship may disappear over the horizon. This is called formulating a hypothesis. Hypothesis one: the ship sank. Hypothesis two: the ship is so distant that it became too small to see with the naked eye. Let’s say these are the only hypotheses our scientist came up with. Now he must test his hypotheses to see whether he is correct. He can hire a boat and go out to see whether the ship sank. He finds no debris. He therefore concludes that hypothesis one can be discounted. Next, he can turn around and look back at the land. He can still see a very high building. The building is taller than the ship. Now our scientist can also discount his second hypothesis. If the ship was too small to be seen from this distance, then the building should not have been visible. But since it is visible, why was the ship not visible? You see what he did there? He observed his world, asked a question, formulated a hypothesis, tested his hypothesis, and found that neither held up to scrutiny. But he’s got some new data now that he didn’t have previously. He now knows that tall objects disappear over the horizon slower than short objects do. Why would that be? Now he’s made a second problem statement based on his new knowledge. Now he must formulate a new hypothesis. Let’s say he then goes back to his house and sees an apple rolling across the table. He sees that the stem disappears from view as the apple rotates. He then makes a leap of imagination, and imagines that instead of the apple moving, the stem alone is moving. A taller stem would disappear slower than a short stem does as the apple rotates. He imagines that the stem is the ship, and as the ship travels around the curvature of the world, it disappears from view. This hypothesis fits all the available evidence, but he hasn’t yet proven it. What has he done now? He has formulated a theory: the theory of the round earth. All he has to do now is collect other corroborating evidence. Once he finds it, he can publish it for other scientists to look at. He is meticulous and notes down all his reasoning. He lists all his observations, describes his experiments, and finally offers a conclusion. Now another scientist can go and repeat exactly what he did, and if the theory holds up repeatedly, it becomes accepted. Now people know that the world is round and not flat. They know this because there’s observation, and math and whatnot. Previously not knowing that the earth was round wasn’t a failure of science. It wasn’t science who said the earth was flat. The church said so. Science proved them wrong through following the scientific method. So I wouldn’t be so quick to throw rocks at science if I were you, Adam. All you’re doing is showing your ignorance. Science never said that “our knowledge is the truth, and you must just accept that”. To the contrary, science invites you to examine the evidence. You can go to your library today and look at a copy of the science magazine “Nature”. In it, you will find meticulously documented evidence, along with the method for repeating the experiment. If you have the equipment, you can go and test what the articles say. Let’s say a scientist claims that Jupiter has four moons. You can take a telescope and verify it yourself. You’ll find that indeed, Jupiter has four moons. But let’s say you have a more powerful telescope than the scientist who wrote the article. Instead of four moons, you see five. Was the first scientist wrong? No. He saw only four moons, and therefore, as far as science knew, Jupiter had only four moons. You have now advanced the boundaries of science by discovering something new we didn’t know before. But since we do now know, we correct and update. This is a constant process. After all, we didn’t go from old man Carl Benz’s first prototype for the horseless carriage straight to today’s S-Class Mercedes. There was 127 years of research and development in between. Adam, never make the mistake of equating atheism to science. Once again, the two are NOT synonyms, in the same way that atheist and communist are not synonyms. Atheists merely use science to support their philosophical position. No more, and no less. In the same way that chemists use science to discover new chemicals. Science is merely the method used to generate knowledge. That is all science is. Science doesn’t say god don’t exist. Atheists do. And atheists use the knowledge science generated to support their philosophical position. They are saying that there is no evidence for god’s existence, and therefore, it is safe to assume he doesn’t exist. That is all they are saying, and they are not wrong. There IS no evidence. Nothing than can be verified independently. Science isn’t asking you to blindly follow what is written down. Science cannot work unless it’s questioned, tested, verified. Christianity on the other hand demands faith without verification. Adam, up there you say “it’s about what you know, not about what you are told”. If you really believe that, then why are you even debating this? You’d know that science has evidence to support its theories, and therefore, science is something you KNOW. It’s verified. It’s tested.  The bible on the other hand is something that you are told. You accept that what it says is true without ever testing, questioning it.

“Is there such a thing as truth then? Or is “truth” manipulated to fancy the propaganda of the day? Your social consciousness should not determine your “knowledge of truth”. Truth should be the total sum of what you consider as fact, never resting at a full drown conclusions, but always questioning and learning. Otherwise you are a sheep, herding to your click. Isn’t it? Where does knowledge and wisdom start”

So Adam, why aren’t you questioning, learning? If you did, you’d understand what I said here. You’d understand why these last two paragraphs of yours were so...hysterically funny. If scientists were not questioning and learning, they couldn’t be scientists. Atheists of course are not scientists. Well...actually, some are. I mean that not all atheists are scientists. The two are not synonyms. They have nothing to do with each other. Like I said earlier, science merely generates knowledge. Atheists use that knowledge to support their position. Atheists are not sheep. They rely on tested, verified knowledge to support their views. They arrived there because they questioned and learned. The only difference is that they tested everything, including the bible. They didn’t stop short of the bible. You on the other hand just accepted the bible. Accepted that what it said was true. Therefore you didn’t question. Therefore your own are the only sheep here.

I feel it would be rather pointless to go into the next section because you make statements based on scripture. I’d have to first accept the scripture as valid in order to have a meaningful discussion thereof, and since I don’t accept scripture as valid, anything you said based on it would not have any impact on me, just as I’m sure anything I said wouldn’t have any effect on you.

“Some examples of the pinnacles; the atheist propaganda machine can reach…?

1.            Alfred Kinsey

Atheists love to propagate their agenda by referring to “Cherry Picked -Old Testament Scriptures” and the current Catholic Clergy Scandals as prime examples of the fallibility of Christianity (by not guarding innocence), however, seldom mentioning the fact that their moral disillusionment can undermine an entire generation; case and point: Alfred Kinsey was an infamous American biologist and professor of entomology and zoology, who made groundbreaking research on human sexuality. Undoubtedly, he helped to progress social values – but, nevertheless, he took sadistic pleasure out of his research, and did some very weird stuff, including exploiting children for sex. Moreover, much of his research was fraud. How can this “study” not have a detrimental effect on the pulse of a society? Questioning a pedophile on societal trends? Although it is widely known that he was quite intricately involved in his own work, one can only speculate on his involvement with children. Sickening stuff isn’t it?

Wikipedia: “…Kinsey wrote about pre-adolescent orgasms using data in tables 30 to 34 of the male volume, which report observations of orgasms in over three-hundred children between the ages of five months and fourteen years.[23] This information was said to have come from adults' childhood memories, or from parent or teacher observation.[24] Kinsey said he also interviewed nine men who had sexual experiences with children, and who told him about the children's responses and reactions. Little attention was paid to this part of Kinsey's research at the time, but where Kinsey had gained this information began to be questioned nearly 40 years later.[25] It was later revealed that Kinsey used data from a single pedophile and presented it as being from various sources…””

First of all, psychology isn’t science. All Kinsey did was document. This is something psychologists do all the time. Tell me Adam, if a psychologist interviews a murderer about the murder he committed, and uses what he learned to write a paper on the psychology of murderers, is that psychologist then guilty of murder? Of course he isn’t. He merely documented what is told him, and drew a conclusion based on what was said to him. This is how all sociological data is gathered. I assume you’ve filled out a census form? This is no different. You state that Kinsey drew sadistic pleasure from this. How do you know? Where is your supporting evidence? Was Kinsey himself convicted or accused of paedophilia? If you have nothing to corroborate that statement can be glad Kinsey isn’t alive anymore, because that would constitute defamation. Which, incidentally, is a crime.

That being’ll notice that when Kinsey’s research was scrutinised, it failed to hold up. In other words, it failed the peer review process. Kinsey was not the best sociologist, and as such, his work is today discredited. Again, what does this have to do with atheism? All you managed to do here is prove that the peer review process works, your attempt at character assassination notwithstanding...

“1 John 3: 6

6 No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.

Anyone who defiles a child didn't see Jesus. You have to be an atheist to be a pedophile and a pedophile is therefore an atheist…  Are all of the preachers converted? God should give us discernment of spirit so we can distinguish between the wolves and shepherds.  May Jesus come quickly to help us?”

Adam, this is sheer bullshit. There’s just no other word for it. I am aghast. Are you saying that a Christian is incapable of sin? Didn’t you say up there that in order to be saved, you had to repent your sins? But how can you repent sin if you’re incapable of committing sin? You can’t repent something you never committed. You are therefore either lying or just too stupid to keep your own arguments straight. Or is this merely another case of the bible speaking out of two sides of its face again? Seriously Adam, pedos, being sinners, are therefore atheists, and atheists are therefore pedos? All Chinese are communists, and therefore all communists are Chinese? Seriously Adam...this logic fails so hard it’s not even funny.

Yeah yeah yeah. You have a list of bad people who were atheist. The one thing all your examples lack is a clear link between their behaviour and atheism. I could list a like number of Christians who did bad things, and don’t now come and claim that they were bad, and therefore were not Christian, because Christians are incapable of being bad. That is bullshit. If someone looks Christian, talks Christian, carries a bible and goes to church, then he’s a Christian. That’s the long and short of it. That’s reality. Your claim that Christians can’t sin is denialism, nothing more. I’m going to make a wild guess and state that you didn’t actually research these people too deeply. If you did, you’d have noticed that their atheism was not the causal factor in their behaviour. This is a false assumption, or an outright attempt at propaganda on your part. But you can always prove me wrong. Present us with evidence that atheism was the causal event.

Your conclusion also fails because you can demonstrate no real link between atheism and communism, or liberalism, be it in general or specific. You fail to demonstrate a need for godly values in society, because really, there exists no such need. You point our Zimbabwe and South Africa as examples. I could just as easily point at Sweden as a liberal society that works pretty damn well.

In short, your facts are in error, Sir. Please try again.

Disclaimer: All articles and letters published on MyNews24 have been independently written by members of News24's community. The views of users published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24. News24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received. publishes all comments posted on articles provided that they adhere to our Comments Policy. Should you wish to report a comment for editorial review, please do so by clicking the 'Report Comment' button to the right of each comment.

Comment on this story
Comments have been closed for this article.

Read more from our Users

Submitted by
Pedro Mzileni
Student depression: Why some stud...

The successful people who have graduated think that sharing their stories is a sign of weakness. The socio-academically struggling students think that asking for help is a sign of weakness.  Read more...

0 comments 64 views
Submitted by
Shirley Groves
Exclusive Books finally to the re...

Social media is a powerful tool; companies sometimes find out the hard way what a mission it is for clients to deal with their staff and their company policies. Read more...

0 comments 2780 views
Submitted by
Mandisi Khalimeshe
Zimbabwe - SA's older, wiser brot...

Would you prefer that our country walks down the same path that Mugabe’s Zimbabwe has walked or would you prefer that we, as proud South Africans “learn from another person’s mistake” as the old adage tells us? Read more...

0 comments 562 views
Submitted by
Zim: Fools came rushing in!

And all the supporters who sing and dance in political rallies never learned anything from freely available archived histories of political demagoguery. Read more...

0 comments 538 views
Submitted by
Zim is playing musical chairs, an...

The sad part - for our own country - is that while the Zimbabwean show is on the go, we are busy with our very own show based on exactly the same principles. Read more...

0 comments 337 views
Submitted by
Lindiwe Mpofu
Change is coming to Zimbabwe, one...

Growing up in Zimbabwe in the 1990s I had two big heroes, my maternal grandfather and Robert Mugabe. Read more...

0 comments 1838 views


RSS feeds News delivered really simply.

E-mail Newsletters You choose what you want

News24 on Android Get the latest from News24 on your Android device.

SMS Alerts Get breaking news stories via SMS.

Interactive Advertising Bureau
© 2017 All rights reserved.
There are new stories on the homepage. Click here to see them.


Create Profile

Creating your profile will enable you to submit photos and stories to get published on News24.

Please provide a username for your profile page:

This username must be unique, cannot be edited and will be used in the URL to your profile page across the entire network.


Location Settings

News24 allows you to edit the display of certain components based on a location. If you wish to personalise the page based on your preferences, please select a location for each component and click "Submit" in order for the changes to take affect.

Facebook Sign-In

Hi News addict,

Join the News24 Community to be involved in breaking the news.

Log in with Facebook to comment and personalise news, weather and listings.