Atheism is responsible for more crimes in history than all religions

Atheists believe they have the "rights" to kill people. This is easiest to see, when Atheist support mass genocide and erradication of babies, by abortion. Atheists hate babies and children, and don't care about abortion. Atheists don't see anything wrong with murder, demonstrating their complete lack of morality or sense of righteousness and justice.

 

Source for that absurd claim?

 

And what of the Christians that support a woman's right to choose, like my mother?

 

Unless he repents his sin and then he gets a "get out of hell" free card regardless of how evil he was.

Actually you have that backwards. Christians have to let the man go because only god can judge someone and Christians aren't god.

 

How can atheists justify punishing criminals? They can't.

 

False Christians, New Testament Christians

Abortion is murder, your mother is not a "CHRISTIAN" at all. Your mother supports the murdering of children, infanticide.

 

------

 

Who are you to say who is a real and a false Christian? I'm sure they would say the same thing about you.

 

Right...because it's impossible for atheists to have other philosophies beside atheism, right?

Criminals harm society and the personal property of others. That should be punished. No God needed.

 

You don't know what REPENTANCE is. Repentance means a change of spirit, forgiveness. For example, if a homosexual repents for his SINS, and becomes straight, and ends his practice of sodomy and child molestation, then the POSSIBILITY OF HIS FORGIVENESS is created. That doesn't necessarily mean he's going to Heaven. God judges. God decides whether a person's repentance is true or false, whether a criminal can transcend his crime, and actually change his behavior and life.

If a criminal cannot, and his repentance is fake, then he's still going straight to Hell.

Christians have laws and morals, and punishments for those who break these laws and morals. That's called ETHICS, something you atheists know nothing about. It is perfectly acceptable for Christians to punish those who go against GOD.

TRUE Christians will punish homosexuals, not like violently, but shunning them is one example of punishment. Homosexuals deserve to be SHUNNED and expelled from TRUE Christian establishments, communities, and churches. Why? Because their sexuality is gross, perverted, and they are mentally ill. They watch too much Zionist television like "Two and a Half Men" and other perverted mass media.

 

You're welcome to try. But, if I am TRULY Christian, then I'm going to expose who is true and false eventually. Many people claim to be "atheists" too, but are they truly? To know what is truly Christian or atheist, first you must understand what these terms mean, and who they apply to, and why.

 

------

 

WROOOOONG!

You're putting yourself in the shoes of GOD, to believe that men have the power to say who commits crime, what crime is, and how crimes should be punished. You are advocating "crime according to Questerr's personal opinion". You are not offering an objective, universal, absolute moral standard. Christianity is the only system for this. GOD is the ultimate justice, and has passed Universal Laws on to his prophets and spokesmen. These are the TRUE Christians. These men have created the systems of justice, the society, that you are born in and from.

You owe everything to us. Christians owe nothing to atheists.

 

Prove that you are a true Christian and all the others are fake.

 

lol...... you funny guy.

 

How is the bolded not exactly what you are doing?

 

QUOTE=Heretic;1061595108]You owe everything to us. Christians owe nothing to atheists.[/QUOTE]

A true Christian would have said that we owe everything to Jesus Christ.

What does Jesus say about pride?

Involved in the three Greek words rendered pride in the Greek New Testament is the idea of vainglory, boasting, and high or high-minded. Pride, then, is the opposite of "denying self" (Luke 9: 23). Paul wrote, "Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves" (Phili. 2: 3).

The Pharsisee of Luke 18, a graphic example of pride. Jesus spoke the parable of Luke 18: 10-14 for the purpose of: "And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others" (Luke 18: 9). The Pharisee stood and thanked God that he was better than other men (vs. 11). To the converse, the Publican with down cast eyes said, "God be merciful to me a sinner" (vs. 13). Jesus taught, "everyone that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbeth himself shall be exalted" (vs. 14).

Pride is a lust of the flesh. John wrote, "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but of the world" (1 John 2: 16). The devil unsuccessfully tempted Jesus by appealing to pride, but the devil succeeded in tempting Eve through pride (Matt. 4: 6, Gen. 3: 6, "make one wise"). Pride instead of actually elevating man, brings man low, goes before destruction, and introduces shame (Prov. 29: 23; 16: 18; 11: 2). Notwithstanding, some rejoice in their pride (cp. Zeph. 3: 11). Pride also produces contention (Prov. 13: 10).

On an occasion, Jesus discussed those matters that are corrupt and emanate from within man. "Evil thoughts," Jesus mentions, "covetousness...an evil eye...and pride...," all these evil things come from within and defile the man" (Mk. 7: 20-23). Pride rejects God and his authority, demanding man's will be done and then glories in how great man is.

 

Atheists do use their brains. Ask an atheist why murder is wrong, and then compare the answer you receive to that of a religionist.

 

Yeah, well whateverf your blind doctrin tells you.

If atheists used their brains, then they would be able to acknowlegde that atheism has as much blood on its hands as any other faith, and that the danger is unquestioning adherence to dogma rather than any particular ideology that can potentially spawn dogma.

Atheism is just a guilty as any other, but atheists who are of course using their brian want an explainable exemption to what is clearly documented in history? Makes perfect sense? Clearly discerning search for the truth is behind such demands for exemptions.

Heh, its your looney faith, you chose it.

 

You still haven't established that atheism qualifies as a "faith" at all, let alone something according to which people act. Atheism has no bible telling them to hate people who disagree with them, you know.

 

Harm of another individual or their property.

There's your objective moral standard.

No God needed.

 

Prove definitively that there is no God.

Atheism is faith until that standard is met.

Been saying that or years now. Atheists continue to ...



Oh yeah, and here is AGAIN, why athtards have a burden of proof.

I am sure, Nu uh, demonstrates the atheist ability to use their brain?

We of course have to treat your rediculous conclusions based on nothing but arrogance and opinion as it is an established fact and everyone else in the world is a ding bat, beause atheism is fact not blind arrogance and adherence to dogma?

Right. Whatever floats your boat cult member.

 

Oh, so lying is fine? Excellent. Good thing for atheists as well as we see it so often.

Promiscuity is fine? Prostitution is fine? Drugs? Alcohol? Polygamy? Etc. etc. etc.

Maybe use your brains atheist, if it were as simple as one sentence there would be no debate. A simple point to acknowledge, at least one would think?

 

Yes, because we all know Athetists, when confronted with a post they don't like will hit the dislike button, instead of simply letting them be.

An athetist could simply say it was too dangerous to let him stay alive, but you probably want someone who actually believes in the Death Penalty a lot more than me to explain how/why.

That's not Athetism, that's just some Nutjob.

Yes we can put him jail, we can charge him with crimes. And just so you know:

[video=youtube;5hfYJsQAhl0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0[/video]

 

It depends on the context.

Sure. If they don't harm others why shouldn't they be allowed? One can still have no issue with their legality and still argue against them as a matter of taste.