"How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock." (Psalm 137:9).

Critics often bring up this verse as an attack on the validity of the Bible. But, does the Bible teach that it is okay to kill children? The answer, of course, is, no, it doesn't. But we must ask what the Psalmist was saying and why he was saying it...

Read more here http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/job-song-solomon/why-does-psalmist-speak-about-killing-children

From http://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/

The finest argument I have ever heard against atheism would have to be the �argument from reason.� The typical arguments one hears in atheist vs. theist debates do not usually interest me. I don�t find many of them particularly profound. However, the argument from reason is one of those arguments that would definitely cause me to struggle with atheistic claims if I were an atheist.

It should be noted that this is not an argument �for� Christianity, but rather an argument against atheism, specifically atheism animated by philosophical materialism and/or naturalism. An argument for Christianity would follow a very different set of rules.

Naturalism essentially states that nature is a closed system in which all events within the system are explainable (or are explainable in principle) in terms of the natural order. Thus, naturalism excludes any idea of �god� since the divine does not lie within the total system. If one accepts these presupposition then all events, including that of thought, must be explainable in purely natural/material terms. In short, all events must be the result of mechanical processes linked in a casual chain of events that could be traced back to the very beginning of the universe, if one were so inclined.

The trouble for the Naturalist comes into play when one considers the event of human thought. Since thoughts are events, all of our thoughts should be fully explainable in mechanistic terms, and not according to a person�s free-agency. But any thought which is not guided by what is �true� but guided rather by mechanistic, physical necessity is not rational. Hence, Naturalism, philosophically speaking, slits its own throat.

Again, if our thoughts are the inevitable play of firing neurons in our brain set in motion by causal necessity then what we think would be the result of whatever the total system delivered to us, and not because it accorded with �truth� necessarily. If the claims of Naturalism are held with consistency, one would have to concede that belief in Naturalism occurs only because nature has determined it (sort of an atheist�s equivalent of Calvinism). And if one arrives at his philosophy not because he chose it, but rather because it was all the total system would allow, then Naturalism is, philosophically, self-defeating.

I like what the late Professor Haldane of Oxford University said concerning the logical conclusion of a strict naturalism: �If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true � and hence I have no reason to suppose that my brain to be composed of atoms.�

Victor Reppert, piggy-backing off the ideas put forth in the book, �Miracles,� by C.S. Lewis, which gave a well-articulated criticism of naturalism, gave the following syllogism to help summarize the argument:
1.No belief is rationally inferred if it can be fully explained in terms of non-rational causes.
2.If materialism is true, then all beliefs can be fully explained in terms of non-rational causes.
3.Therefore, if materialism is true, then no belief is rationally inferred.
4.If any thesis entails the conclusion that no belief is rationally inferred, then it should be rejected and its denial accepted.
5.Therefore materialism should be rejected and its denial accepted.

Reppert continues, �Explaining how a person, as a matter of personal history, came to believe something in a rational way is critical to understanding that person as a rational agent.� Naturalism unwittingly denies such an explanation. In essence, naturalism is a philosophy of existence which precludes human beings from being truly free, rational agents. The very power of reasoning which they use to levy arguments against God is the very power which gives witness to an �intellectual� source for reason in general. Rational inference is the ultimate elephant in the room during most atheist debates.

According to a consistent Naturalism any notion of god must be excluded, but its more than that: any notion of good and evil, right and wrong, love and hate, etc., must also be treated as mythical. At best they are nothing more than helpful categories of thought, but categories with no existence (or ontology) of their own. Life would then be essentially meaningless since its ultimate goal is mere survival, a goal wholly unattainable in a world where death is guaranteed.

This is an extremely brief treatment of the argument and I�ve tried my best to summarize my understanding of its main elements. For the sake of time I�ll let whatever discussion ensues from this article help to ferret out those finer points which were left untouched. Thanks for reading!

from http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=4157

...The philosophy of atheism is fraught with logical inconsistency and error. It cannot account for the beginning of the Universe (Miller, 2011); it cannot give an adequate explanation for the obvious design in our world (Fausz, 2007); atheism completely fails to offer a satisfactory explanation of human morality (Lyons, 2011); and human freewill defies an atheistic explanation (Butt, 2010). To cling to atheism in the face of such overwhelming evidence takes an irrational belief that is motivated by something other than a sincere quest for truth and knowledge...

Reading Henni's posts I'm reminded of what Shakespeare said so eloquently..."The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Carry on Henni, but personally, I believe you should quit while you're behind.

The bible is not "Good News" but rather "old news" and very poorly written at that.

Some quotes from Hitch...

"Religion is man-made. Even the men who made it cannot agree on what their prophets or redeemers or gurus actually said or did."

"The Bible may, indeed does, contain a warrant for trafficking in humans, for ethnic cleansing, for slavery, for bride-price, and for indiscriminate massacre, but we are not bound by any of it because it was put together by crude, uncultured human mammals."

"Name an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer."

�What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.�


Ian

Henni if you can do this for me..All these quotes that you post in here.Can you change the names of name characters.God to Allah, Jesus to Mohamed, Christianity to Islam.Even change Henni to Mirza, scince my name is Islamic...hhehehe...than tell me what do you think of that Islamic fundamentalist( Mirza))).Isn't he nuts and too religious.So religious he doesn't have a single thought just by himself.He is just quoting Qur'an all day long..

I have yet to see any reasons to make me believe any religion is true?

So, I am fully justified in taking the same attitude towards theism that I have taken towards claims about UFOs, Bigfoot, the Lost Continent of Atlantis, the Bermuda Triangle, poltergeists, etc.

These are interesting claims, but their proponents are repeatedly unable to offer persuasive evidence on their behalf.

In such cases skepticism is an eminently rational position, and its rarity among human beings is not an indictment of it, but of the gullibility of the majority.

Ian

PS...you know, every Christian is an atheist with respect to the gods of Hindu, Sikhs, Muhammedans God, Zeus, Mithras, Horus, Dionysus, african gods, etc, etc. ...they don't believe in the gods of other religions.

Atheists carry it just one god further.

There are so many contradictions, the whole thing is a mess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

He (your god) broke most of his own commandments: adultery, murder, looting, etc.
Isn't it wonderful to have so much power, that even when you're wrong, you're still right? For crying out loud, he makes Satan look like an altar boy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Christopher Hitchens had more logic in his little finger than all of his fanatical opponents combined. He would've had you for breakfast.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
If something doesn't go according to plan, let's throw in something called "free agency". That way we won't be held accountable when things run out of hand. Or we make up another character called Lucifer. After all, fear is a perfect reason to keep the masses under control. On the other hand, when things go according to plan, when everything and everyone is under our control, we praise the Almighty. And we laugh happily all the way to the bank. Those that are with us, pay, and those that are against us, we'll make them pay.

Well said, Taike, and it is great to see you back posting.

Ian

Two things: Taike, so glad to see you post. Always look forward to your emails.

And Gary; the passion that almost oozed out of your effort to explain your position relative to religion and personal feelings represents a milestone here.

Eloquent, "slice of life", and commendable.


R.

What is demonstrated here is the utter futility of trying to have an intellectual discussion with a 'true believer'.

aint gonna happen.

chas