A Paper I Found On The Subject Of Atheism

Found this at http://www.tencommandments.org, under the atheist link, the bolded part is actually bolded on the site. And there’s six LONG pages about this, if you’re really bored.

The best way to understand the nature of atheism is to understand its author. Satan is its author.

It’s important to remain conscious of the fact that Satan had his origin in heaven, and is thoroughly familiar with the fact of the existence of God, heaven, the angels, hell and etc. Thus despite what you have been previously deceptively taught and despite the deceptive dictionary’s meaning of atheism, atheism is properly defined as a denial of the existence of God in the midst of full knowledge that the true God does indeed exist. Atheism knows God exists; it is quite familiar with that fact, but it says “under no circumstance or situation will I admit to God’s existence.”

Atheism clearly perceives the fingerprints of God on all of creation, but refuses to admit He is the Creator. Atheism perceives the divine authorship of the TEN COMMANDMENTS, but refuses to admit that God is their Author. Atheism perceives the decorousness and perfection of the TEN COMMANDMENTS, but refuses to admit they are superior to all other laws. Atheism clearly perceives the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, but refuses to admit His divinity. If an atheist could see the wounds in the body of Christ and actually feel them with his hands, he would deny that the wounds are there. Atheism is deliberate effort to never admit the existence of God.

Atheism is the ultimate of Satanism. Ask Satan does God exist and he will deny it. Ask him does Satan exist and he will deny his own existence even while in your presence. Atheism holds the Bible in one hand, but deny its existence by denying its truth with the other.

Go read the rest of it, its funny as hell, and full of shit. Being an atheist, this doesn’t upset me, make me angry, or anything else, it just makes me laugh. Since when do atheists refuse to admit the existence of God, despite the fact that we obviously know he exists (ha fucking ha), that is the complete opposite of what athiests believe.  We believe (I’m reffering to about most, not all atheist), that there simply is no God, I don’t see why people don’t see that. Later on in the fictional fairy tale, Robert Lee (author of paper), states that we refuse to admit the true author of The Ten Commandments, because the ideas stated are beyond human authorship, which proves their divine authorship. With the exception of of the first four commandments, which refers specifically to God, almost every religion (including Atheism) known to man holds these to be true, because it they are human nature due to our compassion, and morality (with of course exceptions, such as rapists and crooks). It just amazes me how many true believers are against atheism more so than any other religion that is not their own, and using arguments that aren’t legitimate arguments because it just shit written by people too blinded by their own faith to see the truth of another’s.

33 thoughts on “A Paper I Found On The Subject Of Atheism

  1. Before anyone asks I thought I’d mention that I posted this entry from LaoTzu because it strikes me as someone stretching their philosophical muscles a bit. Yes, I probably spotted the one or two minor issues in it that others will probably bring up, but it’s good exercise for the mind to encourage folks to write entries like the above. The topic it’s commenting on is a document I’ve come across in the past myself though I don’t recall if I blogged about it at the time so it may still be relevant.

  2. It’s a spoof, a piece of satire, if I remember correctly. It’s been around for a long, long time. I remember a couple of threads about it in the Internet Infidels discussion board.

  3. The link to the website is busted, there is a comma at the end, just thought I would let you know.

  4. Being an atheist, this doesn’t upset me, make me angry, or anything else, it just makes me laugh.

    You know, I thought the exact same thing whislt watching ‘The 700 Club’ last night. How about an atheist news network show like the 700 club and call it The 666 Club? Les would make a fine Atheist version of Pat Robertson.

  5. Why not, they have tv shows for everything else, I actually think that would be pretty cool.

  6. If that is a real site, the author has to be a moron.  The arguments follow absolutely no logic.  I can’t imagine the upbringing that produces such a mind.

    And whether it is real or not, there are people out there that think like that.  Unfortunately, they are allowed to reproduce.

  7. I liked the following part – the rest kinda scared me, even though I am far away from most of such nutjobs.

    Even though computers aren’t capable of rational thought and know nothing about morals, yet they have more sense than the most learned atheist. Case and point: The other day while working on a PC, I began deleting unwanted files. There was an html file that showed all of the TEN COMMANDMENTS. Since it was a duplicate file, I decided to delete it also. When I clicked “delete”, the usual message came on the screen that said, “Are you sure you want to send the ‘TEN COMMANDMETS’ to the Recycle bin?” The question struck me very deeply because of how it was worded and for a moment I hesitated to delete the file. After clicking “yes”, a message box came up on the screen that said an illegal act had been performed by a program. Now what atheist or heathen has sense enough to think as correctly as that unthinking computer. Atheists do not think it’s an illegal act to try to destroy the TEN COMMANDMENTS.

  8. I’ve been there before. They polemic against gays is what scares me.

    Notice also, that they list the commandment as “thou shalt not murder” rather than “thou shalt not kill” as you can kill in the name of god.

    Scary that people actually believe this.

  9. Haha, Ingolfson!  I didn’t get that far…

    I can imagine the fun tech support would have with this guy.  You know, once they got over their surprize…he takes idiocy to a whole new level!

  10. Didn’t you read the paper? We’re all the heathen spawn of satan, so its not murder, its justice in the name of God grin

  11. Didn’t you read the paper? We’re all the heathen spawn of satan

    My, you make that sound like thats a bad thing!

  12. Though I really gotta go now. I have to collect all the smut on the internet. Since we atheists put it there (another of their fine statements), its only fair that we collect it back as well.

  13. Hey don’t knock that article.  I only deny God because I’m the instrument of Satan!  How can one not see divine majesty in the perfection of the world.  All those people in Africa, Asia, and South America starving, all the volcanoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, forest fires, flash floods, etc, etc.  How can a system that runs so well be the result of anything but God?

  14. Hey, what’d I miss?  I was out smoking crack with Satan.

    “Are you sure you want to send the ‘TEN COMMANDMETS’ to the Recycle bin?

  15. So do we, in some incremental way, improve, or do we only jump up and down in place, with better gadgets all to show for it? What you think?

    A good question, I agree!

    I think a lot of things are at work—culture is constantly being changed and conserved simultaneously, as people respond to outside influences and inside desires. So it’s hard to say.  But my guess is that we mostly hop around, but the hopping is punctuated with a few great improvements (which are often then lost!).  Also, I guess it depends on what you mean by improvements.

    I mean, the Zuni gave women higher status than maybe even in modern ‘western’ cultures, but their culture is mostly gone now.  Genocide happens and has happened so many times, even in spite of our ‘human rights’.  Seems to me that we make a lot of ‘progress’ only to lose it all again in a dark age or war, and then we build it all back up again.  Personally, I think a lot of this cycle could be   demolished if people stopped looking for inherent meaning and rules (like the current ‘rights’) and instead made those things for themselves, but I’m just being a crazy idealist right now.

  16. I hate to rain in on the parade, but these comments are as overreaching as True Believer fare.

    Sorry, elwed, but I don’t get your point. Do you mean that we are being too harsh and judgmental?

    At least in the case of the people behind the site that started this thread (always assuming that it is not a hoax*), we are certainly not overreaching. As I stated, they call repeatedly for the execution of atheists simply for being atheists. Or, for that matter, for any child disrespectful of his parents.

    *I looked up the site ID on whois. It is registered in exactly the name of the organization they claim to be on the site. Most hoaxes stop before that level.

  17. Do you mean that we are being too harsh and judgmental?

    What I mean is that the posters I quoted read a motivation into the original commandment that stretches credulity. Not that it hasn’t been tried successfully, alas.

  18. Im actually reading this paper right now. While I find this funny for the most part, it also concerns me that people still have these beliefs. Granted, im completely for free speech, thought and expression (what they want to think is their own buisness), but when it starts affecting a persons rights and privelages as a human, thats when I would have to draw the line in the sand.

    What scares me even more is the possibility of alot of what is being said in that paper would be taken literally. It scares me to think that the world would let itself go to such an extent that it would be nazi-germany all over again. Hitler was a christian and his reasoning for killing millions of jews and gays was to ‘purify the species’. After just being 3 pages into this, im beginning to find some eerie echoes of past ideas.

    Atheists are not fit to be parents; they are not fit to be employed in any portion of any society; they are not fit to be any kind of leaders in any society, nor are they fit to serve in any area of public trust. Atheism makes every person who embraces it unfit for any good work.

    Atheists are not even fit to live. They have forfeited the right to life by virtue of being unfit for any good thing.

    Is it just me, or does that sound eerily familiar if you replace ‘atheist’ with ‘jewish’ or ‘gay’?

    It truly sadens and scares me that these radical ideas still exist, much less the fact that they’re STILL accepted and practiced.

  19. I hate to rain in on the parade, but these comments are as overreaching as True Believer fare.

    Okay, maybe I was being a little harsh, but if you use the words “You shall not murder” instead of “You shall not kill” you are using a legal definition and what kind of killing is allowable becomes a legal issue and not a moral one.  The commandment doesn’t define what murder is, only that you shouldn’t do it.  So now you’ve taken what seemed like a specific prohibition and turned it into pretty much whatever you want to as long as you can define murder to go along with it.  This guy is taking the word ‘murder’ and shaping it to fit what he has already decided is right, but he’s preaching that he’s basing everything on the commandments and opinion doesn’t matter.  Using the bible you can make a case for ‘murder’ being killing in any form or just killing that isn’t done in the Lords name.

    I think the ten commandments are a decent set of rules, but they weren’t written by God and “You shall not murder” is vague enough to be pretty much useless if someone like this can turn it into “God wants you to kill Athiests”

  20. you are using a legal definition and what kind of killing is allowable becomes a legal issue and not a moral one

    So now you’ve taken what seemed like a specific prohibition and turned it into pretty much whatever you want to as long as you can define murder to go along with it.

    I strongly disagree.

    At the core of this discussion is the moral question of whether or not the taking of a life can be justified in specific circumstances or if is not justfied, ever.

    Unless you deny, say, the moral right to use lethal force in self-defense, you will have to either amend the ‘not kill’ version of the commandment with permissible exceptions to a general rule or lean towards the ‘not murder’ version.

    So, what would a True Christian do?

  21. Double-dipping.

    To make the nature of my objection absolutely clear, there are two issues at stake that mustn’t be conflated.

    First, I take a dim view of anybody that tries to portray that commandment, no matter how translated, as an attempt to justify the elimination of undesirables. To put it mildly, the author of the website is way out of line, but so are some posters here. I don’t believe that this commandment can be reasonably interpreted that way and anybody on either side of the debate that attempts to do so should be called on it.

    Second, there is the underlying moral question concerning the justafiability of taking a life and how the versions translated as ‘not kill’or ‘not murder’ compare. Please note that the commandment is silent on exactly what it is that mustn’t be killed or murdered. Any life at all? Sentient life? Homo Sapiens Sapiens? Intelligent space aliens? There are other definitional problems, like what is meant by ‘kill’ or ‘murder’?

    Since the commandment itself is silent on that score, the fundamentalist interpretation should be the broadest possible, which makes me wonder how such a fundamentalist gets food on the table. If we limit ourselves to beings meeting a certain threshold of sentience (in itself a fuzzy boundary), one runs into pragmatic and theological problems. The most fundamentalist interpretation of prohibiting killing should lead one to the untenable position of avoiding any action that could lead to the conceivable loss of life, like driving a car.

    It doesn’t matter how you phrase the commandment, it needs context to delineate the boundary cases and it’s a matter of preference how you phrase “In general, killing is unjustified, but there are regrettable exceptions.” Having said that, there will always be somebody trying to broaden the limits in furtherance of a personal agenda. For all my dislike of Christianity, I don’t want to fall into the trap of confusing extremists with the vast majority of Christians.

  22. To further muddy the waters- Exodus 20.13 “You shall not kill.”  Exodus 21.12-14 “Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death.  But if he did not lie in wait for him,but God let him fall into his hand, then I will appoint for you a place to which he may flee.  But if a man willfully attacks another to kill him treacherously, you shall take him from my altar, that he may die.”  This certainly seems to imply varying degrees of transgression.

  23. I’m sorry, but if you have old testament writings saying how God completely destroyed a city who’s only crime was not believing in God and having land that the people of God wanted, then you can use the bible to pretty much justify killing anyone who is ‘different’ than you.  I’m not saying you >should< do that, but the OT god was one that the KKK would be proud of.  This guy’s web site is pretty tame by comparison.  “You Shall Not Murder” comes from the OT so you have to figure that what they meant by murder isn’t nearly what we mean.  Killing athiests is chicken feed next to wiping out whole civilizations because they say “No.  Please go away.”  Only the NT has the peace/love/tolerance thing going and even then it isn’t the same kind of tolerance that we use.
      Taken at face value, the ten commandments are a “Good Thing”  It would scare me if I thought they were written by God.

  24. Swordsbane, I don’t think we’ll ever be able to agree.

    You first made a statement about a commandment in isolation. To support your interpretation, you now fall back on a part of scripture, the OT, that has technically been superceded in at least Catholicism (at least, that’s my understanding of it) and is emphasized to varying degrees in the other Christian demominations (ignoring the other Abrahamic religions).

    If you say that the Bible can be selectively read to support just about any claim, you won’t get an argument from me. However, if you yourself base an argument on a selective reading of the Bible, then you argue like certain fundamentalists.

    I also note that you didn’t comment on the underlying moral issue. Do you believe there is no conceivable justification for the taking of a life? If you do, where does this put you in the context of this discussion?

  25. My position on the underlying moral issue is that it’s not a moral issue.  The origonal translations of the OT use the word ‘murder’  This means that the definition of ‘murder’ is based on the culture of the times.  The OT (where the 10 C come from) is full of graphically awful things perpetrated by God on those not of his following (and some pretty nasty things on his followers too)  God’s ‘morality’ is as a vengeful, cruel, tyrannical bastard.  Given that, I’ve got no inherent problem with this guy’s web site…. Except the fact that I think he’s an anachronistic asshole.  He’s either right or wrong, depending on which side of the fence you fall on, but I can’t fault his logic in arriving at his statement that athiests must be killed.  He’s living in OT land.  And he’s right, The OT says ‘It’s good to kill those who do not follow God.’  If you find that uncomfortable, sorry.  ‘Morally’ I don’t think anyone on this board would agree with him, me included, but the general consensus seems to be that he doesn’t know what the bible really means.  I think he’s got that part down pretty well.

  26. My position on the underlying moral issue is that it’s not a moral issue.

    This is a fruitless exchange.

    If you consider the question of whether and when the taking of a life as not a moral issue, then we don’t have enough common ground to continue.

    You are also evading to address that the Bible is more than just the OT and I won’t even ask you about your opinion of Judaism.

    Further, you contradict yourself. Following your interpretation, the author seems remarkably astute in his understanding of the Bible, yet you deny him that acclamation.

    But whatever. You commit the No True Christian fallacy in reverse and I’ll leave it to an adherent of that religion to continue this exchange.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.