Then why have you spent time trying to rebut my so-called lack of argument?

I don't complain, I simply reiterate that you presuppose a God.  If I had that luxury, no doubt I could make killing children a moral act, as you do.  But, thankfully, I lack that presupposition.

Andrea Yates is real. I didn't fabricate a distinct analog that is relevent to revelation.  You are judging the Quality of that revelation, but unless you are God, you have no place to judge - according to your own belief system.  Unfortunately, God gave no instruction on how to judge the merit of revelation.

...
Or, fortunately, ... for you.

You presuppose this evidence exists. Sad.  Whereas you can go and visit the crime scene of Andrea Yates and read the police files. Of course, God works in mysterious ways, so he may have made it look like the act of a mad woman.

I'm sure in another 3000 years we will know the truth.... ;-)

The evidence is lost from Joshua. You said it.  On the other hand we have video tape evidence of Andrea Yates, police blotters, etc.

You may as well posit that Andrea Yates was telling the truth.

And what is the problem in that, RF?  You are presuming things from the Bible (because you worship it), but it is known that Jesus came and overturned much of the OT.  How do you know that Andrea Yates isn't part of another NEW New Testament before the End Times (that you so dearly wish for)?  how do you know that the evidence of Joshua was true and that Andrea Yates children weren't going to grow up to be worse than Hitler? You don't, you presuppose based on your subjective feelings.

Yet, you use it as "Gospel", as a proof for God.  If all of the OT has "gone cold" why do you presume it is true?

Because people THEN thought it true?  Are you suggesting that: 1. The books were written with the general populations approval?  2. that people then were better judges of what was Gods work and what wasn't?

Another presupposition on your part, I'm afraid.  When does it end?

YOU STATED AS MUCH!  You SAID you presupposed a God!

Well, you CAN'T prove God, or even come close. Sorry.

But here is what you said in THIS VERY POST!


You belief system is degenerate and abysmal and lacking in any moral value that any decent human being would expect from a fellow human being.


Well done, you did show us all how you reconcile murder of women and children for God.

Wow! Your Ad Hom's have surely leveled a devastating blow against all Atheist's, Philosophers, Scientists and Thinkers alike!  I bow to your brilliant rebuttals against my character!





(sarcasm, btw, "chief" ;-))

Oddly, so does the God of Abraham. A sin is defined as an "offense against God". That is, by questioning God's Will (as dictated by his agents on Earth) you are offending God personally. You are attacking his character.

Thanks for staying on topic.  God and Hitler are very much the same (Though, I would say Moses, Hitler, Stalin, Joshua, Abraham, Issac, etc.: all used an appeal to an Ultimate Authority (God, the State, Love of "X", Ideal Future condition, etc.) as an excuse to kill. Even to the point of killing helpless people - to commit immoral acts.

Since I don't presuppose a god exists, I must judge all these people based on their actions. Their actions were immoral despite their appealing to their Perfect Goal.

Yates had been under psychiatric care for major depressive disorder since the birth of her fourth child in July of 1999, up until she became pregnant with another child in early 2000. In March 2001, her fifth child still an infant, and after a radical descent into severe depression following the death of her father about two weeks earlier, Yates was forcefully transported to Devereux-Texas Treatment Network by her brother and husband. She was admitted, treated and assigned to Saeed's care the following day. There began a series of various psychotropic drug treatments that, according to Russell Yates, culminated with an abrupt change to her prescribed medication two days before the filicides. He had also abruptly tapered off the antipsychotic Haldol two weeks earlier. On June 18, Saeed abruptly increased her dosage of Effexor, much faster than Russell's research indicated was appropriate. On that visit, despite Mr. Yates' reports that she was not improving, Saeed wrote in his notes that she was doing well, that he told her to focus on "positive thoughts" and suggested that she see a psychologist.

On July 26, 2006, a Texas jury ruled Yates to be not guilty by reason of insanity. She was consequently committed by the court to the North Texas State Hospital.

The example of Andrea Yates may not help your cause much.

Can you discuss revelations from someone not certified as insane?

Insanity is insanity....trying to peg ones belief in God as some kind of insanity is silly.

Other "insane" revelations occur also....Son of Sam being told by his dog to kill......others attribute  their homicidal tenencies to Satan......

So in other words barney isn't insane because he thinks butterflies make moral decisions? 

What verification would you accept?

I believe God speaks to me from time to time....

Does barney respond to the an insect far away?

So why should god respond to the pureile interests of barney?

Oh too bad, barney gets upset and in a fit of whining self importance says "see god didn't talk to me so he must not exist". 

Amazing, I wonder if his mom would cease to exist if she refused to answer the phone or shout down into the basement when he called for her?

I once purchased a company in South America, Chile to be specific.  The janitor wanted to let me know how he felt the company should be run, in fact, he sent an email demanding to talk to me.  I deleted it because frankly, what he had to say was irrelevant to what we as a company were doing.  Imagine the difference and distance enhanced to an infinite level.  And that pretty much is where barney is, less even than that self deluded janitor.