There can be no liberty without religion

In this post, the author starts by contradicting himself by saying natural law requires religion, biblical religion. You may want to know why this is a contradiction

Natural law is a philosophy of law that is determined by nature, and so is universal. Classically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature — both social and personal — and deduce binding rules of moral behavior from it.

I am aware the Catholic will say

the natural law is the rule of conduct which is prescribed to us by the Creator in the constitution of the nature with which He has endowed us.

and I contend that such a law, if it involves the supernatural, cannot in all fairness be called natural.

I haven’t received the memo yet, but it appears the secret is out. Atheists are trying to eliminate Jews and Christians.

This author tells us

There is really only one struggle in this world, but it manifests itself in many different ways.  That struggle is between those who believe in and worship the One True God, the God of the Bible, and everyone else.

and I will tell you, if there is any struggle, it is between the reasonable and the unreasonable and in this group we have the superstitious, the denialists and jihadis, and Indiana Governor, Mr. Pence. Very few, if any worship the god of the bible. No one stones their neighbour for working on a Sunday, many have tattoos, wear clothes of mixed fabric and so on.

Nietzsche writing about morals in Genealogy of Morals, argues and correctly so, that christian morality is a slave morality, a morality of the weak. It encourages it’s believers to be meek down here to be in a position to inherit wealth in the hereafter. It’s aim is to shift the balance of power in the hereafter to the poor, the stupid and the uneducated.

I don’t shy away from the charge of being amoral. I am willing to be shown how good/ bad are not matters of judgement and only that they make sense in society. That without people living in groups, the word morality makes no sense.

It is true,

the Humanists recognized that those who believe in God are a powerful force of opposition, specifically those who believe in the Bible.

but not in the way this author thinks, far from it, but they are the greatest opposition to advancement in human development and expansion of human rights everywhere. The humanist desire is to have a better world for all, the christian believes the world is transient and is busy making a world in the nether world at the expense of decency and goodness here, where it matters the most.

When this author writes

Is this starting to explain what you see happening in our society today yet — especially in politics? It explains why Humanists have no concern for human life: because they see no value in any life but their own.

I can say without fear of contradiction that he is lying. There are only a handful of atheists in government positions. Many atheists I know are opposed to war, to capital punishment. The christian prays as he goes to war that his god grants him victory. Bush believed he was doing god’s will when he attacked Saddam. So no, you got it wrong. The humanist is concerned with life, human life especially, but extends the same dignity to all sentient creatures.

I think the believer living in America must know very little. The world is vast. People have varied religions and some have none and they live well.

I am not American, but I believe all the progress that has been made there and elsewhere in terms of human advancement has been done inspite of the religion.

And further, were it not for the humanists, such as Joseph Lewis, Ingersoll, Mencken, Mark Twain, the American evangelist would still be scaring his congregation with hell fire. It is the humanist who pointed out the absurdity in believing in a loving god who has a BBQ on the side for people who question its existence.

I think the belief that it is up to us to make the world a better place for us and others achieves more positive results than telling people they will roast forever plus 1 in hell for not believing silly things. We have grown up. We can’t continue to believe the superstitions of our ignorant ancestors. I believe that any one who today believes that the bible is true and that is the word of a god is uneducated, stupid and unreasonable. The age has come where we have to see it for what it is, a book by ignorant men, mainly, for ignorant men written for political and theological ends but always by ignorant and unsophisticated men.

proof that there is no proof

There is more stupidity in the universe than hydrogen and it has a longer shelf life, Frank Zappa.

The author of this post is asking for proof there is no evidence for gods. Further he wants to be shown proof that demonstrates that you have no burden of proof. He does this, as he says, so that

By exposing such error and praying God will bless our doing so, we should hope to see fruit. May the Glory of God shine through it!

When I first read the post, I thought it was a load of crap and said almost as much. The author thinks I am being unfair. So I asked him to tell me what gods are. His answer[emphasis mine]

an absolute, objective authority exists and is self evident.

I am interested in knowing any believer who goes to church to worship such a monster. Why, if any god is self-evident do we question its existence? Is the questioning not enough evidence that the existence of gods, any god, is not obvious.

I think every christian believer, believes in a god that is a person, that hears prayers, punishes others, is sometimes jealous, is loving and so on. But because they modern christian finds such a god impossible to believe, they pretend to believe in an abstraction. They call it by many names such as ground of being, necessary being, infinite being and so on but this is so far removed from the very idea of god they have in the bible. So that at the end, the god argued for is different from the god believed in, and such is christian apologetics.

He then in his response writes

P1: If it is impossible to deny that an absolute, objective authority exists, without first assuming it is true, then it is true that an absolute, objective authority exists.
P2: It is impossible to deny that an absolute, objective authority exists, without first assuming it is true.
C: Thus, it is true that an absolute, objective authority exists.

which can be rewritten to read thus

P1: If it is impossible to deny that anabsolute, objective authority a green donkey exists, without first assuming it is true, then it is true that an absolute, objective authority a green donkey exists.
P2: It is impossible to deny that an absolute, objective authority a green donkey exists, without first assuming it is true.
C: Thus, it is true that an absolute, objective authority a green donkey exists.

I maybe missing something, but I would love to be shown if P1 and 2 are valid and whether the C follows necessarily from them.

IMV, the first premise is loaded. What is being sought is already assumed to be true.