Not to be outdone by Huckabee...

[child of wonder]

Dawkins shouldn't write about unicorns and pixies. It's obviously outside of his expertise. I'm not sure why anybody would care what he has to say on the subject.

This statement would also be valid.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Congratulations.

I'm sorry you don't like it but your opinion isn't really what is important.

It's certainly relevant to the discussion, is it not? If God does intervene as claimed by religious people then God is not good in any sense of the word.

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that you have the credentials to determine whether God is an "arsehole" in any meaningful way. That being said you can make any determination you want no matter how pitiful the amount of information that you have, it just doesn't mean a thing to anybody else.

I have the same credentials everyone else has to make a fair assessment of anyones character based on his proclaimed actions. That you choose to look the other way because reality hurts your sensibilities is NOT my problem.

Note, i'm not the one saying that there is a God doing ANY of this, YOU are saying that God is this kind of evil being.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I am sure Dawkins isn't an anti-religious idiot. I know he takes a scientifc view on things.



I guess you're right about that - I was making a general comparison. But it does seem more geared toward religious leaders.



I wouldn't be surpised. He thinks Evolution is fully compatible with Christianity, but that the creation account shouldn't be taught along side evolution. :\

Each to their own...:| .... won't get an argument from me.

The creation account shouldn't be taught alongside evolution simply because it doesn't belong there, it isn't a scientific theory.

It may be taught in religious classes where it belongs.

 

[buckshot24]

It's certainly relevant to the discussion, is it not? If God does intervene as claimed by religious people then God is not good in any sense of the word.

You just don't have enough information to make that call, at least in anyway that makes your opinion mean anything to anybody else.

I have the same credentials everyone else has to make a fair assessment of anyones character based on his proclaimed actions. That you choose to look the other way because reality hurts your sensibilities is NOT my problem.

Your credentials do not include an infinite mind and a perspective of infinity on where and how people should be treated by their creator. Just because you don't like it isn't very good evidence of it being "bad".

Note, i'm not the one saying that there is a God doing ANY of this, YOU are saying that God is this kind of evil being.

The first thing is that I'm not saying God is doing anything. You're complaining that God didn't do what you would have wanted him to do when you don't have the perspective of what an infinite and omnipotent being should do in the first place.

Stated in another way. If the creator of the universe exists and he is an infinite being then you simply do not have the information or the perspective to criticize what he does or doesn't do. Just because you don't like it means exactly nothing.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

You just don't have enough information to make that call, at least in anyway that makes your opinion mean anything to anybody else.

Yes i do, so do you.

1. God can intervene if he wants to.
2. When horrific events happen it's because God LETS it happen (see 1 for justification for this claim).

Justify the evils all you want but you'll only end up being an apologist for evil.

 

[buckshot24]

Yes i do, so do you.

1. God can intervene if he wants to.
2. When horrific events happen it's because God LETS it happen (see 1 for justification for this claim).

Justify the evils all you want but you'll only end up being an apologist for evil.

The way you're looking at it is like a two year old child who is mad that his mother wouldn't let him have a sucker.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

The way you're looking at it is like a two year old child who is mad that his mother wouldn't let him have a sucker.

No, again, i'm NOT the one claiming that God can and does intervene in the natural world on occasion.

I'm claiming that if there is a God he doesn't intervene in this world at all OR he's not a good God.

You're just pissy because you can't have it both ways and when you can't justify the contradiction you start with the insults instead.

It's cute, boring as fuck but still, cute.

 

[shira]

I'm not sure why God intervening occasionally makes everybody robots.

God intervening occasionally doesn't mean he intervenes in every decision. That being the case this part just doesn't work.

I think your premise was pretty irrational.

God intervenes occasionally? Mr. Dobson clearly implies that God will ALWAYS intervene unless the group of people He's dealing with have no interest in God.

So Dobson claims that God follows human direction and not the other way around. I guess that means that almighty God is not in control.

 

[buckshot24]

No, again, i'm NOT the one claiming that God can and does intervene in the natural world on occasion.

I'm claiming that if there is a God he doesn't intervene in this world at all OR he's not a good God.

I am not making any claim that God does or doesn't do anything. I'm making the claim, assuming that God exists, that human beings are not capable of adequately judging God's actions as good or bad. We simply do not have enough information to do so. There very well could be reasons that we could never understand why God did or did not do something that we think he should or should not have done.

You're just pissy because you can't have it both ways and when you can't justify the contradiction you start with the insults instead.

I didn't mean it as an insult. I was simply illustrating the point. If it makes you feel any better about it I'm the two year old too I just realize that maybe mommy not giving me the sucker may have some unknown benefit that I can't comprehend yet.

 

[buckshot24]

God intervenes occasionally? Mr. Dobson clearly implies that God will ALWAYS intervene unless the group of people He's dealing with have no interest in God.

So Dobson claims that God follows human direction and not the other way around. I guess that means that almighty God is not in control.

I'm not saying God intervenes at all. I'm saying that if he does occasionally then free will wouldn't be destroyed.

 

[SheHateMe]

This is what Christians believe, quit it with the fake outrage.

 

[Jaskalas]

Well, if we're trading one form of thought control which can't be challenged by reason for one that can.....that's actually a pretty huge improvement.

That depends. See, I'd rather stick to the original 2,000 year old story of a pacifist who'd rather suffer torture and a cross before he'd harm the hair on a fly. The modern replacement is more likely to be a psychopathic killer hell bent on reshaping the planet in their own image.

That's not an improvement.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

That depends. See, I'd rather stick to the original 2,000 year old story of a pacifist who'd rather suffer torture and a cross before he'd harm the hair on a fly. The modern replacement is more likely to be a psychopathic killer hell bent on reshaping the planet in their own image.

That's not an improvement.

The modern day replacement are the religious conservatives and i agree fully that what they preach is something that Jesus would have condemned.

 

[alzan]

Historically it hasn't meant what it needs to mean for you to have a valid point.

Do tell? And exactly what has it meant historically?

 

[dawheat]

James Dobson and Bryan Fischer join in blaming homosexuals and atheists/agnostics/religiously unaffiliated for the CT school shooting:

http://www.advocate.com/crime/2012/12/18/james-dobson-and-co-blame-shooting-gays-and-lack-god

Since their livelihoods depend on having and sharing extreme opinions, it's not at all amazing that these people have followers/listeners/supporters.

These guys have to go back to seminary or something - no idea what to do with them.

The pastor of my church speaking about homosexuality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZFCB9sduxQ&t=3m02s

 

[Howard]

That's fine - it would have to be a simultaneous sanity check by a huge chunk of society. I doubt society has enough sanity left to make that stand. I agree with you by the way - I was just trying to point out that the only reason these people have a voice is because people listen to them.

Whether no one or 100% of everyone from AT listened to them wouldn't make a damn difference.