Jump to content

Religion vs Atheism Book 2


Stubby

Recommended Posts

1. So how can you say that death is "not the great evil"?

Because it could just be a translocation to some other place, quite likely a better place than our universe (which, while in possession of certain attractions, is ultimately highly unpleasant).

3. That last phrase is astonishing.  Are you seriously suggesting, in order to justify what was otherwise an example of great evil, that of all the animals and plants on the planet only a few were "worth" saving?  You do realise that this is pretty much the justification for every genocide ever don't you?

I said nothing of the sort. I personally have no idea how many of them were worth preserving -- it could have been all of them, it could have been only the ones on the Ark or it could have been something in between.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Because it could just be a translocation to some other place, quite likely a better place than our universe (which, while in possession of certain attractions, is ultimately highly unpleasant).

I said nothing of the sort. I personally have no idea how many of them were worth preserving -- it could have been all of them, it could have been only the ones on the Ark or it could have been something in between.

1. There is no evidence to support any of that.  None.  The only evidence we have, if the flood story is real, is that god killed everything on the planet except for a few selected fortunates, because god was pissed off.

2. You did say exactly that, when you said this:

...but presumably whatever is worth preserving was, ... preserved.

So far no-one has been able to offer anything tangible to justify god's indiscriminate slaughter of virtually all life on the planet because he was pissed off with the behaviour of some humans.  All we have if is this nebulous idea that "if god was real then what he did was justified". Just as well it's just a story.  But it probably shouldn't be taught to kids as any kind of morality play.  And it is certainly not a good basis for suggesting that atheists are amoral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. There is no evidence to support any of that.  None.  The only evidence we have, if the flood story is real, is that god killed everything on the planet except for a few selected fortunates, because god was pissed off.

2. You did say exactly that, when you said this:

So far no-one has been able to offer anything tangible to justify god's indiscriminate slaughter of virtually all life on the planet because he was pissed off with the behaviour of some humans.  All we have if is this nebulous idea that "if god was real then what he did was justified". Just as well it's just a story.  But it probably shouldn't be taught to kids as any kind of morality play.  And it is certainly not a good basis for suggesting that atheists are amoral.

Wait. Wasn't he trying to wipe out the naphilim?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why exactly are we debating about the morality of God committing genocide?

I mean Jesus Christ, what an absurd question. Look, the fact is that if you think of God in a conventional sense, that is to say as an external being, kind of like a really large dude, living in the clouds, and he gets into these zany adventures like wiping out Sodom or sending she-bears to tear apart 42 children for making fun of a bald prophet, then the conclusion is that God is quite a bad character or at least not one worthy of worship.

I hope everyone is aware or can be made aware, at least, that God is greater than all that shit.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why exactly are we debating about the morality of God committing genocide?

I mean Jesus Christ, what an absurd question. Look, the fact is that if you think of God in a conventional sense, that is to say as an external being, kind of like a really large dude, living in the clouds, and he gets into these zany adventures like wiping out Sodom or sending she-bears to tear apart 42 children for making fun of a bald prophet, then the conclusion is that God is quite a bad character or at least not one worthy of worship.

I hope everyone is aware or can be made aware, at least, that God is greater than all that shit.

 

The last 400 or so posts should be instructive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is not much instruction in quibbling over details in myths.

This particular discussion has been going on for weeks.  Dropping by with an unsubstantial snipe like you did is hardly constructive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This particular discussion has been going on for weeks.  Dropping by with an unsubstantial snipe like you did is hardly constructive.

That's true. It was very rude of me to intrude upon this discussion thread. And I certainly don't mean to get in the way of any construction you got going on, two weeks you said? Well, and not only that but my snipe was unsubstantial, we'll have to fix that later I guess, make it more substantial, and that way everything will be all right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's true. It was very rude of me to intrude upon this discussion thread. And I certainly don't mean to get in the way of any construction you got going on, two weeks you said? Well, and not only that but my snipe was unsubstantial, we'll have to fix that later I guess, make it more substantial, and that way everything will be all right.

Aside from being more like two months than two weeks, exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aside from being more like two months than two weeks, exactly.

Months, yes. A magnificent and laborious opus magnum. Much artistry. Much perseverance in the face of threat and danger. Truth is, we could sit here for years and argue over the color of Spiderman's belt but I'd prefer to just sit back and enjoy the show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such issues have not prevented religious belief. ;)

Evidence of absence is not absence of evidence.

I believe however the argument is not truly between atheism and religious belief. If I read Spiderman comics, if I watch Spiderman movies, if I like to dress up as Spiderman, what is objectionable about it?

Getting the costume wrong, obvs.

BTW, have you ever suffered "Spidmata"? Where sticky, white stuff appears as if by magic in the palms of your hands?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evidence of absence is not absence of evidence.

Getting the costume wrong, obvs.

BTW, have you ever suffered "Spidmata"? Where sticky, white stuff appears as if by magic in the palms of your hands?

I know that.  In this specific circumstance, I was alluding to the practice of apologetics, which is not unlike suggesting that perhaps Spiderman was wearing a metaphorical or analagous belt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe however the argument is not truly between atheism and religious belief. If I read Spiderman comics, if I watch Spiderman movies, if I like to dress up as Spiderman, what is objectionable about it?

There is nothing at all wrong with any of those things. It would not even be objectionable to me if you thought Spiderman was real.

But as I have pointed out in the discussion I have referred you to, forcing others to read Spiderman, or making laws based on Spiderman's morals or denying people their normal human rights because they don't dress up as Spiderman is objectionable.

The same goes for any fictional character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spiderman is not wearing a metaphorical belt. He is wearing a very real belt. The only problem would be if someone wanted to kill you because you don't mention his belt in your spidey-prayers.

So you think it's OK to make laws that force people who don't agree with the Spidians to follow their beliefs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...