FarSeeker

Pompous Bastard: So you find it reasonable that they Nazi hierarchy should not have been put on trial after the war. Since they did nothing wrong under the laws of their society, they were not morally wrong.

You can “disapprove” all you want, but to execute and imprison them for violating our society’s morality -- to call their actions wrong -- you are making your own morality universal, or forcing your morality on them. By saying that they were “wrong” you are saying they violated a morality; since it was not their morality that was violated, it must be yours. All that you are allowed to say under the reasoning presented in this thread is that you would be wrong to do what they did, not that they were.. The argument stands because you have not shown any reason for having punished the Nazi leaders under your morality.

Let us rewrite your last sentence by doing a logical <NOT> operation on it like you perform in digital functions:

“…it provides <NOT>no reason for me <NOT>not to find their actions <NOT>wrong.”
Becomes:
“…it provides reason for me to find their actions right.”

Now I’m not saying this function is valid, but its another way to look at what you are saying.

Think of it this way:
Atheist: You Christians should go around forcing you morality on others.
Christian: Why? Is it wrong?


Synaesthesia Well, considering that Isaac Asimov once believed Plate Tectonics was a pseudoscience, I guess I’m in good company.


Thor Q. Mada
Proof to support that first statement please. Science has at best little to do with it, it has had more to do with nutrition than science.

God help us, I can just see the out come of genetic engineering: S.M. Stirling’s “Draka”, “Dark Angel”’s Project Manticore, etc.

I’ve read the more honest Dawkins as he writes in “Free Inquiry.” I can only describe him as a bigotted, not just against Christians but against Jews too.


David Payne Well what can I say about someone who states that he is not responsible for what other Atheists say, but demands I be responsible for what other theists say?

What babies? Can you prove that any babies were killed in the flood? No, so that argument fails.

Plants and animals? Here we run into an old Atheist canard. Atheists are willing to kill “innocent” cows, chickens and other animals for food, and cut down “innocent” trees for construction, wipe out millions of “innocent” undesirable plants (weeds), not to mention killing billions of “innocent” microbes. Of course, this totally skips the over 38 millions babies they have either killed or turned a blind eye to the murder of during the past 28+ years thru legalized abortion. I guess only those killed by God are worthy of mention because you can gain Brownie Points with your little clique.

Like any other judge, God looked at the evidence, and found the people guilty. At least He gave them a better chance that Atheists give babies in abortion clinics.

(A) DP thinks God should make us all mindless robots: no thank you.
(B) Who says He did not appeal to them? Then, again, why do police have to appeal to you everyday to not break the law?
(C) See (B)
(D) Let us see if we can reword this one a little closer to home?

Kill them all, by aborting them like a baby one has no use for, except for one family of course, for pissing me off?

I don’t pick and choose DP. I accept what God decides, just as you accept the dictates of the U.S. court system. Or are you going around and investigate every court case to see if the evidence actually supports the judgement? By your own claim you have stated that “all the killing done” was done by man, so all the killing you condemn God for was actually done only by man, but you strangely do not condemn man for it. I find that strangely biased of you? Shouldn’t you take the position advocated by the scientists in the book version of the next “Terminator” movie: that mankind is an evil blight on the Earth, an evolutionary mistake, and must be eradicated? It would be morally consistent for you.

It appears that you have greater faith in your fellow Atheists than you have in me. I might ask why you haven’t committed yourself to the eradication of all things that threaten life on Earth? Like massive biological monoculture, or Marxism. The Christianized nations of Europe have brought more good to the world than harm. The documents enshrined in the U.S. Archives proves that as well as the majority of Christians in the U.S. today. Christianity gave birth to Science, music like Bach and Mozart, the Red Cross, etc. Christianity has, after being suppressed, hunted and abused, and in only 2000 yrs. brought forth more benefits to mankind than any other “meme”, philosophy, or religion. This includes Atheism, which from the French revolution to the PRC has brought little good worth remarking about.

[Sidenote] Look at this point: China’s one child policy has resulted in a lopsided proportion of men to women (parents want boys because of social-economic reasons). This policy also produces the single child “little emperor” (spoiled brat) problem. Now, we have the world’s most populous nation with a bunch over sex-starved spoiled young men of military age. What do you think they are going to do, polygamy? In their culture? Don’t thing so. They are going to go get them in whatever way they can. Before this might not have been a problem, but with companies around the would literally giving them the technology useful in war, the 21st century will truly be “interesting times.” [/Sidenote]

But back to a previous subject, you claimed that Marxism is anti-religious not because of Atheism but because of adherence to doctrine. But Marx simply reasoned something to be correct, others accepted them, just like you have accepted the reasoning of others because it seems reasonable to you.

But Secular Humanism may or may not accept socialism, but it still dictates suppression of other religions: (took me a while to find this)


Koyaanisqats
posted March 12, 2001 07:44 AM The Secular Humanist Manifestos even spell out how to do this. [smirk]

Point 11:
“Humanists believe that humanist education [read indoctrination] will promote social well-being by discouraging the wishful thinking and worry that stems from ignorance.” [read “Christianity”]

In other words, public schools will be used to indoctrinate children into Atheism. Those who do not accept the indoctrination will be labeled “ignorant.” Just like in Marxist states.

Point 13:
“Religious humanism maintains that all as that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. In view of this, humanists insist that religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as possible , in order to function effectively in the modern world.”

Or, Secular Humanists will take control of ALL religious institutions and change them to functions however the Atheists wish. This is exactly what every Marxist state (currently state policy in China: all religions must bow to government control) I have heard of has tried to do. In China, if you are not a government Preacher, you are a criminal. If your church does not teach and act as the State says, you are punished: houses are destroyed, families torn apart, adults thrown in jail, etc. This is not “Just Marxism”!

Point 14:
“The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted.”
“In lieu of capitalism…”

Thus, the reasonable Atheist (i.e. Secular Humanist) must abhor capitalism. Can you imagine what would have happen if the US had suddenly become “rational humanists” and instituted these proposals? For one, the PC would never have been invented, and computers would never have been miniaturized because it wouldn’t have been necessary. We would probably be driving cars that more resemble the Model-T than what we have today.

Then came the update:
“Those who sign Humanist Manifesto II disclaim that they are setting forth a binding credo,…”

Translation: “You don’t have to accept all of what we are saying to be a Secular Humanist”

“New statements should be developed to supersede this, but for today it is our conviction…”
Humanist Manifesto II, “Preface.”

Translation: “We reserve the right to change anything at anytime without notice.”

Face it, the number of Atheists who wish to exterminate Religion (especially Christianity) out number those who don’t.

As for having “the weapons to do it”… The majority of soldiers controlling the nuclear missiles in the U.S., I dare say, have been Christians, so If your point REALLY has any validity, do you REALLY think you would be here right now to argue it? If it comes to war, we will endure and deal with it. It looks like we both have our fears.


hal9000 What was the #1 way you can tell if you pilots have been smoking weed? There is a 45-minute pause between “Attention…” and “passengers”

But just think, if we legalized murder and robbery, we could probably empty the jails. After all, those “laws don’t work.” Think of the tax savings. Sorry, I don’t swallow (or smoke, or snort, etc.) that. Reality does not support your claim. There are Atheists who could give you better arguments against legalization than I. But which recreational pharmacology would you allow? All?

In one European country, they tried legalizing certain drugs. All they ended up with was a public park full of needles and a lot of people avoiding their problems instead of facing them.

On the other hand,
Caffeine is a mild stimulant in normal doses, sedative in larger doses,
Tobacco, well, that’s an open argument,
Alcohol is a sedative or depressant, whose properties are relatively well known,
Etc.
BTW, we are off subject way too far. Just start a new thread somewhere else, and see what other Atheists say.

[ July 14, 2002: Message edited by: FarSeeker ]

[ July 16, 2002: Message edited by: FarSeeker ]</p>

hal9000

Did you guys ever see Monty Python and the Holy Grail? Remember the knight in the forest who gets one limb after another hacked off until he's balancing himself on his stubs still trying to fight the fight he has clearly lost. I think we found him, just look up above this post.

Jack the Bodiless

However, we already know that the Biblical God is a babykiller. There are other passages where God (via Moses) specifically commands the killing of "all the little ones". The massacre of the Egyptian firstborn was an act specifically targeted at young innocents, many of them babies. The child of David and Bathsheba was killed by God to punish David. And so on, and on, and on...
And just as YOU have arbitrarily decided to accept the morality of a primitive tribe of Bronze Age goat-herders. The Biblical God is a fictional character (and a rather petty and bloodthirsty one at that). You are not basing your code upon that of an ACTUAL God, but on what one particular group of self-styled "priests" decreed.
And yet you still didn't succeed! Only YOU have chosen to equate "humanist education" with "suppression of other religions".
...Which completely blows apart your paranoid fantasy about "control" and "suppression", doesn't it?

I agree with hal9000. Your defeat is total!

Pomp

Farseeker,

I just noticed your response to me.

So you find it reasonable that they Nazi hierarchy should not have been put on trial after the war. Since they did nothing wrong under the laws of their society, they were not morally wrong.

You're making the common mistake of assuming that, unless we can give X some reason to find X's own actions "wrong," the rest of us cannot find those actions reprehensible, and punish X for them. X may be perfectly self-justified in committing all sorts of atrocities, but the rest of us can still disapprove, even to the point of violent opposition. Subjective morality does not mean "everyone does as he or she pleases and the rest of us have nothing to say about it." It does mean "everyone values whatever he or she values, and we all negotiate the mutual fulfillment of our values."

All that you are allowed to say under the reasoning presented in this thread is that you would be wrong to do what they did, not that they were..

No. I believe that it is wrong for myself and others to commit genocide. A Nazi does not believe that it is wrong for himself or others to commit genocide. You're trying to claim that, if there is no universal standard, I cannot make moral judgements about the actions of others. This is false. I am able to judge others by my own standards.

The argument stands because you have not shown any reason for having punished the Nazi leaders under your morality.

Of course I have. The Nazis acted in ways that violated the moral standards of the majority of the Western world and threatened the very existence of Western values. The Western world, acting in accordance with the prevailing moral notion, and in self-defense, was perfectly justified in thwarting and punishing the Nazis. I actually see the Nazi question as more of a political/national question thana moral one. Why were the Nazis punished? Because they lost a war that they started and managed to piss off an astronomical number of people in doing so.

Genocide isn't wrong because it violates some universal moral rule. Genocide is usually (in all situations that I can think of anyway) wrong because it is not conducive to civil relations with ones neighbors. Much like murdur or theft, you do it, you piss people off, those people retaliate.

Let us rewrite your last sentence by doing a logical &lt;NOT&gt; operation on it like you perform in digital functions:

Cute. Let's try this with a statement you might make, as well, shall we?

“…it provides &lt;NOT&gt;no reason for me &lt;NOT&gt;not to find their actions &lt;NOT&gt;wrong.”

I have &lt;NOT&gt;no reason &lt;NOT&gt;not to believe in the &lt;NOT&gt;existence of God.

Becomes:
“…it provides reason for me to find their actions right.”

I have reason to believe in the nonexistence of God.

Now I’m not saying this function is valid, but its another way to look at what you are saying.

Sure. And my little example is another way of looking at your beliefs. What's the point of this? All you did was add an odd number of negations to my sentence, thereby reversing my meaning.

FarSeeker

Jack the Bodiless
Let's see, what was it that was said before?
Ah, yes...
"Just declare victory and go home."

Strange thing about Christians, especially those from America, we don't know when to quit. Thank God, or you might be speaking Japanese, German or Russian right now.

[ July 28, 2002: Message edited by: FarSeeker ]</p>

FarSeeker

Jack the Bodiless This from someone who supports abortion on demand? If you condemn God for executing children under judgement, how much more you condemn yourself for accepting murder in the name of convenience. That’s over 38 MILLION BABIES murdered in the US alone since abortion was legalized! Your view of the massacre of the Egyptian firstborn is at least exaggerated. My older brother is the firstborn in my family, he’s also over 40, and as you provide no support for your argument, I can safely say you don’t have the foggiest idea how many were babies. And there is no evidence that it was “specifically targeted at young innocents.” BTW, how did these Egyptians die, if God doesn’t exist? Did the enslaved Hebrews suddenly rise up and slaughter them? I doubt it; that would have gotten them slaughtered by Pharos’s army.

This is a complicated subject for those who don’t trust God. I can’t answer the “why’s and what for’s” of everything God has done, but since He hasn’t killed you yet, I think we can go on the reasonable conclusion that He isn’t as “bloodthirsty” as you claim. God’s ways are higher than our ways It is simply possible that we don’t see the reasons for what He does. As for Bathsheba and David’s child, I don’t understand it either. But then I don’t understand how an organization of mothers can support the murder of children

Wait, Wait! Stop and think about this, Wizardry said: One must ask ones self how some “self-styled ‘priests’ ” of some “of Bronze Age goat-herders” who advocated, taught, and supposedly practiced the atrocities you point out could have developed morals that you tacitly admitted were “good starting point.” Good fruit does not come from bad trees.

Let’s go over that again for everyone who missed it. Jack seems to have missed the definition they gave for religion:

Point 11:
“Humanists believe that humanist education [read indoctrination] will promote social well-being by discouraging the wishful thinking and worry that stems from ignorance.” [read “Christianity”]

I doubt that Secular Humanists (Atheists) would ever say anything even remotely complimentary of other religions (which they have above and elsewhere defined as ignorance). Further support for this can be found in a multitude of their publications. Thus public schools will be used to indoctrinate children into Atheism. This is a pattern found in Marxist states.

Point 13:
“Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the modern world.”

Who will “transformation, control, and [direct]” religious institutions and change them to function as who judges “effectively”? This is exactly what every Marxist state (currently state policy in China: all religions must bow to government control) I have heard of has tried to do. This is not “Just Marxism”!

Point 14:
The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life are possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently co-operate for the common good.

What about those who do not wish to change? The farmer selling produce by the side of the road, or the programmer selling a program on the net? I guess they will suffer the penalty of law as decided by “society.”

Think of the intellectual weight that went into developing the Humanist Manifesto (HM). For beyond anything I have run into on this site. Yet, in their rational greatness we see just how far they came up short of reality. What would America be like if we had accepted the HM when it fist came out? Would we be called “Amerika”?

Next was the update:
“Those who sign Humanist Manifesto II disclaim that they are setting forth a binding credo,…”

Translation: “You don’t have to accept all of what we are saying to be a Secular Humanist”

“New statements should be developed to supersede this, but for today it is our conviction…”
Humanist Manifesto II, “Preface.”

Translation: “We reserve the right to change anything at anytime without notice.”

JTB In theory, yes, it might. In practice, it doesn’t work that way. Note the words of the Soviet Constitution:

So, that piece of paper says that Soviet citizens had religious freedom. I’m sure we all know that that isn’t true, so in what direction did this change go? From what was said, to what was meant. Atheists have NO love of other religions. Universally, when they take power, they suppress other religions

I have “The Humanist” and “Skeptical Inquirer” articles (somewhere) which unabashedly advocate indoctrinating children and removing Christians from their earned scientific positions.

[ July 28, 2002: Message edited by: FarSeeker ]</p>

Jack the Bodiless

...I support abortion on demand? Thank you for telling me what I believe.

Oh, I get it. ATHEISTS unreservedly support abortion on demand, and all atheists think alike. We also haul our enemies off to Gulags at every available opportunity.
Again you struggle to avoid the very, very obvious. Why do you seek to deny the plain words of the Bible? Do you also prefer to believe that the slaughter of "all the little ones" refers to 40-year-old dwarfs?

The Biblical God is a babykiller. The Bible says so, repeatedly.
...Duh, they didn't die because we're discussing fiction here! We're discussing the personality of a fictional character with reference to the equally fictional events attributed to that character. Is Darth Vader a good guy or a bad guy? He's a nonexistent guy. But he's a nonexistent BAD guy.
A more reasonable conclusion: he does not exist. The evidence for his nonexistence is the very bloodthirstiness described in the Old Testament. He "should" be smiting unbelievers: his lack of action in the modern era is out of character.
Why the "either"? I understand it perfectly. The Biblical God enjoys killing, and especially enjoys killing kids to punish their parents. What's so difficult to understand? He is one mean, evil, twisted SOB. Fortunately, he is a fictional mean, evil, twisted SOB. A petty, vindictive God invented by a petty, vindictive people.
When did I "tacitly admit" any such thing? I am not Wizardry.
Yes, a humanist education (one involving the concept of "human rights" and the avoidance of teaching religious dogma to kids) will hopefully promote social well-being. But you were talking about suppression of religion. I want people to be well-informed, to grow up, to open their minds, to voluntarily discard superstitious dogma. This is not "suppression" of religion. Organized religion is perpetuated by the indoctrination of children: Christians beget Christians, Muslims beget Muslims etc. Only a theist can equate "lack of indoctrination" with "suppression"!
Which religious institutions? This could easily be referring to state-supported currently "religious" institutions (e.g. state-funded Anglican schools in the UK). And the "transformation" will hopefully be brought about by secular humanists within such institutions. This is a wish-list: a list of things the authors want to happen. It is not a manifesto of a political party.
You apparently have a problem with this. What part of "voluntarily and intelligently" do you not understand? The intent is to promote "equitable distribution of the means of life". This is commonly known as "welfare". This is bad? You prefer: what? Famine? Slavery? Exploitation?
A very similar "manifesto" was written by Thomas Paine. It's called The Rights of Man. The nation which enshrined similar principles within its Constitution is called "the United States of America".
Nope. Universally, when totalitarian dictators who happen to be atheists seize power, and regard organized religions as rival political forces, they suppress them.

You are (as usual) implying that there is no such thing as a democratic atheist. Should I use Iran as an example of what happens when theists take power? Or maybe Saudi Arabia? Or the Crusades? Or the Inquisition?

Oolon Colluphid

Prove? Nope. Maybe they all floated around on mats of vegetation for a year, as some creationists believe insects did. There were nothing but adults on earth before the flood of course...? Unless you’re proposing that nobody on earth had given birth in the year or two before the flood (ie that there were no babies that could have died), then Genesis 7:21-22 looks pretty damning:

“And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.”

And, uh, what fuckin’ flood?? You have some evidence for it, yeah? Present it pal, present it.

While we’re talking of god’s murders, what about deaths caused by omission? If god is at all powerful (let alone all-powerful), then allowing three million babies and toddlers to shit themselves to death each year from diarrhoeal diseases must make god guilty of something, no? (And if he’s the god creationists say he is, then he is directly responsible for their deaths, by creating the pathogens.)

So you admit your god is a mass-murderer of babies. And dodge the point with an <a href="http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm" target="_blank">argumentum ad hominem</a>.

Do please explain what sins they’d committed, and why these could be judged capital crimes.

Yep, you do think god killed hundreds of babies. Okay...

Compare that to:

Hmmm. Not that much higher, it seems. Good example he sets for us, innit?

TTFN, Oolon

FarSeeker

[Okay, back again for the first time…

David Payne posted June 03, 2002 09:03 PM

You are distorting the point. The Bible does not expressly state that God gave man Free Will. It doesn’t say God gave man lungs either; does that mean man doesn’t have them? To require it to specify everything God gave us would leave no room for anything else. For your reasoning to be valid, Atheism would have to support all your beliefs in its definition. You can’t even prove that Dr. Singer is wrong.

The Bible operates on the principle that God gave us everything that we have; just as Americans operate on the principle that the Constitution guarantees the Right to Privacy, even tho it is not written in the Constitution. The principle can be clearly derived from the both the 4th and 9th Amendments. Similarly -- tho incorrectly in MHO -- Atheists all over (to the point of near unanimous agreement) maintain that “wall of separation of Church and state,” is the law of the land, tho it is nowhere in the Constitution.

So if your argument is valid, then Atheism doesn’t support rationalism or humanism.

Once again, an attempt to manipulate not just the argument, but the very words themselves. “Who made [it] up?” Answer: nobody. Just as nobody “made up” gravity or freedom, or justice, we came to understand just what we had. The Bible does not express everything explicitly, but it is plainly evident. God gives man a choice, and man makes a choice. Free Choice, ergo Free Will.

Where did it come from? Well we have it, just as we have a mouth, vocal cords, ears and eyes, so…
Exodus 4:11
The LORD said to him, “Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the LORD?

Man can prevent evil, and either chooses not to or cannot. If he chooses not to, he is an abettor. If he cannot then his nature is not the “basically good” that humanists claim. Can you site an appropriate excuse for all the evil man has done?

That is a corundum.

Pompous Bastard, posted July 19, 2002 10:46 AM Again, you can look down your nose at anyone you please, but Wizardry posted on April 10, 2002 08:02 PM
And you agreed with it (posted June 29, 2002 06:41 PM). So, if their society sets, “a pool of values that [they] share with other members of [their] society,” you can’t punish them for it. If, “[t]hat is the standard of morality to which [they] adhere under penalty from [their] society,” then the Nazis’ society set their “pool of values” and forcing yours on them would show that you do not agree with Wizardry’s post as you claimed. What you support is the idea that any set of morals is acceptable only if you approve it, or that “might makes right.”

Look at it another way: We have another standard in our society: you can’t punish someone for something they did if they did it before the action became illegal. Thus, what the Nazis did was not just legal when they did it, but moral as well judging by Wizardry’s post. Therefore, by (one of) your standards you can’t punish them for it. Unless what you REALLY meant to say was, “[t]here is a pool of values that Pompous Bastard demands of other members of our society. That is the standard of morality to which we adhere under penalty from society.” Either way, putting the Nazis on trial was wrong under the moral system you describe.

Of course, you could claim that your moral social standard is a world wide one, but that would mean you condemn yourself for moral dereliction of duty. In regards to the Tiananmen massacre, KAL 007, Cambodian killing fields, Stalinist Purges, etc, as you have not put the instigators of those atrocities on trial.

Then you must accept that God can do the same. You can’t judge people under another code of morals by your code. You would be requiring them to operate under your moral standards not theirs, and this contradicts your agreement above. I am saying that if there is no universal standard, you cannot punish them for something that is wrong under your society’s rule, but not under theirs.

Who is to blame for the Nazi Holocaust? Many Atheists on the site hold Christianity responsible! And where did those Western values come from? The Hun who committed similar atrocities, the Goths, the Vandals, any one of the invading nomads? Perhaps Rome with its imperial murderers and arena games? No, those values are Christian values. . Once the war was over the “self-defense” argument died, and you what you are doing is taking a “might makes right” position. People violate the moral standards of God everyday, yet you deny He has the right to punish us for it.

That they, “violated the moral standards of the majority of the Western world” is irrelevant. China also has violated “Western values” with no punishment. Face it PB, your argument only works when you are the biggest bully on the block (an ill omen)! When those responsible for the Tiananmen massacre are on trial, come see me. Until then you have no pole long enough and nowhere to stand.

The Atheist slaughters mentioned above were considered “conducive to civil relations with ones neighbors” by their perpetrators, yet there is no demand that those perpetrators be brought to trial. There has been no retaliation for them, so why are Atheism’s atrocities ignored? It seems Atheists committing mass murder doesn’t seem to “piss [you] off.”

David M. Payne

Nicely said Oolon, I’ve been waiting for FS to reply. Perhaps he’s left the building.

Zounds! I stand corrected, just before I was going to post this, FS gave us one of his best broadsides, so I’ll use a little (Hal9000) humor this time, as logic and reason have had no effect on him in the past. I’ll have to step carefully around him before he bites me on the leg, poor chap, what a brave knight he is! Here, let me give you one of your legs back to stand on! I applaud you sir, you can operate that smoke and mirrors machine with your teeth! Bravo!
Now, lets see if I have this right; (A) Marxist/Fascists killed millions. (B) Marxism/fascism= Atheism, (C) Therefore atheists killed millions? Spare me FS, Marxist/Fascists killed in the name of the party, the state, for the head of the cult of personality, Hitler, Stalin etc. not in the name of atheism, period. It’s a dumb rant and it doesn’t work any more, get over it.

I do like this though, tarring me with my own brush, (or more correctly Epicurus’s brush) or at least trying to.

FS Man can prevent evil, and either chooses not to or cannot. If he chooses not to, he is an abettor. If he cannot then his nature is not the “basically good” that humanists claim.

Semi-Nice try FS, but man isn’t omnipotent is he? God on the other hand is, if your right about him, isn’t he? So we can’t control the actions of everyone, but God can, can’t he, being omnipotent and all. We do the best we can to control evil, God on the other hand, doesn’t do anything! (Of course I understand why, HE DOESN’T EXIST!) How long do you think this charade of there being a God will last? Giving you your dues, probably a long time, but he will fade from view as he has in the more civilized parts of the world, except here in the US, but 9/11 will have a profound effect on the young coming up in the US I do believe. This is the century we break free of the yolk of religion in America, Bob willing! (A little inside joke FS)

FSCan you site an appropriate excuse for all the evil man has done?

There is no excuse for the evil man has done FS, and even less excuse than that for the evil supposedly done by a perfect being of unlimited power and knowledge, that’s the point.(I say supposedly because he doesn’t exist, in my view remember?)

FSThat is a corundum= ? An extremely hard mineral, aluminum oxide, Al,2,O,3

I think you meant Conundrum, ie a puzzle FS.


So you want to go over the same old stuff again. Oolon did a marvelous job of answering your point about God the baby killer, as did Jack before him, as did my essay, and Bill Schultz’s piece “Is God a Criminal” last year and on and on, all the way back to Epicurus, and probably before that. As for your contention that Bob, uh, God gave us free will, well there is no proof of that either, and so I will continue think free will just evolved along with us as a way to react to our world, by being able to make choices as to our survival. Choose well, survive. Choose poorly, die. You use the usual, the biblical quotes you say prove your point. Sorry, don’t think so, but you are welcome to your view. I let the readers read the material in this thread and make up their own minds. Free will baby!

I think this just about raps up this episode of the “Evil God Show.” I hope you enjoyed the show, It’s been around in one form or another for a long-time, couple thousand years or so. But we need to keep bringing it up to remind the head theists that there are plenty of people in on their little game of money and power, God’s just the shill. And being a myth and all, he’s perfect for the job, because he’s always just what you want him to be! I understand their discomfort, we’re after their jobs by golly! Plus we make them look somewhat foolish in the process, believing in myths like some medieval naves! Really!

Well I have to move on, got to find my way out of the fundie forest before nightfall. Pardon me sir Knight as I step over you, no disrespect intended, I know you can’t get out of the way, what with all your arms and legs chopped off and all. Oh, I think I found one of FS’s arms over here, ugh, its still moving! And look, its still grasping at straws!

To be continued?

David

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: David Payne ]

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: David Payne ]</p>