You appear to enjoy engaging in Sophistry and obfuscation. Why waste our
time with your nonsensical polemics???
"Midwinter" <midwinter_m@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:hOmdnRNZeYq9zTXaRVnyhgA@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Okay, Bill, let's see what I can do to address your challenges.
>
> "Bill M" <wmech@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said :
>
>> God fanatics constantly make the claim the wonders and complexity of
>> the world is proof of God.
>
> Your challenge is directed at concept of single god, as defined by
> monotheistic religions.
>
>
>> Why does this all powerful creator
>
> This implies a single being directly and consciously response for
> existence of world or cosmos.
>
>
>> all loving and caring
>
> Challenge is directed at god defined as universally benevolent.
>
>
>> intelligent designer
>
> Reiterates definition from 'all powerful creator'.
>
>
>> Why punish millions of INNOCENT CHILDREN in this
>> horrible way?
>
> Appeal to emotion, along with implication that adult lives are not as
> im****tant as those of children.
>
>
>> Why does this all powerful and caring god permit totally "innocent
>> children" to die at birth?
>
> Repetition of previous appeal to emotion.
>
>
>> Why does he permit over 2,000,000 innocent children to die
>
> Reptition of previous appeal to emotion.
>
> Deity being challenged defined as male.
>
>
>> God supposedly created the world like it is, to punish man for Adam
>> and Eve's 'original sin'.
>
> Adam and Eve feature in Abramic mythology only. God being challenged is
> therefore that of the Christians, the Jews and the Muslims.
>
>
>> Why does he also punish supposedly innocent children
>
> Repetition of appeal to emotion. Intended meaning of 'supposedly' not
> clear - term usually implies doubt about a claim.
>
>
>> Why did this all powerful and loving creator
>
> Repetition of definition; God as necessarily omnibenevolent.
>
>
>> Over 100,000 of these were totally INNOCENT children!
>
> Repetition of appeal to emotion.
>
>
>> The death toll was over 137 million men, women and totally innocent
>> children.
>
> Repetition of appeal to emotion. Men and women can also be 'totally
> innocent', but the same assumption is not made for them. This implies
> that at least some adults deserved to die from the Black Death. I would
> contest that.
>
>
>> The influenza of 1918-1919 killed at least 25 million men, women and
>> innocent children indiscriminately.
>
> Repetition of appeal to emotion - see above re bubonic plague.
>
>
>> ALL god beliefs
>
> Indicates challenge towards all forms of religion.
>
> So, Bill, how do I defend my religious beliefs against your challenges?
>
> Well, given that your challenge is directed against a single omnipotent,
> omnibenevolent, male creator god, none of it applies to my religion.
> Which also doesn't include Adam and Eve.
>
> "Think of the children" - employed repeatedly throughout your lecture -
> is an empty argument and can be discarded as the weak rhetoric it is.
>
>
> Which leaves us with relatively little. In fact, the only thing I can
> really address in terms of my own belief system is the question you
asked
> of how come mankind has managed to do all these wonderful things you've
> listed, find these marvellous cures and make stunning discoveries - all,
> so you presume, without the help of gods.
>
> Many Christians would argue that if God hadn't wanted us to fly, He
> wouldn't have led us to discover how to make airfoils.
>
> The truth is that we have achieved these things because it's in our
> nature - whether that nature was designed or not. In the same way that
it
> appears to be our nature to exploit our world to make weapons out of
> natural diseases, and engineer them into new variants in order to cause
> even more agony and suffering. The way it appears to be our nature to
> discover the spectacular beauty of the quantum world, and turn it
> immediately towards wreaking massive death and destruction on our
> fellows. The way we discover these wonderful cures for terrible ills,
> and then withhold them until the sufferers stump up enough money. The
> way we burn and rip the land, fill the sea and the sky with toxic filth,
> and guzzle resources we cannot afford to sup****t lifestyles we do not
> need.
>
> It's one thing to labour our merits as proof that we don't need gods -
> but it leaves us with a rather skewed impression of what mankind is. If
> we can take the credit for our achievements, then we must also take the
> blame for our failings. If some god or other is to be blamed for the
> evil that we do, then that god should also be credited with our good.
>
>
>> If there is a god that created the Universe, he is obviously not an
>> all-caring and benevolent god.
>
> You're probably right.
>
>
>> The objective evidence is if there is a god creator, he has NO concern
>> about the welfare of the creatures on Earth.
>
> And it continually puzzles me why so many people imagine He should -
> given the time so many of them spend trying to express just how big He
is
> in comparison to us.
>
>
>> I challenge god believers to supply ANY objective verifiable evidence
>> that their god actually exists except in their over active
>> imaginations.
>>
>> Who will accept the challenge???
>
> To conclude: speaking for myself, I don't need to. Your challenge
> doesn't apply to my beliefs.
|
