Re: aa AQOTM nomination (was Re: Flood Evidence Found Using Google

On May 20, 12:05 pm, Gregory A Greenman <s...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> In article <p2e4349r8kmoarg7h8t75sh3vd5aed9...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, raven1
> <quoththera...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> declared...
>
> > On Tue, 20 May 2008 00:30:03 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason
> > <kbjarna...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > >[snips]
>
> > >On Mon, 19 May 2008 00:33:31 +0000, Christ's Love wrote:
>
> > >>>If the bible is to be believed, even god admits that he killed all
th=
ese
> > >>>people. Pointing out that this was an evil act is hardly blaming
god =
for
> > >>>everything.
>
> > >> Are you prepared to stand before God and tell Him it was an evil
act?=

>
> > The following nominated quote is quite long, but I am willing to
> > defend it as "Atheist Quote of the Century". Seconds?
>
> seconded
>
>
>
> > >It's kind of sad seeing this sort of thing.  When push comes to
shove,
> > >the theist inevitably degenerates into threats, veiled or otherwise.
> > >Here we have the veiled threat "Better do as God says or He'll do
> > >something bad to you (like send you to Hell)."
>
> > >Ignoring that for a moment, let's answer the question posed: would I
be=

> > >prepared to stand before God - say on Judgement day - and tell him I
> > >thought he was evil?
>
> > >The question itself has a few problems, not least of which is the
> > >complete absence of any reason whatsoever to think God even exists. 
So=

> > >let's ignore _that_ little fault for the moment.
>
> > >Have you ever *read* the Bible? Or talked to the theists?
>
> > >I have.
>
> > >From reading it and talking to them, there are a few inescapable
> > >conclusions one can draw - this, of course, assuming the book is
actual=
ly
> > >correct and there is a God and he acted much as described in the
book.
>
> > >First, we note that according to the tale, God creates all. 
Including
> > >little old me.  Meaning God created me to be exactly what I am - a
> > >skeptic, requiring evidence before I'll buy claims such as "God
exists"=
..
>
> > >Next we note that God expended some effort to ensure there would
never
> > >actually _be_ such evidence.  This ties in to the usual "With proof,
> > >there is no faith" line - if God were proven, you wouldn't need
faith,
> > >and God wants you to believe on faith.
>
> > >Thus, by the argument offered by the theists backed by the book, God
> > >created me, from word go, *specifically* so that I would not - could
no=
t
> > >- ever come to believe, and thus would inevitably end up condemned.
> > >There is no choice involved in it for me; I am as I am, as God made
me,=

> > >and what He made me *cannot* buy such nonsense without objective
> > >validation.
>
> > >Of course, that's just me... but then I ponder that people who think
th=
e
> > >way I do amount to some 10% of the American population... that's 10%
in=
 a
> > >nation which is almost completely overrun by faith.  I rather expect
th=
at
> > >other nations have somewhat higher percentages of people such as
myself=
..
>
> > >And what does this mean?  It means there are - if we use the
conservati=
ve
> > >value of 10%, applied across the world - some 650 *million* people,
ali=
ve
> > >right now, who were created with the express intent that every last
one=

> > >of them will be condemned, with absolutely no choice or say in the
matt=
er.
>
> > >Yes, it's bad enough to do this to *one* person - to condemn them for
> > >something they did not do, for something they had no responsibility
for=
,
> > >no power to control, but to do it for a group of people numbering
more
> > >than the entire populations of all but the largest nations beggars
> > >description.
>
> > >I know some theist will pop in about this point babbling about free
wil=
l,
> > >but in doing so he demonstrates he hasn't got a clue what he's
talking
> > >about.
>
> > >Free will is *not* actually free.  It has constraints, it has limits.
> > >The obvious example of this for the theist is this challenge: exert
you=
r
> > >free will for just five minutes, and choose not to believe.
>
> > >What?  You can't?  Why not?  You have free will, so use it - stop
> > >believing.  Just for five minutes.  But you can't, can you?
>
> > >Of course you can't - because free will is not free; it exists within
t=
he
> > >confines of one's world view, ones fundamental approach to analyzing
th=
e
> > >world.  To the believer, this analysis is based on faith and the
> > >assumption there is some Great Father figure in the sky to provide
> > >meaning and consequence and reward.  Such a person *cannot* use their
> > >"free will" to cease believing such things, for the simple reason
that
> > >their entire underlying world view denies the very possibility of
this.=

>
> > >The same is true of the skeptic.  His underlying world view is one
wher=
e
> > >actions have consequences, events have explanations, unfounded
nonsense=

> > >is unfounded nonsense, and he is constitutionally incapable of buying
> > >such arrant twaddle without sup****ting evidence.  He has no more
abilit=
y
> > >to choose to believe than the believer has to stop believing.
>
> > >Yes, there are the rare cases where, for one reason or another, one
can=

> > >"rewrite the map" and switch roles.  The simple fact they are as rare
a=
s
> > >they are should be ample demonstration that it is not simply a matter
o=
f
> > >flipping a coin and deciding which world view to adopt - exercising
fre=
e
> > >will - but involves considerably more than simply making a choice.
>
> > >So there are some 650 million people, created by God (according to
the
> > >tale) to be exactly what they are... which in virtually every case
mean=
s
> > >they are destined for condemnation from word go.  They were *created*
t=
o
> > >*burn*.
>
> > >This alone is sufficient to write off the asserted creator as a
serious=
ly
> > >demented individual, but this is the _least_ of the problems with
him, =
as
> > >described in the book and by the believers.
>
> > >He has, according to the tale, condemned all for the crimes of the
few.=

> > >If we were to apply the same approach, we would have to nuke the
entire=

> > >planet into oblivion, as you won't find a continent, country, state,
> > >county, town, neighbourhood or even a single family who hasn't
committe=
d
> > >_some_ offense against laws or ethics.
>
> > >As humans, we accept that other humans are as fallible as we are and
th=
us
> > >overlook such behaviour unless it is sufficiently egregious as to
warra=
nt
> > >action be taken.  When we _do_ take such action, though, we do not
puni=
sh
> > >every person on the planet, we punish the wrongdoer.  To do otherwise
i=
s
> > >unjust, unfair.  Fair and just treatment can be respected, even if we
> > >don't necessarily like it.  Unfair or unjust treatment cannot be
> > >respected.  Yet the God described acts in just this manner.
>
> > >Of course, some theist is about to pop in with some nonsense about
the
> > >potter and the pot, how he has the privilege to destroy it or alter
it =
or
> > >whatever, while the pot has no say.
>
> > >Such an argument would be relevant if - and only if - the potter has
> > >given the pot intelligence, emotion, a sense of fairness, a sense of
> > >justice, consciousness and conscience, empathy and all the other
> > >attributes which typically separate people from pots.
>
> > >The simplest example of someone producing such a product is not a
potte=
r
> > >making a pot, but a parent having a child.  The result - the "pot" -
> > >indeed does have those attributes, thus makes for an actually
relevant
> > >and comparable example.
>
> > >Now how does the bit about the potter apply?  Since the parent made
the=

> > >"pot", does it have the right to alter it?  To destroy it?  To do so
on=
 a
> > >whim?  Is there a theist anywhere who would use this "He's the
potter, =
so
> > >he can destroy the pot" argument when it's not a potter and pot, but
a
> > >parent and a child?
>
> > >No, of course not. We expect, nay demand, at least a minimum of fair
an=
d
> > >just treatment towards such beings, because they - and we - are
feeling=
,
> > >caring beings.  This is true even if we don't involve children, but,
sa=
y,
> > >dogs - even most theists would hesitate to suggest a dog owner has
the
> > >right to alter or kill the dog on a whim, to shoot it because it peed
o=
n
> > >the carpet or some such.
>
> > >Why do we reject such behaviour?  We reject it because it is unfair,
it=

> > >is unjust, and we have the capacity for empathy, for caring.  To
argue
> > >the "He's the potter" line is to argue that we are no better than a
pot=
,
> > >but it is also to argue that the "potter" has no empathy, no ability
to=

> > >care, no love, no feeling, no redeeming emotional or intellectual
makeu=
p
> > >whatsoever.  This is not a being to be respected.
>
> > >Then we have issues such as earthquakes and floods, storms and
avalanch=
es
> > >and fires, which kill thousands at a time.  Some - such as the baby
> > >slowly roasting to death in the burning building, while rescuers who
> > >can't get to it have to listen to its screams of agony - involve
> > >unbelievable suffering.
>
> > >Remember, God is supposed to be all-powerful, meaning he could, with
th=
e
> > >merest trifle of a thought, rescue those people, rescue that child. 
Ev=
en
> > >if we grant that there is some point to be made by taking their
lives,
> > >their suffering could be ended with nothing more than a flick of a
> > >thought... but this does not happen.  Instead we have people dying in
> > >agony in fires, or from cancer, or starving to death in cave-ins and
an=

> > >endless array of other forms of miserable, painful, lonely,
frightening=

> > >death.
>
> > >Since - according to the tale - God *could* end this suffering with
jus=
t
> > >a thought, and - again, according to the tale - God is omniscient and
> > >thus fully aware of the suffering going on, the conclusion is
> > >inescapable: God either actually *wants* such suffering to occur, or
Go=
d
> > >simply doesn't give a damn.
>
> > >Meanwhile, we have people - mere people, not gods - who will go out
of
> > >their way to help those in pain, or in fear, or otherwise suffering.
> > >People who will take in a stray dog and care for it, feed it, heal
its
> > >wounds, treat its diseases, even at considerable expense.  People who
> > >will donate
>
> ...
>
> read more =BB

Why does his god admitted to killing people?
I thought his theme says that his god love people ....?