That guy is the most arrogant, ignorant, egomaniacal atheist asshole on the face of the planet.
And you're trying to prove a point by posting Richard Dawkins quotes?
Yeesh...Debates on this board have sunk to a new low.
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979
Richard Dawkins in a religious argument? Really? That guy is the most arrogant, ignorant, egomaniacal atheist asshole on the face of the planet. And you're trying to prove a point by posting Richard Dawkins quotes? Yeesh...Debates on this board have sunk to a new low.
Now this is funny. Apparently Richard Dawkins is arrogant and ignorant, but this:
Originally posted by Finwe
Truly amazing, even most ancient societies who frequently practised homosexuality as almost a norm, were not so ignorant to try to presume a...practicality to homosexual marriage. This whole concept, this whole, "Fight", is for the most part, a modern, and quite silly ideal. The point of marriage isn't just love, but it's a concept of family. Marriage has not always been about love, and in alot of situations still isn't. In quite a few countries, past or present, marriages were usually arranged. This is not to say I agree with this, nor to say these people did not learn to love each other, but the idea, was a greater purpose. The preservation of ones family.
Family...The idea has been annihilated. It barely exists in our modern culture, you add in this crusade to allow homosexuals to marry, it's just another nail in the coffin.
Oh well, I suppose hope can be found that secularism never lasts, and history has always had a tendency to go from prudancy in it's infancy, to corruption and hedonism in its latter life, usually being the forebearing harbinger of total annihilation.
Is not?
I'm not surprised you don't like Richard Dawkins. A lot of religious folk don't. Because he gets right in your face, there is no suggercoating, he will call out your faith and describe it for what it really is.
Richard Dawkins in a religious argument? Really? That guy is the most arrogant, ignorant, egomaniacal atheist asshole on the face of the planet. And you're trying to prove a point by posting Richard Dawkins quotes? Yeesh...Debates on this board have sunk to a new low.
I believe that i addressed the topic quite well, and yes I'm using Richard Dawkins because I've yet to meet a person of religion who has managed to successfully debate him without falling into a circular argument.
You talk about how 'debates' have sunk to a new low yet you didn't and haven't bothered to counter what i said instead you make a flippant remark, GameLoading has addressed your hypocrisy well enough where i don't need to point it out... so do you have something to bring to the table or are you just going to whine about it some more?
I'd love to see Richard Dawkins have a debate with Pat Robertson on live TV. Robertson would squint so hard praying for Richard his ears would probably fly off.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
Robertson has more than enough pull to discuss anything related to religion with somebody like Richard Dawkins or even Cristopher Hitchens, in fact i would say it's safe to assume that they would jump on that discussion/debate in a heartbeat....but he won't
Reason? He knows he has nothing to offer besides scripture-slinging any argument.
Robertson cares about one thing: His career, and if he can ride the bible to a weekly check..well so be it, and he's done it for years....he's a flim-flam artist extrodinare using religion as both a weapon and a shield against people who don't think like he does.
Robertson is nothing more than a fart in the wind when it comes to religion, Alister McGrath on the other hand is a brilliant theologian who has taken both Dawkins and Hitchens on in extremely civil and intelligent debates over the years and it worth watching...while they obviously do not agree with eachother, the respect is there.
Richard Dawkins, i believe, sums up God/religion quite well: The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. - Richard Dawkins
That has to be the most rediculous, biased and disgusting description of the OT LORD GOD I've ever read in my entire life.
Richard Dawkins, i believe, sums up God/religion quite well: The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. - Richard Dawkins
That has to be the most rediculous, biased and disgusting description of the OT LORD GOD I've ever read in my entire life.
Richard Dawkins in a religious argument? Really? That guy is the most arrogant, ignorant, egomaniacal atheist asshole on the face of the planet. And you're trying to prove a point by posting Richard Dawkins quotes? Yeesh...Debates on this board have sunk to a new low.
Now this is funny. Apparently Richard Dawkins is arrogant and ignorant, but this:
Originally posted by Finwe
Truly amazing, even most ancient societies who frequently practised homosexuality as almost a norm, were not so ignorant to try to presume a...practicality to homosexual marriage. This whole concept, this whole, "Fight", is for the most part, a modern, and quite silly ideal. The point of marriage isn't just love, but it's a concept of family. Marriage has not always been about love, and in alot of situations still isn't. In quite a few countries, past or present, marriages were usually arranged. This is not to say I agree with this, nor to say these people did not learn to love each other, but the idea, was a greater purpose. The preservation of ones family.
Family...The idea has been annihilated. It barely exists in our modern culture, you add in this crusade to allow homosexuals to marry, it's just another nail in the coffin.
Oh well, I suppose hope can be found that secularism never lasts, and history has always had a tendency to go from prudancy in it's infancy, to corruption and hedonism in its latter life, usually being the forebearing harbinger of total annihilation.
Is not?
I'm not surprised you don't like Richard Dawkins. A lot of religious folk don't. Because he gets right in your face, there is no suggercoating, he will call out your faith and describe it for what it really is.
That's not why people who believe in God don't like Richard Dawkins...a lot of atheists don't even like Ricahrd Dawkins...People don't like him because he expresses his views in an egomaniacal, almost violent way...He is to atheists what that nutty church in the south that says that the war in Iraq is the fault of gays is to Christianity.
I would like to see the debates that Richard has done with noted theologians, as everything that I've read about him and debates has said that he refuses to debate because he claims that it's pointless to debate with people who believe in God.
I remember watching a video of some girl asking him during a lecture, "well what if you're wrong?"
He took about 2 minutes telling her that she is only a Christian (assumption on his part) because her family is Christian, and then concluded with "what if YOU'RE WRONG?" in the most arrogant way I can possibly imagine...it was belittling on a level that no adult should be okay with.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Richard Dawkins, i believe, sums up God/religion quite well: The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. - Richard Dawkins
That has to be the most rediculous, biased and disgusting description of the OT LORD GOD I've ever read in my entire life.
yuck.
/throw up
And you, ofcourse, are completely unbiased.
What is the point of pointing out someone else's bias when you yourself come to the table with a huge atheist slant? We all have a bias when you're talking about faith...what's your point?
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
faith needs to be the prevailng mental perspective.
Welcome to the Dark Ages
Nah, just after things like the Crusades and recent Jihadist bullshit, where "faith" was the prevailing mental perspective, I'd prefer some solid tangible facts over "faith" any day.
Unfortunately, with the many more millions murdered by secularists than religionists any day (Put up Mao against ANY Crusader or Jihadist, and Mao has them all beat hands down -- as does Stalin). That is the result of men without faith ruling.
Religion is no picnic, to be sure, but athiesm appears to be far, far worse.
You beat me to it. The 20th century really doesn't agree with Zorvon's statement. When people stop believing in God, they start worshiping man, the state, climate change, or whatever is "in" at the moment.
Richard Dawkins in a religious argument? Really? That guy is the most arrogant, ignorant, egomaniacal atheist asshole on the face of the planet. And you're trying to prove a point by posting Richard Dawkins quotes? Yeesh...Debates on this board have sunk to a new low.
Now this is funny. Apparently Richard Dawkins is arrogant and ignorant, but this:
Originally posted by Finwe
Truly amazing, even most ancient societies who frequently practised homosexuality as almost a norm, were not so ignorant to try to presume a...practicality to homosexual marriage. This whole concept, this whole, "Fight", is for the most part, a modern, and quite silly ideal. The point of marriage isn't just love, but it's a concept of family. Marriage has not always been about love, and in alot of situations still isn't. In quite a few countries, past or present, marriages were usually arranged. This is not to say I agree with this, nor to say these people did not learn to love each other, but the idea, was a greater purpose. The preservation of ones family.
Family...The idea has been annihilated. It barely exists in our modern culture, you add in this crusade to allow homosexuals to marry, it's just another nail in the coffin.
Oh well, I suppose hope can be found that secularism never lasts, and history has always had a tendency to go from prudancy in it's infancy, to corruption and hedonism in its latter life, usually being the forebearing harbinger of total annihilation.
Is not?
I'm not surprised you don't like Richard Dawkins. A lot of religious folk don't. Because he gets right in your face, there is no suggercoating, he will call out your faith and describe it for what it really is.
That's not why people who believe in God don't like Richard Dawkins...a lot of atheists don't even like Ricahrd Dawkins...People don't like him because he expresses his views in an egomaniacal, almost violent way...He is to atheists what that nutty church in the south that says that the war in Iraq is the fault of gays is to Christianity.
I would like to see the debates that Richard has done with noted theologians, as everything that I've read about him and debates has said that he refuses to debate because he claims that it's pointless to debate with people who believe in God.
I remember watching a video of some girl asking him during a lecture, "well what if you're wrong?"
He took about 2 minutes telling her that she is only a Christian (assumption on his part) because her family is Christian, and then concluded with "what if YOU'RE WRONG?" in the most arrogant way I can possibly imagine...it was belittling on a level that no adult should be okay with.
Richard Dawkins doesn't debate creationists. The only time he does so as far as I can remember was with A.E. Wilder Smith of the Young Earth Creationists and Edgar Anderws, President of the Biblical Creation society.
I'm not really sure what part of your example is arrogant. Most christians gain their christianity from their parents and he reversed the question so that the girl could answer it for herself. What part exactly is arrogant?
Richard Dawkins, i believe, sums up God/religion quite well: The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. - Richard Dawkins
That has to be the most rediculous, biased and disgusting description of the OT LORD GOD I've ever read in my entire life.
yuck.
/throw up
And you, ofcourse, are completely unbiased.
What is the point of pointing out someone else's bias when you yourself come to the table with a huge atheist slant? We all have a bias when you're talking about faith...what's your point?
It's quite funny that you're picking me instead MarleVVLL isn't it? The point was humor. I thought it was quite amusing that someone who puts christian propeganda in both his avatar and his signature starts talking about a person being biased.
Also me being an Atheist is irrelevant to that particular subject. We are talking about the way a character is described, not his existance.
Richard Dawkins, i believe, sums up God/religion quite well: The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. - Richard Dawkins
That has to be the most rediculous, biased and disgusting description of the OT LORD GOD I've ever read in my entire life.
yuck.
/throw up
Perhaps, but it also makes a valid point, i didn't really expect you to agree with it or support it, but perhaps you would like to counter it?
Very well then, allow me to back-up what Dawkins wrote with something you are very much familiar with...scripture-slinging.
"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, (Exodus 20:5) -Jealousy (sin)
God: "About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the slave girl, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt - worse than there has ever been or ever will be again. But among the Israelites not a dog will bark at any man or animal."-Murder (sin)
At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well. Pharaoh and all his officials and all the Egyptians got up during the night, and there was loud wailing in Egypt, for there was not a house without someone dead. (Exodus 11:4-7) -Murder (sin)
But I have said to you, "You shall inherit their land, and I will give it to you to possess, a land flowing with milk and honey." I am the LORD your God, who has separated you from the peoples. (Leviticus 20:24)-Racial seperation??...so....God made inferior people??-Racism (sin)
The "peoples" in which God is referring to is the Gentiles and does so several times throughout the OT.
Then the Lord rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the Lord out of the heavens" (Genesis 19:24)-God destroys -two- cities because of the goings-on within it, like homosexual activity...in fact God actually plots with Lot to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah -all of the above with Dawkins statement (sins)
Lots wife is turned int o a pillar of salt because she disobeyed God and looked back...yeah..God didn't show off on that one...
God floods the world and only spares Noah, his family and two of every creature ( a remarkable ark indeed) because of the 'wicked sinners' ( i guess the remaining animals, the newborn babies, and the grass were wicked to the core)
...But God spares Cain?!?...
Ah yes the Cain and Abel story...if there is any story that shows God as being entity who plays favorites because somebody is giving him something that he considers better, it's this one....strange that an all-powerful being who loves his creations would do such a thing...
The verse is too long to list (Genesis 4:1-16)
3And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
4And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
5But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.-God plays favorites (not really a sin but still fits within Dawkins Statement)
And here comes the amazing part:
15 Then the Lord replied to him, "In that case,whoever kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over."And he placed a mark on Cain so that whoever found him would not kill him. Then Cain went out from the Lord's presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.
Ok...so he won't kill a man guilty of murder...but he'll wipe out two cities...wow.
People of strong faith ignore attacks towards them.
Others who are programmed into faith gets upset, angry and flare up when their faith is questioned same goes for people who have the need to belong to something that chooses a faith of convience.
The bible is a compilation of "books", it's been manipulated time to time, it's filled with contradictions and vague recollections of actual occurences. Looking at it with our current form of logic driven for scientific and common sense.
I don't understand people who gets furiated when their faith is questioned or when other individuals don't believe or recognise their faith, I sense their faith is not strong enough. One who truly embraces one faith should not burden their mind and soul with trivial aggrevations and sadness but hold on to the happiness and goodwill it brings.
If you all are looking for the ultimate faith it will find and you and enlighten you, it is not governed by a god nor a creature but an entity bestowed in us all, my faith is the true faith. My faith does not chain you, my faith does not punish you.
People of strong faith ignore attacks towards them. Others who are programmed into faith gets upset, angry and flare up when their faith is questioned same goes for people who have the need to belong to something that chooses a faith of convience. The bible is a compilation of "books", it's been manipulated time to time, it's filled with contradictions and vague recollections of actual occurences. Looking at it with our current form of logic driven for scientific and common sense. I don't understand people who gets furiated when their faith is questioned or when other individuals don't believe or recognize their faith, I sense their faith is not strong enough. One who truly embraces one faith should not burden their mind and soul with trivial aggrevations and sadness but hold on to the happiness and goodwill it brings. If you all are looking for the ultimate faith it will find and you and enlighten you, it is not governed by a god nor a creature but an entity bestowed in us all, my faith is the true faith. My faith does not chain you, my faith does not punish you.
I think it's because they have been programmed to defend/convert as much as they can, whenever they can..i also believe that if most people of Christ were very, very honest with themselves they would even say that their faith has been tested and/or they've had doubts....which may play upon their own uncertainties.
First, let me say that i was once a Lutheran for many, many years and that we are taught to go out and 'save people' to 'teach the word of God' to the masses, it kinda goes like this:
Random person: So, JT...have you been saved?
JT: No, i don't believe in God
Random person: Then you're damned and you will go to hell unless you accept Jesus as your personal savior.
JT: And how do you know this?
Random Person: Because the Bible and the teachings of Christ tell us about his sacrifice he made for us.
JT:mhmm...and how do you know that your religion is the right one?
Originally posted by JustTalking Ok...so he won't kill a man guilty of murder...but he'll wipe out two cities...wow. Yeah...i think his statement is valid.
Before you blame God for injustice, you should figure out why He did what He did. I can give an awnser for each of the verses and issues you brought up. Nothing contradicts the nature of God and everything lines up in perfect love, justice, meekness and servant hood.
Originally posted by JustTalking Ok...so he won't kill a man guilty of murder...but he'll wipe out two cities...wow. Yeah...i think his statement is valid.
Before you blame God for injustice, you should figure out why He did what He did. I can give an awnser for each of the verses and issues you brought up. Nothing contradicts the nature of God and everything lines up in perfect love, justice, meekness and servant hood.
By all means, I'm interested in reading your counterpoint.
Blame god? who's blaming God?...not me, Dawkins said that God is arguably the most vile creatures in fiction...i agree...and the Bible proves that...I, in turn, tried to show an example to his statement...nothing more, nothing less.
Richard Dawkins, i believe, sums up God/religion quite well: The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. - Richard Dawkins
That has to be the most rediculous, biased and disgusting description of the OT LORD GOD I've ever read in my entire life.
yuck.
/throw up
Perhaps, but it also makes a valid point, i didn't really expect you to agree with it or support it, but perhaps you would like to counter it?
Very well then, allow me to back-up what Dawkins wrote with something you are very much familiar with...scripture-slinging.
"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, (Exodus 20:5) -Jealousy (sin)
God: "About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the slave girl, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt - worse than there has ever been or ever will be again. But among the Israelites not a dog will bark at any man or animal."-Murder (sin)
At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well. Pharaoh and all his officials and all the Egyptians got up during the night, and there was loud wailing in Egypt, for there was not a house without someone dead. (Exodus 11:4-7) -Murder (sin)
But I have said to you, "You shall inherit their land, and I will give it to you to possess, a land flowing with milk and honey." I am the LORD your God, who has separated you from the peoples. (Leviticus 20:24)-Racial seperation??...so....God made inferior people??-Racism (sin)
The "peoples" in which God is referring to is the Gentiles and does so several times throughout the OT.
Then the Lord rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the Lord out of the heavens" (Genesis 19:24)-God destroys -two- cities because of the goings-on within it, like homosexual activity...in fact God actually plots with Lot to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah -all of the above with Dawkins statement (sins)
Lots wife is turned int o a pillar of salt because she disobeyed God and looked back...yeah..God didn't show off on that one...
God floods the world and only spares Noah, his family and two of every creature ( a remarkable ark indeed) because of the 'wicked sinners' ( i guess the remaining animals, the newborn babies, and the grass were wicked to the core)
...But God spares Cain?!?...
Ah yes the Cain and Abel story...if there is any story that shows God as being entity who plays favorites because somebody is giving him something that he considers better, it's this one....strange that an all-powerful being who loves his creations would do such a thing...
The verse is too long to list (Genesis 4:1-16)
3And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
4And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
5But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.-God plays favorites (not really a sin but still fits within Dawkins Statement)
And here comes the amazing part:
15 Then the Lord replied to him, "In that case,whoever kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over."And he placed a mark on Cain so that whoever found him would not kill him. Then Cain went out from the Lord's presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.
Ok...so he won't kill a man guilty of murder...but he'll wipe out two cities...wow.
Yeah...i think his statement is valid.
They were punishments not sins. Also God is the most caring hmmm being I guess though nothing else is at his level. Yes He showed great wrath in the OT but in the NT Jesus came and made it clear to love the sinner and hate the sin. He sent his one and only son to die on the cross and die for our sins. I don't think a person/being Dawkins described would ever do that.
The racism line was a HUGE stretch that still doesn't work. He sepreated them from nations who did not believe not the race. They were most likely the same race being that it was all in that same part of the world they just followed a different religion and in fact some translations have it as nations instead of people.
Jeleous God as in attention should not be given to idols or earthly things because they did nothing and are nothing. He was making it clear who it is they serve.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day. And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
Originally posted by Arndur They were punishments not sins. Also God is the most caring hmmm being I guess though nothing else is at his level. Yes He showed great wrath in the OT but in the NT Jesus came and made it clear to love the sinner and hate the sin. He sent his one and only son to die on the cross and die for our sins. I don't think a person/being Dawkins described would ever do that. Well Jesus is something I'm not discussing right now as i don't want the OT and NT to overlap, I'm talking about the head-honcho...I'll get to Jesus later, God may be many things but i don't see how 'caring' is part of it...impatient? oh yes...vindictive? no doubt. They were punished because of sin, it goes hand-in hand. The racism line was a HUGE stretch that still doesn't work. He separated them from nations who did not believe not the race. They were most likely the same race being that it was all in that same part of the world they just followed a different religion and in fact some translations have it as nations instead of people. Very well, let us for arguments sake say that the 'racism line' is indeed a 'huge stretch' we must then ask why a, as you put it, 'caring God' not only separate his followers (Jews) from the non-believers (Gentiles) but insisted (even in the period of Jesus) that Gentiles be pushed out and chastized...this does not sound like a very caring God to me, nor does this sound like a God that loves his creations....it instead sounds like a spiteful individual who has no need for people who weren't Jewish/Non-Israelite. Jealous God as in attention should not be given to idols or earthly things because they did nothing and are nothing. He was making it clear who it is they serve. Indeed, all attention should be on God...sorta like that spoiled child who throws a tantrum if his/her parents don't play with him/her enough. He is a jealous God, why he's jealous is irrelevant..i find a huge flaw in a jealous supreme-being.
Richard Dawkins in a religious argument? Really? That guy is the most arrogant, ignorant, egomaniacal atheist asshole on the face of the planet. And you're trying to prove a point by posting Richard Dawkins quotes? Yeesh...Debates on this board have sunk to a new low.
Now this is funny. Apparently Richard Dawkins is arrogant and ignorant, but this:
Originally posted by Finwe
Truly amazing, even most ancient societies who frequently practised homosexuality as almost a norm, were not so ignorant to try to presume a...practicality to homosexual marriage. This whole concept, this whole, "Fight", is for the most part, a modern, and quite silly ideal. The point of marriage isn't just love, but it's a concept of family. Marriage has not always been about love, and in alot of situations still isn't. In quite a few countries, past or present, marriages were usually arranged. This is not to say I agree with this, nor to say these people did not learn to love each other, but the idea, was a greater purpose. The preservation of ones family.
Family...The idea has been annihilated. It barely exists in our modern culture, you add in this crusade to allow homosexuals to marry, it's just another nail in the coffin.
Oh well, I suppose hope can be found that secularism never lasts, and history has always had a tendency to go from prudancy in it's infancy, to corruption and hedonism in its latter life, usually being the forebearing harbinger of total annihilation.
Is not?
I'm not surprised you don't like Richard Dawkins. A lot of religious folk don't. Because he gets right in your face, there is no suggercoating, he will call out your faith and describe it for what it really is.
#2. It's kind of like those guy's that just say they're being "real", and "honest", and "just telling the truth". Then go up to some girl and call her a "fat bitch", because she doesn't have 10% body fat. That's richard dawkins.
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979
Richard Dawkins in a religious argument? Really? That guy is the most arrogant, ignorant, egomaniacal atheist asshole on the face of the planet. And you're trying to prove a point by posting Richard Dawkins quotes? Yeesh...Debates on this board have sunk to a new low.
I believe that i addressed the topic quite well, and yes I'm using Richard Dawkins because I've yet to meet a person of religion who has managed to successfully debate him without falling into a circular argument.
You talk about how 'debates' have sunk to a new low yet you didn't and haven't bothered to counter what i said instead you make a flippant remark, GameLoading has addressed your hypocrisy well enough where i don't need to point it out... so do you have something to bring to the table or are you just going to whine about it some more?
#1. Anyone who uses Richard Dawkins never has, nor ever will, address a topic of religious discussion well.
#2. What's to counter? A man who falls into close enough belief of a man who considers faith, a "disease of the mind" does not desire an intellectual belief, but to be an antagonist.
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979
So when/if we encounter intelligent extra-terrestial life, did god create them? Do the 10 commandment apply to them? Since the bible does not mention outer space, nor does it mention alot of things that most christians praise god for.
So when/if we encounter intelligent extra-terrestial life, did god create them? Do the 10 commandment apply to them? Since the bible does not mention outer space, nor does it mention alot of things that most christians praise god for.
The neccessary scriptures will be re-interpreted after the first intergalactic encounter. Later revisions will follow with each encounter after that until followers are calmed down and accept our new overLords.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
#1. Anyone who uses Richard Hawkins never has, nor ever will, address a topic of religious discussion well. That's your opinion that's not supported by any facts...kinda like Religion, and so far only one of you who disagree has even attempted to address my post with any revelance..you, like the rest, make up a few sentences that has nothing to do with the post and rather a verbal attack on Dawkins, you don't even bother to address his stance...but instead call him 'disgusting and vile' How very religious, when you can't address it or understand it...attack it.
#2. What's to counter? A man who falls into close enough belief of a man who considers faith, a "disease of the mind" does not desire an intellectual belief, but to be an antagonist. Right...and religion isn't guilty of that at all People of religion try to convince and convert others into thinking that an invisible, immortal, omnipotent, kingdom in the sky "Lord of Lord's" made everything and if we don't believe in him or his son...we're damned....because a 3000+ year old book tells you so. To compound on this, other religions are totally and completely incorrect and to follow them is damnation as well. To the religious, the unfaithful have a disease of the soul and the others who believe in a God just not their God are fools, damned because of their ignorance. Religion does not desire a spiritual belief, just drones....see what i did there? i can twist things around just like you. So once again i have to ask, are you going to bring something to the table....or are you going to whine some more?
Comments
Richard Dawkins in a religious argument? Really?
That guy is the most arrogant, ignorant, egomaniacal atheist asshole on the face of the planet.
And you're trying to prove a point by posting Richard Dawkins quotes?
Yeesh...Debates on this board have sunk to a new low.
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979
Now this is funny. Apparently Richard Dawkins is arrogant and ignorant, but this:
Originally posted by Finwe
Truly amazing, even most ancient societies who frequently practised homosexuality as almost a norm, were not so ignorant to try to presume a...practicality to homosexual marriage. This whole concept, this whole, "Fight", is for the most part, a modern, and quite silly ideal. The point of marriage isn't just love, but it's a concept of family. Marriage has not always been about love, and in alot of situations still isn't. In quite a few countries, past or present, marriages were usually arranged. This is not to say I agree with this, nor to say these people did not learn to love each other, but the idea, was a greater purpose. The preservation of ones family.
Family...The idea has been annihilated. It barely exists in our modern culture, you add in this crusade to allow homosexuals to marry, it's just another nail in the coffin.
Oh well, I suppose hope can be found that secularism never lasts, and history has always had a tendency to go from prudancy in it's infancy, to corruption and hedonism in its latter life, usually being the forebearing harbinger of total annihilation.
Is not?
I'm not surprised you don't like Richard Dawkins. A lot of religious folk don't. Because he gets right in your face, there is no suggercoating, he will call out your faith and describe it for what it really is.
I believe that i addressed the topic quite well, and yes I'm using Richard Dawkins because I've yet to meet a person of religion who has managed to successfully debate him without falling into a circular argument.
You talk about how 'debates' have sunk to a new low yet you didn't and haven't bothered to counter what i said instead you make a flippant remark, GameLoading has addressed your hypocrisy well enough where i don't need to point it out... so do you have something to bring to the table or are you just going to whine about it some more?
I'd love to see Richard Dawkins have a debate with Pat Robertson on live TV. Robertson would squint so hard praying for Richard his ears would probably fly off.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
Robertson has more than enough pull to discuss anything related to religion with somebody like Richard Dawkins or even Cristopher Hitchens, in fact i would say it's safe to assume that they would jump on that discussion/debate in a heartbeat....but he won't
Reason? He knows he has nothing to offer besides scripture-slinging any argument.
Robertson cares about one thing: His career, and if he can ride the bible to a weekly check..well so be it, and he's done it for years....he's a flim-flam artist extrodinare using religion as both a weapon and a shield against people who don't think like he does.
Robertson is nothing more than a fart in the wind when it comes to religion, Alister McGrath on the other hand is a brilliant theologian who has taken both Dawkins and Hitchens on in extremely civil and intelligent debates over the years and it worth watching...while they obviously do not agree with eachother, the respect is there.
And you believe what Charles Darwin wrote?
That has to be the most rediculous, biased and disgusting description of the OT LORD GOD I've ever read in my entire life.
yuck.
/throw up
MMO migrant.
That has to be the most rediculous, biased and disgusting description of the OT LORD GOD I've ever read in my entire life.
yuck.
/throw up
And you, ofcourse, are completely unbiased.
Now this is funny. Apparently Richard Dawkins is arrogant and ignorant, but this:
Originally posted by Finwe
Truly amazing, even most ancient societies who frequently practised homosexuality as almost a norm, were not so ignorant to try to presume a...practicality to homosexual marriage. This whole concept, this whole, "Fight", is for the most part, a modern, and quite silly ideal. The point of marriage isn't just love, but it's a concept of family. Marriage has not always been about love, and in alot of situations still isn't. In quite a few countries, past or present, marriages were usually arranged. This is not to say I agree with this, nor to say these people did not learn to love each other, but the idea, was a greater purpose. The preservation of ones family.
Family...The idea has been annihilated. It barely exists in our modern culture, you add in this crusade to allow homosexuals to marry, it's just another nail in the coffin.
Oh well, I suppose hope can be found that secularism never lasts, and history has always had a tendency to go from prudancy in it's infancy, to corruption and hedonism in its latter life, usually being the forebearing harbinger of total annihilation.
Is not?
I'm not surprised you don't like Richard Dawkins. A lot of religious folk don't. Because he gets right in your face, there is no suggercoating, he will call out your faith and describe it for what it really is.
That's not why people who believe in God don't like Richard Dawkins...a lot of atheists don't even like Ricahrd Dawkins...People don't like him because he expresses his views in an egomaniacal, almost violent way...He is to atheists what that nutty church in the south that says that the war in Iraq is the fault of gays is to Christianity.
I would like to see the debates that Richard has done with noted theologians, as everything that I've read about him and debates has said that he refuses to debate because he claims that it's pointless to debate with people who believe in God.
I remember watching a video of some girl asking him during a lecture, "well what if you're wrong?"
He took about 2 minutes telling her that she is only a Christian (assumption on his part) because her family is Christian, and then concluded with "what if YOU'RE WRONG?" in the most arrogant way I can possibly imagine...it was belittling on a level that no adult should be okay with.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
That has to be the most rediculous, biased and disgusting description of the OT LORD GOD I've ever read in my entire life.
yuck.
/throw up
And you, ofcourse, are completely unbiased.
What is the point of pointing out someone else's bias when you yourself come to the table with a huge atheist slant? We all have a bias when you're talking about faith...what's your point?
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Welcome to the Dark Ages
Nah, just after things like the Crusades and recent Jihadist bullshit, where "faith" was the prevailing mental perspective, I'd prefer some solid tangible facts over "faith" any day.
Unfortunately, with the many more millions murdered by secularists than religionists any day (Put up Mao against ANY Crusader or Jihadist, and Mao has them all beat hands down -- as does Stalin). That is the result of men without faith ruling.
Religion is no picnic, to be sure, but athiesm appears to be far, far worse.
You beat me to it. The 20th century really doesn't agree with Zorvon's statement. When people stop believing in God, they start worshiping man, the state, climate change, or whatever is "in" at the moment.
Now this is funny. Apparently Richard Dawkins is arrogant and ignorant, but this:
Originally posted by Finwe
Truly amazing, even most ancient societies who frequently practised homosexuality as almost a norm, were not so ignorant to try to presume a...practicality to homosexual marriage. This whole concept, this whole, "Fight", is for the most part, a modern, and quite silly ideal. The point of marriage isn't just love, but it's a concept of family. Marriage has not always been about love, and in alot of situations still isn't. In quite a few countries, past or present, marriages were usually arranged. This is not to say I agree with this, nor to say these people did not learn to love each other, but the idea, was a greater purpose. The preservation of ones family.
Family...The idea has been annihilated. It barely exists in our modern culture, you add in this crusade to allow homosexuals to marry, it's just another nail in the coffin.
Oh well, I suppose hope can be found that secularism never lasts, and history has always had a tendency to go from prudancy in it's infancy, to corruption and hedonism in its latter life, usually being the forebearing harbinger of total annihilation.
Is not?
I'm not surprised you don't like Richard Dawkins. A lot of religious folk don't. Because he gets right in your face, there is no suggercoating, he will call out your faith and describe it for what it really is.
That's not why people who believe in God don't like Richard Dawkins...a lot of atheists don't even like Ricahrd Dawkins...People don't like him because he expresses his views in an egomaniacal, almost violent way...He is to atheists what that nutty church in the south that says that the war in Iraq is the fault of gays is to Christianity.
I would like to see the debates that Richard has done with noted theologians, as everything that I've read about him and debates has said that he refuses to debate because he claims that it's pointless to debate with people who believe in God.
I remember watching a video of some girl asking him during a lecture, "well what if you're wrong?"
He took about 2 minutes telling her that she is only a Christian (assumption on his part) because her family is Christian, and then concluded with "what if YOU'RE WRONG?" in the most arrogant way I can possibly imagine...it was belittling on a level that no adult should be okay with.
Richard Dawkins doesn't debate creationists. The only time he does so as far as I can remember was with A.E. Wilder Smith of the Young Earth Creationists and Edgar Anderws, President of the Biblical Creation society.
I'm not really sure what part of your example is arrogant. Most christians gain their christianity from their parents and he reversed the question so that the girl could answer it for herself. What part exactly is arrogant?
That has to be the most rediculous, biased and disgusting description of the OT LORD GOD I've ever read in my entire life.
yuck.
/throw up
And you, ofcourse, are completely unbiased.
What is the point of pointing out someone else's bias when you yourself come to the table with a huge atheist slant? We all have a bias when you're talking about faith...what's your point?
It's quite funny that you're picking me instead MarleVVLL isn't it? The point was humor. I thought it was quite amusing that someone who puts christian propeganda in both his avatar and his signature starts talking about a person being biased.
Also me being an Atheist is irrelevant to that particular subject. We are talking about the way a character is described, not his existance.
That has to be the most rediculous, biased and disgusting description of the OT LORD GOD I've ever read in my entire life.
yuck.
/throw up
Perhaps, but it also makes a valid point, i didn't really expect you to agree with it or support it, but perhaps you would like to counter it?
Very well then, allow me to back-up what Dawkins wrote with something you are very much familiar with...scripture-slinging.
"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, (Exodus 20:5) -Jealousy (sin)
God: "About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the slave girl, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt - worse than there has ever been or ever will be again. But among the Israelites not a dog will bark at any man or animal."-Murder (sin)
At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well. Pharaoh and all his officials and all the Egyptians got up during the night, and there was loud wailing in Egypt, for there was not a house without someone dead. (Exodus 11:4-7) -Murder (sin)
But I have said to you, "You shall inherit their land, and I will give it to you to possess, a land flowing with milk and honey." I am the LORD your God, who has separated you from the peoples. (Leviticus 20:24)-Racial seperation??...so....God made inferior people??-Racism (sin)
The "peoples" in which God is referring to is the Gentiles and does so several times throughout the OT.
Then the Lord rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the Lord out of the heavens" (Genesis 19:24)-God destroys -two- cities because of the goings-on within it, like homosexual activity...in fact God actually plots with Lot to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah -all of the above with Dawkins statement (sins)
Lots wife is turned int o a pillar of salt because she disobeyed God and looked back...yeah..God didn't show off on that one...
God floods the world and only spares Noah, his family and two of every creature ( a remarkable ark indeed) because of the 'wicked sinners' ( i guess the remaining animals, the newborn babies, and the grass were wicked to the core)
...But God spares Cain?!?...
Ah yes the Cain and Abel story...if there is any story that shows God as being entity who plays favorites because somebody is giving him something that he considers better, it's this one....strange that an all-powerful being who loves his creations would do such a thing...
The verse is too long to list (Genesis 4:1-16)
3And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
4And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
5But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.-God plays favorites (not really a sin but still fits within Dawkins Statement)
And here comes the amazing part:
15 Then the Lord replied to him, "In that case,whoever kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over."And he placed a mark on Cain so that whoever found him would not kill him. Then Cain went out from the Lord's presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.
Ok...so he won't kill a man guilty of murder...but he'll wipe out two cities...wow.
Yeah...i think his statement is valid.
People of strong faith ignore attacks towards them.
Others who are programmed into faith gets upset, angry and flare up when their faith is questioned same goes for people who have the need to belong to something that chooses a faith of convience.
The bible is a compilation of "books", it's been manipulated time to time, it's filled with contradictions and vague recollections of actual occurences. Looking at it with our current form of logic driven for scientific and common sense.
I don't understand people who gets furiated when their faith is questioned or when other individuals don't believe or recognise their faith, I sense their faith is not strong enough. One who truly embraces one faith should not burden their mind and soul with trivial aggrevations and sadness but hold on to the happiness and goodwill it brings.
If you all are looking for the ultimate faith it will find and you and enlighten you, it is not governed by a god nor a creature but an entity bestowed in us all, my faith is the true faith. My faith does not chain you, my faith does not punish you.
I CREATED MYSELF!
"<Claus|Dev> i r pk"
SW:TOR|War40K:DMO|GW2
I think it's because they have been programmed to defend/convert as much as they can, whenever they can..i also believe that if most people of Christ were very, very honest with themselves they would even say that their faith has been tested and/or they've had doubts....which may play upon their own uncertainties.
First, let me say that i was once a Lutheran for many, many years and that we are taught to go out and 'save people' to 'teach the word of God' to the masses, it kinda goes like this:
Random person: So, JT...have you been saved?
JT: No, i don't believe in God
Random person: Then you're damned and you will go to hell unless you accept Jesus as your personal savior.
JT: And how do you know this?
Random Person: Because the Bible and the teachings of Christ tell us about his sacrifice he made for us.
JT:mhmm...and how do you know that your religion is the right one?
Random Person: *blank stare*
Before you blame God for injustice, you should figure out why He did what He did. I can give an awnser for each of the verses and issues you brought up. Nothing contradicts the nature of God and everything lines up in perfect love, justice, meekness and servant hood.
MMO migrant.
Before you blame God for injustice, you should figure out why He did what He did. I can give an awnser for each of the verses and issues you brought up. Nothing contradicts the nature of God and everything lines up in perfect love, justice, meekness and servant hood.
By all means, I'm interested in reading your counterpoint.
Blame god? who's blaming God?...not me, Dawkins said that God is arguably the most vile creatures in fiction...i agree...and the Bible proves that...I, in turn, tried to show an example to his statement...nothing more, nothing less.
That has to be the most rediculous, biased and disgusting description of the OT LORD GOD I've ever read in my entire life.
yuck.
/throw up
Perhaps, but it also makes a valid point, i didn't really expect you to agree with it or support it, but perhaps you would like to counter it?
Very well then, allow me to back-up what Dawkins wrote with something you are very much familiar with...scripture-slinging.
"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, (Exodus 20:5) -Jealousy (sin)
God: "About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the slave girl, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt - worse than there has ever been or ever will be again. But among the Israelites not a dog will bark at any man or animal."-Murder (sin)
At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well. Pharaoh and all his officials and all the Egyptians got up during the night, and there was loud wailing in Egypt, for there was not a house without someone dead. (Exodus 11:4-7) -Murder (sin)
But I have said to you, "You shall inherit their land, and I will give it to you to possess, a land flowing with milk and honey." I am the LORD your God, who has separated you from the peoples. (Leviticus 20:24)-Racial seperation??...so....God made inferior people??-Racism (sin)
The "peoples" in which God is referring to is the Gentiles and does so several times throughout the OT.
Then the Lord rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the Lord out of the heavens" (Genesis 19:24)-God destroys -two- cities because of the goings-on within it, like homosexual activity...in fact God actually plots with Lot to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah -all of the above with Dawkins statement (sins)
Lots wife is turned int o a pillar of salt because she disobeyed God and looked back...yeah..God didn't show off on that one...
God floods the world and only spares Noah, his family and two of every creature ( a remarkable ark indeed) because of the 'wicked sinners' ( i guess the remaining animals, the newborn babies, and the grass were wicked to the core)
...But God spares Cain?!?...
Ah yes the Cain and Abel story...if there is any story that shows God as being entity who plays favorites because somebody is giving him something that he considers better, it's this one....strange that an all-powerful being who loves his creations would do such a thing...
The verse is too long to list (Genesis 4:1-16)
3And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
4And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
5But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.-God plays favorites (not really a sin but still fits within Dawkins Statement)
And here comes the amazing part:
15 Then the Lord replied to him, "In that case,whoever kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over."And he placed a mark on Cain so that whoever found him would not kill him. Then Cain went out from the Lord's presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.
Ok...so he won't kill a man guilty of murder...but he'll wipe out two cities...wow.
Yeah...i think his statement is valid.
They were punishments not sins. Also God is the most caring hmmm being I guess though nothing else is at his level. Yes He showed great wrath in the OT but in the NT Jesus came and made it clear to love the sinner and hate the sin. He sent his one and only son to die on the cross and die for our sins. I don't think a person/being Dawkins described would ever do that.
The racism line was a HUGE stretch that still doesn't work. He sepreated them from nations who did not believe not the race. They were most likely the same race being that it was all in that same part of the world they just followed a different religion and in fact some translations have it as nations instead of people.
Jeleous God as in attention should not be given to idols or earthly things because they did nothing and are nothing. He was making it clear who it is they serve.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day.
And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
Now this is funny. Apparently Richard Dawkins is arrogant and ignorant, but this:
Originally posted by Finwe
Truly amazing, even most ancient societies who frequently practised homosexuality as almost a norm, were not so ignorant to try to presume a...practicality to homosexual marriage. This whole concept, this whole, "Fight", is for the most part, a modern, and quite silly ideal. The point of marriage isn't just love, but it's a concept of family. Marriage has not always been about love, and in alot of situations still isn't. In quite a few countries, past or present, marriages were usually arranged. This is not to say I agree with this, nor to say these people did not learn to love each other, but the idea, was a greater purpose. The preservation of ones family.
Family...The idea has been annihilated. It barely exists in our modern culture, you add in this crusade to allow homosexuals to marry, it's just another nail in the coffin.
Oh well, I suppose hope can be found that secularism never lasts, and history has always had a tendency to go from prudancy in it's infancy, to corruption and hedonism in its latter life, usually being the forebearing harbinger of total annihilation.
Is not?
I'm not surprised you don't like Richard Dawkins. A lot of religious folk don't. Because he gets right in your face, there is no suggercoating, he will call out your faith and describe it for what it really is.
#1. No.
#2. It's kind of like those guy's that just say they're being "real", and "honest", and "just telling the truth". Then go up to some girl and call her a "fat bitch", because she doesn't have 10% body fat. That's richard dawkins.
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979
I believe that i addressed the topic quite well, and yes I'm using Richard Dawkins because I've yet to meet a person of religion who has managed to successfully debate him without falling into a circular argument.
You talk about how 'debates' have sunk to a new low yet you didn't and haven't bothered to counter what i said instead you make a flippant remark, GameLoading has addressed your hypocrisy well enough where i don't need to point it out... so do you have something to bring to the table or are you just going to whine about it some more?
#1. Anyone who uses Richard Dawkins never has, nor ever will, address a topic of religious discussion well.
#2. What's to counter? A man who falls into close enough belief of a man who considers faith, a "disease of the mind" does not desire an intellectual belief, but to be an antagonist.
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979
So when/if we encounter intelligent extra-terrestial life, did god create them? Do the 10 commandment apply to them? Since the bible does not mention outer space, nor does it mention alot of things that most christians praise god for.
I CREATED MYSELF!
"<Claus|Dev> i r pk"
SW:TOR|War40K:DMO|GW2
The neccessary scriptures will be re-interpreted after the first intergalactic encounter. Later revisions will follow with each encounter after that until followers are calmed down and accept our new overLords.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!