Write4U
Valued Senior Member
But then, he actually also did not do some hundred other possible crimes that moment either.....
That gives it a 1% probability of being true.....
Last edited:
Religious Nonsense
- Thread starter StrangerInAStrangeLand
- Start date
- Status
That gives it a 1% probability of being true.....
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Let me read my good book there will be an answer in there you can bet.
Maybe he had a bad batch of shell fish☺
How distressing it must be for the family to hear such nonsense.
We all have free will however, thats the deal, it is a pity victims have no free will not to be victims unless they abandon free will and follow the hypocritical teachings...but even if they do shit still happens.
Sometimes I really wonder if all this god story is just not made up crap...
But an inoccent victim is now dead and her killer probably can expect release at some point and we may see him strike again.
I am all for forgiveness but when it comes to reoffending murdering rapists I think we need to be realistic and remove reoffenders permantently either by continued prison or even putting them to sleep.
A poor dog bites someone and gets the death sentence and yet someone who hopefully has more understanding than a dog, reoffends and they are just moved around in the system.
Alex
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
This is the ageold argument about determinism and if the person could have done other than what he did at that moment.So why was his message
"If the sinner had stayed at home in bed he would have not done this crime"
OR
"If had come to church the first time he did a crime we would have helped him (to become a priest so if he did bad things we would protect him by shipping him to other regions)(to much?)
To bad
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
I presume you refer to the priest but if my ding bat ideas I can assure you if had any say the rapists would not have been on the street ever again.
And his (the priest) little rant is no doubt not the only nonsense he is capable of offering.
I sometimes watch these Souther US type preachers and it is alarming these folk are not locked up such is their hatred and threats of eternal hell.
For folk who say god is love etc they really comeover as a most hateful bunch.
I can not understand how folk can look to their good book and find anything other than a definite bias to evil acts and horror.
Anyways the lord will return... almost keeping his promise to return in the life time of those he was talking to...any century now and all will be put right.
And all those shell fish eaters will suffer for their sins but those who fall into line will be forgiven no matter how many victims under their belt.
How unfortunate the lord could not get back sooner and tidy things up.
I really find it just so difficult to find so many folk who believe do not read their good book cover to cover ...I know they dont because if they did you would like to think they would reject the hypocracy and throw out the church.
Alex
Justifying things according to one's personal experience is quite easy. Even Dawkin's stupidity testifies to that. It's when one is tasked to do so beyond one's personal experience (and doubly so, tasked to do so according to the personal experience of another who is, at least, potentially under the weight of a considerable mass of stupidity themselves) that one ventures into tricky territory.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Suggesting that religion somehow is not tricky territory.?
I find it interesting that you use a mathematical symbolism (potential) to represent your divine causality, disregarding the enormous influence of religious domination over the centuries and millenia.
The Laws of probability (potential expression in reality) are what we have recognized as a universal constant at extremely small scales, an inherent mathematical "potential" of the Wholeness, expressed in QM.
Last edited:
Which underlines your inability to do it, in matters of religion.
Nothing Dawkins says there is as wrong as the headline: "- - - Dawkins defends 'mild' pedophilia - - ".
Where's the "stupid" coming from?
I see.
Everyone on the internet is wrong, except you, because you said so.
In the meantime, feel free to try and dry up the online ocean of reservation from all parties (which, while including the "abrahamics", is certainly not limited to them) in regards to the embaressment that is Dawkin's public antics about pedophilia.
Never mind Dawkins
Then show how your personal experience with religion justifies your knowledge of gods.
You weren’t a party to his experience, who are you to tell him how he should feel about it? How stupid is that?
The same holds true for this woman who wrote to him.
There are shades of being abused by a priest, and I quoted an example of a woman in America who wrote to me saying that when she was 7 years old, she was sexually abused by a priest in his car.
“At the same time, a friend of hers, also 7, who was of a Protestant family, died, and she was told that because her friend was Protestant, she had gone to hell and will be roasting in hell forever.
“She told me, of those two abuses, she got over the physical abuse; it was yucky, but she got over it. But the mental abuse of being told about hell, she took years to get over. "
https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...fends-mild-pedophilia-again-and-again/311230/
The overt Abrahamic theist makes their standard post - ignore the issue at hand, use the pretext to attack personally.
The bulk of their posting here is that, and nothing else.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
It must be satisfying to have this small thread to tug upon.
What are your thoughts on the embarrasement or lack of it of the church in these matters.
I bet you dont like Dawkins but he sure makes religion look silly.
I love watching him.
And he is always so right.
No theist can get around his arguements.
Alex
Needless to say, others beg to differ.
As per the so called "abrahamics", then certainly the "abrahamic atheists" such as yourself.
Tell it to the atheists who interpreted him as taking atheism to stupidsville by such antics.
Done.
Now - back to the thread? Anything?
Last I checked Dawkins still hasn't lived down this (and series of other stupidities) that robbed him of his posterboy atheist status .... so it appears the greater task is still before you.
Those other people aren’t currently involved in this particular discussion, you are. So go ahead and explain how you feel qualified to label as stupid the opinions that Dawkins and other victims of abuse express about their experiences. And then follow their lead and explain how your personal experience with gods has justified your belief in them.
I was simply citing a turn of events that saw Dawkins lose support. If you feel his statements are not stupid, a vast majority of other (atheists) beg to differ.
- Status