God: Benevolent or Malevolent?

Your viewpoints are not progressive enough. You must demonize the other side in order to make your viewpoints have merit.

 

Perhaps, but it's not the only critique of Dawkins.

But of greater interest is members attempting to reason like Dawkins in some of the posts tonight.

 

Watch out, its coments like that directed at members who have more posts than you that get you in trouble around here.

 

Wikipedia differs: Inquisition is referring to the Spanish Inquisition.

Not only Jews, but Muslims, and evangelicals were tortured and executed.

Why don't you chill between posts and check out your facts?

 

That is,of course, your biased opinion. My biased opinion is that you are more rude and arrogant than most here. Most importantly, because of that opinion right there. You think of yourself as righteous, and everyone who disagrees with you as rude. And you harp on it in EVERY post you make.

You claim to want this thread to end, but won't do the obvious thing you can do to achieve that end.

 

Here is a simple test you can perform to determine whether something is rationalization or not in a study. "Is there a cross-correlation?" If there was any evidence for the proposed 'reasons' given, they would have done a cross correlation to show it. An appeal to supposed morality, without evidence that even that was more prevalent in scientists than in religious people should be dismissed as senseless.

This test works on ALL studies, whether they agree with your beliefs or not, so it should be useful to you regardless of what you believe.

 

Huh?

 

The Bible is not a factual document, and everybody's reading of it is their own opinion. I state my opinion, and I give my reasoning. You love to tell me I'm wrong, but without any more justification than the vague notion that since you believe it's "true" you must understand what it says.

This is a good one! The pot calling the kettle "black." You constantly complain that I won't shut up, but you cannot leave it alone. (Not that I'm saying you should.) I participate only in those threads that I find interesting or that I have something I want to say. You claim to want the topic to die but you keep coming back. If this thread "owns" anyone, I'm afraid you are the one.

I have consistently opposed all violence. I have said before and I will repeat it now, that Stalin and Pol Pot were vile despicable murderers. Mao was more complicated, but went bad part way through his career and deserves our contempt and condemnation. I have also said that religion is responsible for HALF the preventable suffering in the world, with the other half being due to non-religious causes.

Are you willing to say the same of the people who conducted the inquisitions and the witch burnings and the religious persecutions and wars from the beginning of Christianity (that they were despicable murderers)???

And yet you keep coming to Fred's, which is purely voluntary. Fred's House of Pancakes was opened precisely so that people who were interested in cars and did not want to read off-topic posts could stick to cars and not be bothered by off-topic discussions, while people who enjoyed off-topic discussions could have them.

Lots of Prius Chat members never come to Fred's.

There are topics in the car forums, and topics in Fred's that do not interest me. I just don't bother to read them. There are topics, especially in the politics forum, than anger me. I don't read them.

You say you hate this thread, but I think you enjoy it as much as I do, since you are as active in it as I am.

This is true. But when you refuse to say where you stand on issues, it weakens your argument.

For example, I have called non-religious tyrants despicable murderers. I have made it clear that I oppose all violence, no matter who does it. I have put myself on the line protesting the violence of a secular government (my own). The most you've been willing to say about religiously-motivated violence is that you do not support it.

You are absolutely not required to answer any question you do not want to answer. But a consistent position against cruelty would make it seem less as though you were excusing the crimes of the church.

And note that even though the Spanish Inquisition is over, and they are no longer burning witches in Salem, fundamentalist churches are expending a great deal of effort to deny legal marriage equality, which is a human rights issue. Denying people their basic human rights is a form of violence. It is cruel and despicable. And in the recent past, during the civil rights movement, there were religious and non-religious people on the side of civil rights, all of them committed to non-violence, but there were ONLY conservative Christians on the side of segregation, and their arguments were religious arguments, and they employed the most brutal forms of violence, including murder.

You are as emotionally wrapped up in this topic as I am. But where the thrust of my position is opposition to cruelty and the attempt by fundamentalists to force their religion on the rest of us, the thrust of your argument seems to be that religion should be off limits as a topic for public debate.

Time for me to do my morning aerobic exercising. Have a nice day, everyone.

 

Jesus is dead, can't you guys let the man rest in peace.