Posted: Jun 20, 2014 12:21 am
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:
Death. Death was the mercy.
That makes no sense to me. All it does is highlight a common problem I see with most such apologetics; the apologist starts with an assumption, that some piece of text or whatever is true and moral etc. in the specific ways that fits in line with what they already believe. So you read the story and then try to interpret it to fit your prior assumptions. And this is why the 'explanations' so often fit so poorly and don't seem to come from the text at all.
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:I added the bold emphasis above to highlight the point. The longer that human beings live openly expressing their rebellion of God, as is evident of so many, the more bitter, selfish, and hateful they will become. Consider as an example this RationalSkepticism.org forum.
Why join a forum if you are just going to insult it as whole like that?
All I see is an empty assertion that “ the longer that human beings live openly expressing their rebellion of God, as is evident of so many, the more bitter, selfish, and hateful they will become” which I don't see to be the case at all. I know of no evidence that non-theists (or is that all non Christians) are particularly any more or less likely to become more bitter etc. over time, than theists/Christians. I have certainly seen both extremes in both camps.
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:I know not to ask for civility, let alone human decency and kindness, from a forum like this that celebrates men sodomizing men, women dismembering their unborn children, the euthanizing of others, and the mocking of Jesus Christ who died for them.
See Bob@RealScienceRadio; this is just plain silly. It reads like you are the one who is bitter and hateful (perhaps that is it; projection).
This forum doesn't “celebrate” any of those things, it is not a “fansite” kind of forum that insists on any particular things being “celebrated”. So what you seem to be complaining about is that this site doesn't overly discriminate, and denounce such things, that it doesn't enforce any bigotry etc. And you imply that this is a bad thing.
Male on male sodomy? Why not such say homosexuality? Is it because you recognize that such words make it too clear that what you are complaining about is this forums 'failure' to promote bigotry? What is it to you what two consenting adults choose to do to one another, most often as a physical expression of their love for one another? If you don't like thinking about it then don't think about it, or bring it up in discussion on your own volition.
Abortion: Nice bit of distorting wording there. There are definitive benefits to allowing people to manage their own birth control measures, abortion among them. A fair few atheists dislike abortion as well, although many still support the woman's right to choose that option, as sadly sometimes it becomes the best option. I think pretty much everyone would agree that prevention is preferable to cure (not getting pregnant in the first place), but focusing exclusively on that fails to address the many and very real situations when that is no longer one of the options.
Euthanasia: Again this forum has no stance on this issue. Personally I am all for euthanasia. But as in all cases the specific circumstances etc. have to be taken into consideration, there is a difference between assisted suicide, murder and euthanasia for a start. I think it pretty clear that there are many cases where the “quality of life” a person has slips below an acceptable level for them with no hope of ever rising back above that line, and that in those cases (as we so often do for our most beloved of pets) it is in the best interests of the “patient” to end their suffering rather than allow it to continue.
Honestly; what arguments do you have against such things that are any better than “it says they are bad in this old book!”?
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:But I can use the general mean-spirited demeanor of atheist websites as evidence of the hatefulness that can hardly be contained within those who proclaim godlessness. You probably wouldn't ask, but I'll provide you with a similar assessment from non-creationists.
What is the point of all this complaining that we are being mean?! Without context I might add. Is it just a way to avoid actual discussion of your beliefs? Because this concern trolling only makes you look rather dishonest and manipulative.
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:The New York Times article Unnatural Science is spot on about the science and evolution sites (like PZ Myers filthy blog). The Times article generally describes (anti-creation) science blogs like from "PZ Myers [who] revels in" a "weird vindictiveness", "religion-baiting", "preoccupied with... name-calling", "incendiary rhetoric that draws bad-faith moral authority from the word 'science'.” The Times writer Virginia Heffernen asks, "Does everyone take for granted now that science sites are where... researchers... go not to interpret data... but to... jeer at... churchgoers?" And she answers that, "the most visible" of "the science bloggers..." are "charged with bigotry". Even Atheist Prof. Massimo Pigliucci of the City University of New York describes the science webs of PZ, et al., as "a culture of insults... spouting venom or nonsense" and urged these bloggers to "enroll in the nearest hubris-reducing ten-step program" and suggested that they give "the best possible interpretation of someone else’s argument before you mercilessly dismantle it," and finally, "Engage... your opponents in as civil a tone as you can muster" [which I think was THWOTH's point].
Okay, so the author of that article doesn't like PZ Myers blog. So what?! What does that have to do with this forum, let alone what this thread is meant to be about; which is NOT how mean and rude you think atheists are.
What is your point with this line of attack, if not to stereotype anyone that doesn't agree with you and poison the well against them, by insulting them and accusing them all of being 'big meanies', in order to dismiss them without having to discuss or defend anything you claim to be true?
It all sounds rather like that silly little poem in the Bible (the psalm so 'good' it had to be included twice) that asserts that “the fool says in his heart that there is no God” in order to poison the well by encouraging 'true believers' to dismiss whatever non-believers might say without even listening to what it is they do say, to dismiss them as fools regardless.
Personally I find that to be insulting to believers and non-believers alike.
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:willhud9, just like here at RationalSkepticism.org, PZ Myers mocked me and my RSR friend Will calling us idiots in the title of his blog: Bob Enyart and Will Duffy, partners in idiocy. Like RS and many atheist blogs, Myers' site is filled with vulgarity and constant references to human waste and sex acts.
Okay. Just more of the same. Pointless well poisoning filler.
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote: If you think you're just an animal, you gradually lose sight of your higher virtues; then reproduction and defecation is pretty much all you got.
I'm sorry that you don't understand what the taxonomic term animal (actually: animalia) means. You clearly don't if you think that any of that follows in any way, shape or form.
(I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt there; that you weren't intentionally erecting such a ridiculous and insulting dishonest straw man.)Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:These atheistic science sites, rather than exemplifying diversity, free speech, tolerance, instead, drip with intolerance, anger, bodily fluids, and hatred toward those who disagree.
More of the same. Tiresome and pointless. If you find those things so tasteless, why are you so intent on stooping to their level with such open hostility, and stereotyping the rest of us along with them?
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:So, to state it again willhud9, after man rebelled against God, in His mercy, God ensured that we would die, so that our hatred would be contained, and we would not forever be able to harm one another.
What a ridiculous extrapolation from a story that clearly goes to no such extremes!
“Man” did not rebel against God in that story @RealScienceRadio! Don't make it sound like every human that has ever lived played any part in that fable, that is not only factually incorrect, but plain daft. Two ignorant people were manipulated (by a serpent no less) into disobeying one particular rule that God made. This thing you mark as some kind of great sin, some rebellion against God is of the same magnitude as that of a small child taking a cookie after being told not to. With the added fantasy element of there being the need to eat the fruit of a magical tree, the very object of the tale in fact, before one could even be capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong! A rather blatant fantasy element to affix a desired criteria into the story; that there is no way that those people could have known any better.
It is hard to read that story any other way than as one, in it's original pre-judiac origins, of how unreasonable and unfair to mankind the gods can be. And perhaps as the first of many such tales which insist that we be obedient out of fear of how they might overreact rather than rely on our own instincts and reasoning.
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:Whoever asks God to live with Him shall, and whoever does not want to live with God forever shall not, but also, they shall not forever be able to hurt others. (That is the merciful part.)
I'm not sure you grasp what “mercy” actually means.
A simple sound-bite of an answer that could only ever satisfy anyone that desperately wants there to be one that fits in with that world-view of yours, and makes zero effort to try to unpack what it actually means. Because right there it immediately falls apart.
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:willhud9 wrote:Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:(As you may know, Darwinists themselves have struggled to account for the depth and capacity of human suffering which seems to go so far beyond what would be brought about by a mere natural selection for biological survival.)
The bolded bit is an unsubstantiated assertion.
Yes, I didn't source it. I thought that was common knowledge. I don't have time now to dig up sources. Perhaps someone here at RS can post some.
So you are expecting everyone else to do your work for you?!
It's not “common knowledge”, it is a common apologetic bit of nonsense. There is a huge difference.
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:willhud9, in more than 30 years of talking with skeptics and atheists, I don't recall ever answering someone's question about the fall, sin, suffering, or death, with anything like: God works in mysterious ways.
Of course the 'professional' apologist wouldn't word it that way.
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote: To me it seems that these issues are dealt with directly in the Bible and the basic understanding of them are straightforward.
Apparently very little is “straightforward” in the Bible, what with all the wild extrapolation and interpretation that seems to be required all the time. It is almost as if one can't read a single sentence and take it as written, without some apologist jumping down your throat for getting it horribly wrong.
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:So for them, they look at a child rapist, and call it a mystery. The rest of us Christians refer to that as sin. Hatred born of indulging in selfishness that flows from a rejection of God.
Interesting. The rest of us see it as a horrendous act on which the child is the primary victim of concern, not this imagined God being.
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:It seems to me a straightforward matter that love is the answer to the problem of evil, at each of its various levels, and that love requires freedom, because love must be freely given.
Another nice sounding sound-bite that fails to address the problem of suffering/evil at all. It tries to conveniently brush aside the fact (in your belief system) that it is this God character that made us the way we are. That imbuing all humans with deep moral understanding and compassion would not undermine “freedom” in the slightest.
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote: There are implications of this which might not be evident at first thought, but by the second or third thought, they usually do become evident. Then, you might not agree with us creationists and our understanding of the fall, but at least you would understand it.
Ah yes the backhanded little insinuation that it is our failure to look deep enough that is at fault for your failure to convince us. Funnily enough it seems that for the most part further and deeper investigation and thought only goes to make your position seem even more untenable. Unless of course when as you have displayed here; you ONLY look with a set conclusion already in mind.
This image once again seems most appropriate:
(Try to look deeper, beyond that surface bit of jesting mockery, to the underlying point.)
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote: Thanks willhud9, again, for the opportunity to discuss such monumentally important questions as suffering and freedom
What exactly does this have to do with the thread topic of discoveries about the eye and Dawkins again?!