News5 mins ago
Atheist Confusion?
174 Answers
Its about time the AB atheists had a big fat believer to sink their teeth into, and tear to shreds, all red in tooth and claw.
Like fox hunting, it is an acceptable blood sport :-)
So, Richard Dawkins has stated that the universe is simply blind indifference, (paraphrased), that we simply dance to the demands of our DNA.
Yet he has said that science has put men on the moon, yet evil religion flies planes into towers.
Do you see the inconsistency?
This raises questions about morality, and maybe, just maybe, we could discuss it without spilling too much blood, burning too many martyrs, or sending hate mail?
(But just in case I shall be wearing full body armour and a crash helmet :-)
Like fox hunting, it is an acceptable blood sport :-)
So, Richard Dawkins has stated that the universe is simply blind indifference, (paraphrased), that we simply dance to the demands of our DNA.
Yet he has said that science has put men on the moon, yet evil religion flies planes into towers.
Do you see the inconsistency?
This raises questions about morality, and maybe, just maybe, we could discuss it without spilling too much blood, burning too many martyrs, or sending hate mail?
(But just in case I shall be wearing full body armour and a crash helmet :-)
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Stoning to death a young girl because she doesnt bleed on her wedding night is not a moral act.
Stoning to death a man for collecting sticks is not a moral act.
Killing kids (by the mauling to death by bears) is not a moral act.
Offering your daughters to be gang raped by a mob is not a moral act
The list could go on...
The bible is not Moral,
Show me where it is....
Stoning to death a man for collecting sticks is not a moral act.
Killing kids (by the mauling to death by bears) is not a moral act.
Offering your daughters to be gang raped by a mob is not a moral act
The list could go on...
The bible is not Moral,
Show me where it is....
Oh dear Nailit, you are getting angry, or at least unreasonable.
The New Testament is all you have to concern yourself with, to satisfy any desire you may have to seek God.
The Old Testament is vitally important, but superseded by the New.
But, you have made it perfectly clear what your position is.
The New Testament is all you have to concern yourself with, to satisfy any desire you may have to seek God.
The Old Testament is vitally important, but superseded by the New.
But, you have made it perfectly clear what your position is.
Theland - // … to be honest, I couldn't care less. //
At least have the courage of your convictions.
If you didn't 'care less' you wouldn't constantly start threads about your faith, including this one baiting non-believers.
If you really didn't care less, you would never post on here again - but you will - you can't help yourself.
At least have the courage of your convictions.
If you didn't 'care less' you wouldn't constantly start threads about your faith, including this one baiting non-believers.
If you really didn't care less, you would never post on here again - but you will - you can't help yourself.
-- answer removed --
Andy, I assure you that I really wanted a discussion not evangelise.
How could I? The AB atheists have made it perfectly clear they do not want it, so I don't attempt it.
But I respect everybody's ability to be critical, and that is what I asked, about an inconsistency in Dawkins' approach.
As I said, a discussion, not a debate with winners and losers.
How could I? The AB atheists have made it perfectly clear they do not want it, so I don't attempt it.
But I respect everybody's ability to be critical, and that is what I asked, about an inconsistency in Dawkins' approach.
As I said, a discussion, not a debate with winners and losers.
Theland - // Andy, I assure you that I really wanted a discussion not evangelise.
How could I? The AB atheists have made it perfectly clear they do not want it, so I don't attempt it.
But I respect everybody's ability to be critical, and that is what I asked, about an inconsistency in Dawkins' approach.
As I said, a discussion, not a debate with winners and losers. //
I doubt that, based on past history, but if you want a debate with 'the opposite side' - assuming they can be bothered knowing how 'debates' with you go - then try not kicking off with a deliberately inflammatory OP, and banging on about Richard Dawkins all the time.
You as a fervent Christian, are obsessed with his views, whereas the majority of atheists, especially on here, care as much about him and his views as they do about the bible and yours - i.e. - not at all.
How could I? The AB atheists have made it perfectly clear they do not want it, so I don't attempt it.
But I respect everybody's ability to be critical, and that is what I asked, about an inconsistency in Dawkins' approach.
As I said, a discussion, not a debate with winners and losers. //
I doubt that, based on past history, but if you want a debate with 'the opposite side' - assuming they can be bothered knowing how 'debates' with you go - then try not kicking off with a deliberately inflammatory OP, and banging on about Richard Dawkins all the time.
You as a fervent Christian, are obsessed with his views, whereas the majority of atheists, especially on here, care as much about him and his views as they do about the bible and yours - i.e. - not at all.
