A Christian Response

[naturalist.atheist]

Not necessarily Iacchus. We may not be here by chance but the universe could still not give a damn. Just as the sawdust from a wood-working project is not there by chance but that doesn't mean it is wanted.

Even if there were a plan it doesn't mean that we are of any importance.

[Scar Anise]

I like to say that everyone has a right to their own beliefs, it is what I expect for myself from others.

However the absolute inane activity and delusional attitudes of far too many Christians online is making it very difficult to be respectful.

Firstly the amount of threats of violence, incoherence, apparent lack of logic and basic education displayed in forums is mind blowing.

I do not respect those that need a religion to tell them what is right or wrong. Those that say morality does not exist without God.
Should check their own morals.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Not necessarily Iacchus. We may not be here by chance but the universe could still not give a damn. Just as the sawdust from a wood-working project is not there by chance but that doesn't mean it is wanted.

Even if there were a plan it doesn't mean that we are of any importance.

This may be correct. However, all I can say, is who or whatever programmed the machine (which is to say, it is not an accident), sure put a lot of thought and consideration into how it operates. And, by virtue of the fact that we are aware of so many of its intricacies, is an indication, at least to me, of a Creator who is attempting to communicate with us.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by PojoMovies

The way you say this implies that you believe that genocide is a negative thing. What justification do you have for making that claim?

--J.D.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

This may be correct. However, all I can say, is who or whatever programmed the machine (which is to say, it is not an accident), sure put a lot of thought and consideration into how it operates. And, by virtue of the fact that we are aware of so many of its intricacies, is an indication, at least to me, of a Creator who is attempting to communicate with us.

I see an assertion. What I don't see is any evidence in support of it.

[Iacchus]

Evidence of what? That we are not here by accident? ... as for the rest, that's up to you to fill in the blanks. I am merely suggesting this is what it indicates to me.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

--J.D.

So, do you have anything that you really appreciate and particularly care for? Or are you pretty much down with everything?

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I see an assertion. What I don't see is any evidence in support of it.

Who needs evidence . . . when you have Faith [Tm.--Ed.]?

--J.D.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Evidence of what? That we are not here by accident? ... as for the rest, that's up to you to fill in the blanks. I am merely suggesting this is what it indicates to me.

The universe could be created and people could understand this but this alone doesn't make people important in the scheme of things. Is the creator such a narcissist that it needs affirmation? Why would it care if anything else understood it created anything? And why people of all creatures? Are you so taken with yourself to think that the creator would give a damn what you think about reality let alone anything else?

Sure, sure, the creator of the universe is just waiting for Iacchus to comment on its creation.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by PojoMovies

What's wrong with defending genocide? Nobody has given me an objective reason why it is wrong. Surely the good Doctor can enlighten us all.

--J.D.

[Angakuk]

Well, Doc, what is your answer? Do you think genocide is wrong? If so, why?

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

The universe could be created and people could understand this but this alone doesn't make people important in the scheme of things.

It's a place to start, that is, like I said before, if you wish to discuss the possibility. But, then again, if we are not here by chance, we are speaking of a specific act, and possibility is out of the question. And of course if we are unwilling to advance it this far, we can't even begin to discuss any possible motives (albeit I am sure they are quite explicit) of the Creator.

So, thus far, we've established the likelihood that a Creator can and does exist, but can't (or won't) advance it beyond the notion of a two-timing bastard prick that J.D. seems so intent to express. Which, has nothing to do with whether a Creator exists but, whether that Creator is benevolent or not. So, it's really only indicative to misgivings or sour grapes on J.D's part. Beyond that, it proves nothing.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Who needs evidence . . . when you have Faith [Tm.--Ed.]?

--J.D.

So, are you that certain that "God" doesn't exist? If so, then how do you know? ... outside of it being a matter of Faith, that is. It sounds to me like just another case of the "blind leading the blind."

And no, I don't believe this is something folks should accept "blindly." Or else how would they know? It isn't a matter of "blind faith" (although I'm sure it can be) when we accept that 1 + 1 = 2 is it?

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by Scar Anise

I do not respect those that need a religion to tell them what is right or wrong. Those that say morality does not exist without God.
Should check their own morals.

Yes, but for those things that happen for no particular rhyme or reason, how do "morals" fit in? Is this something where we are supposed to take our cues from nature, which pretty much says, "Anything goes?" How does one establish anything "foundational" upon that?

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Not necessarily Iacchus. We may not be here by chance but the universe could still not give a damn. Just as the sawdust from a wood-working project is not there by chance but that doesn't mean it is wanted.

Even if there were a plan it doesn't mean that we are of any importance.

Generally speaking, sawdust doesn't inquire about its existence and go about looking for its "Daddy" either ... i.e., its "source of origin."

That, at least to me, is an indication that we are more than just sawdust.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Generally speaking, sawdust doesn't inquire about its existence and go about looking for its "Daddy" either ... i.e., its "source of origin."

Do you know that for certain? How much do we really know about the interior life of sawdust?

[Watser?]

So when you are burning the sawdust what you might actually be doing is committing genocide!

Good thing there is no objective reason to think genocide is wrong.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

It's a place to start, that is, like I said before, if you wish to discuss the possibility. But, then again, if we are not here by chance, we are speaking of a specific act, and possibility is out of the question. And of course if we are unwilling to advance it this far, we can't even begin to discuss any possible motives (albeit I am sure they are quite explicit) of the Creator.

So, thus far, we've established the likelihood that a Creator can and does exist, but can't (or won't) advance it beyond the notion of a two-timing bastard prick that J.D. seems so intent to express. Which, has nothing to do with whether a Creator exists but, whether that Creator is benevolent or not. So, it's really only indicative to misgivings or sour grapes on J.D's part. Beyond that, it proves nothing.

J.D. doesn't have much to do with the issue. You can assume creation, you can assume purpose, but that is not enough to confer importance. Sawdust is created on purpose. So what? But even though the first two assumptions are big enough gaps to leap, the last gap is the largest by far. And that would be that a creator would give a rat's ass about humans. Especially you Iacchus, among all humans. This is the hugest leap of all.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Do you know that for certain? How much do we really know about the interior life of sawdust?

Well, your "guess" is as good as mine ...

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

J.D. doesn't have much to do with the issue.

It does to J.D., obviously.

You can assume creation, you can assume purpose, but that is not enough to confer importance. Sawdust is created on purpose. So what? But even though the first two assumptions are big enough gaps to leap, the last gap is the largest by far. And that would be that a creator would give a rat's ass about humans. Especially you Iacchus, among all humans. This is the hugest leap of all.

If by "assumption" you think I am merely asking you to take stab in the dark, guess again. This is your assumption, and it's something you have to deal with. But hey, whatever you "decide" to believe is fine by me, there's no sense in getting into a holy war over the whole thing.

[naturalist.atheist]

Iacchus, everybody knows what you think. And nobody cares. That is not the point. The point is that there are more possibilities than your binary thinking allows.

[Iacchus]

I am merely speaking from my own experience. What else would you have me do?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

I am merely speaking from my own experience. What else would you have me do?

I certainly do not expect you to change your mind. All I hope for is that you stop with the binary claims. I've told you a long time ago that you are making this much harder than it has to be. Just "believe" what you like and be done with it. You lack the reasoning ability, knowledge, clarity of thought and expression to make a credible case for your assumptions. And it is all too obvious that what drives your choice in assumptions has little to do with an honest desire to understand what might be going on. You come off as just another fraudulent quack.

[beyelzu]

Sometimes, na makes a post I agree with and then upon that realization, I feel dirty.

[Listener]

We're used to looking at genocide in the Bible and we don't turn a hair. We've been taught to believe that history and the Bible don't match anyway.

David Rohl is a British (agnostic) archaologist who's making a great fist of synchronising History and the Bible.

This is a Catholic attempt at using his work to illustrate that the Bible is History:-

Biblical Archaeology - Joshua

[Jericho] -- They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it--men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys. (Joshua 6:21) The king of Jericho one. (Joshua 12:9)

I personally would rather be an atheist than worship a God who would nowadays be found guilty of "crimes against humanity". That it really happened just brings the horror into focus.