"Satan doesnt want people talking about God."

[Lion IRC]

I'm trying to make you go away. Get it?

[charlou]

You just spent 150 words telling me what a waste of time it is to blah blah blah

You are free to say what you like about Russells teapot or the FSM or IPU. If you ask me to prove you wrong I simply say…”no thanks. You can crash test your own FSM theory yourself.”

[youtubeuk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFzGeOgAg_A[/youtubeuk]

[Hermit]

If an idea can only be sustained by use of force then it must not have much else going for it.

Are you equating the inquisition with advocacy of atheism now?

If people are willing to endure torture and death for what they believe then it MUST be pretty significant.

Somehow I have a problem in picturing Dawkins, Hitchens et al as torturers and killers, but then, who am I to argue with a brilliant mind such as yours.

[Trolldor]

but then, who am I to argue with a brilliant mind such as yours.

Sane.

[Lion IRC]

If an idea can only be sustained by use of force then it must not have much else going for it.

Are you equating the inquisition with advocacy of atheism now?

NO I am not

If people are willing to endure torture and death for what they believe then it MUST be pretty significant.

Somehow I have a problem in picturing Dawkins, Hitchens et al as torturers and killers, but then, who am I to argue with a brilliant mind such as yours.

Who is arguing that Mr Dawkins or Mr Hitchens advocate torture? I am NOT.
If you think otherwise you will need to show me where using quotation marks please.

Mind you, I have heard both atheists and theists alike describing the others position as evil, poison, cancer, physical/mental abuse, etc.

In the case of someone who genuinely feels that a parent teaching a child religion amounts to child abuse then they should MUST take immediate concrete action to intervene and prevent it. No wishy washy "talking about it" or writing books. If religion poisons everything then it would be immoral not do something just as the taliban believe that the end justifies any means.

If religion is a cancer then a scalpel is mandatory. (or as Albert Camus might think - a guillotine)

The reason I am continuing this thread (which I didnt want to be turned into a derail anyway) is because I question the wisdom of Mr Hitchens , Mr Dawkins, et al making New Atheism such an "in your face" polemic. I feel it has had the opposite effect.

Lion (IRC)

[charlou]

The reason I am continuing this thread (which I didnt want to be turned into a derail anyway) is because I question the wisdom of Mr Hitchens , Mr Dawkins, et al making New Atheism such an "in your face" polemic. I feel it has had the opposite effect.

If you feel that way why did you say:

I listen to every syllable of every word of every sentence I hear from Mr Hitchens.
He has done more for the cause of dialogue "about God" than most religious and it is always good when people talk ABOUT God.
Satan doesnt want people talking about God.
Peace be with you Mr Hitchens!
Lion (IRC)

[Rum]

One does not often read discussion about the consequences, should Adam and Eve have obeyed god. If they had, we would have no free will, we would all be god zombies and the whole of the human story would have been wildly other than it has been.

Indeed they would have gone forth and multiplied and there would be billions of innocent naked zombies shuffling around the garden of Eden.

Dear me, what a pile of silliness.

[Lion IRC]

Charlou,
You dragged me into it. I just wanted to post a comment about Mr Hitchens and his legacy in the thread where I thought it belonged.
But I'm here now.
My argument is a theological one that God desires us to think about divinity and the afterlife.
Why would satan want that? How is that in any way a strategy?
Lion (IRC)

[Trolldor]

What you posted is comparable only to the sick left on the shoulders of mothers and fathers everywhere.

[DRSB]

Rum wrote:

One does not often read discussion about the consequences, should Adam and Eve have obeyed god. If they had, we would have no free will, we would all be god zombies and the whole of the human story would have been wildly other than it has been.

We would have been like Lilith, Adam's first wife, the one who refused to lie beneath him and fled from Eden after which the more subservient Eve was made. Lilith has not eaten apples from the Tree.

May be we are children of Lilith?

[Hermit]

If an idea can only be sustained by use of force then it must not have much else going for it.

Are you equating the inquisition with advocacy of atheism now?

NO I am not

If people are willing to endure torture and death for what they believe then it MUST be pretty significant.

Somehow I have a problem in picturing Dawkins, Hitchens et al as torturers and killers, but then, who am I to argue with a brilliant mind such as yours.

Who is arguing that Mr Dawkins or Mr Hitchens advocate torture? I am NOT.
If you think otherwise you will need to show me where using quotation marks please.

So, why exactly have you felt the need to to invoke torture and killing in one breath, and say: "I question the wisdom of Mr Hitchens , Mr Dawkins, et al making New Atheism such an "in your face" polemic. I feel it has had the opposite effect." in the next? Looks like an analogy to me, and to my mind it is singularly ill-conceived.

"If an idea can only be sustained by use of force then it must not have much else going for it" is tritely true. It is nothing more than a tautology. "If people are willing to endure torture and death for what they believe then it MUST be pretty significant", on the other hand, is manifestly false. Do you have any idea at all how many big-enders have been killed by little-enders (so to speak) - and vice versa? How many christians have died at the hands of muslims, how many muslims have died at the hands of hindus, how many protestants have died at the hands of catholics, how many nationalists have died at hands of loyalists...? The only thing of significance in those cases is the number of killings, not the ideas the victims held so dearly that they were prepared (or forced) to shed their lives for.

[Lion IRC]

If an idea can only be sustained by use of force then it must not have much else going for it.

Are you equating the inquisition with advocacy of atheism now?

NO I am not

If people are willing to endure torture and death for what they believe then it MUST be pretty significant.

Somehow I have a problem in picturing Dawkins, Hitchens et al as torturers and killers, but then, who am I to argue with a brilliant mind such as yours.

Who is arguing that Mr Dawkins or Mr Hitchens advocate torture? I am NOT.
If you think otherwise you will need to show me where using quotation marks please.

So, why exactly have you felt the need to to invoke torture and killing in one breath, and say: "I question the wisdom of Mr Hitchens , Mr Dawkins, et al making New Atheism such an "in your face" polemic. I feel it has had the opposite effect." in the next? Looks like an analogy to me, and to my mind it is singularly ill-conceived.

I did NOT link torture and killing to Mr Hitchens - YOU DID.

"If an idea can only be sustained by use of force then it must not have much else going for it" is tritely true. It is nothing more than a tautology.

The truth is never trite or tautological. But so long as you dont think what I said is WRONG then I am happy.

"If people are willing to endure torture and death for what they believe then it MUST be pretty significant", on the other hand, is manifestly false. Do you have any idea at all how many big-enders have been killed by little-enders (so to speak) - and vice versa? How many christians have died at the hands of muslims, how many muslims have died at the hands of hindus, how many protestants have died at the hands of catholics, how many nationalists have died at hands of loyalists...? The only thing of significance in those cases is the number of killings, not the ideas the victims held so dearly that they were prepared (or forced) to shed their lives for.

You are making the category error of confusing "willing to die for" with "willing to kill for". Moreover, you have "accidentally" included people who were NOT willing to die into your response which I think is way off target (and a LITTLE unfair). I am talking about a person who is given the choice between death or recanting a belief which they hold. Such people have a REASON for making the choice they do. The victims of 9/11 did not die for their beliefs whereas the attackers were willing to kill for theirs. If you want to argue that my claim about the REASON for peoples willingness to endure torture and death being significant is "manifestly false" then perhaps we should argue the matter a little more formally.

If you can convince me that people are willing to give up their life for something "trite" - to die for some insignificant "tautology" bring on the debate. Because so far the logic of your position hasnt manifested itself clearly enough for me to see.

[JimC]

I must admit, it makes the whole god soap opera much more fun when the main character has an evil arch-nemesis to fight!

As good as a play, this is...

But always nice to return to the real world...

[Hermit]

If you can convince me that people are willing to give up their life for something "trite" - to die for some insignificant "tautology" bring on the debate.

Of course, it is true that "If an idea can only be sustained by use of force then it must not have much else going for it." If you can't see the tautology - and hence triteness - of that statement by now, I doubt I will ever be able to convince you of anything at all.

I am talking about a person who is given the choice between death or recanting a belief which they hold. Such people have a REASON for making the choice they do.

Yes, I gathered that. The reasons are not too bloody good though, are they? Just look at the millions of deaths caused by "reasons" that lead people to die for their idea of any particular god thingy, or whatever? As I mentioned before, do you have any idea at all how many big-enders have been killed by little-enders (so to speak) - and vice versa? How many christians have died at the hands of muslims, how many muslims have died at the hands of hindus, how many protestants have died at the hands of catholics, how many nationalists have died at hands of loyalists...? The only thing of significance in those cases is the number of killings, not the ideas the victims held so dearly that they were prepared (or forced) to shed their lives for.

[Feck]

Charlou,
You dragged me into it. I just wanted to post a comment about Mr Hitchens and his legacy in the thread where I thought it belonged.
But I'm here now.
My argument is a theological one that God desires us to think about divinity and the afterlife.
Why would satan want that? How is that in any way a strategy?

Lion (IRC)

\that's funny because in every other MYTH that was copied when the the jews made up their story the Satan character is punished for passing on knowledge to man .

I think you are holding the brown end of the stick ,besides what a trite OP typical smug Theism . Just like JW's at the door "would you like to talk about God ?" but we all know that they don't and you don't! You make a post like that full of FAIL and then wonder why it gets pulled apart .

How the fuck do you know what god wants or thinks ............Because he told us in the Babble Have you even read it ? At what point in history do you think Genesis was written ? And WHY was it written ? they couldn't even get the stuff about one god right .Try learning some history