(December 21, 2015 at 2:13 pm)Cato Wrote:(December 21, 2015 at 2:05 pm)Delicate Wrote: It's in Dawkins' quote. He's working under the assumption that people have to take responsibility for their actions. Actions which, in the context of "belief in a sacrifice", clearly refer to moral actions.
Now if you reject this requirement, you reject Dawkins' point. Which I do too. Just for slightly different reasons.
Another fine demonstration of you either not getting the point or being intentionally obtuse. Dawkins suggests that people take responsibility for their actions, hardly much to argue with there. But, this doesn't stop you from swooping in with this moral edict that all moral transgressions be rectified 100%, something Dawkins never claims.
Since I'm forced to address your inanity again, you fail to provide meaning for what you mean by 'rectify'. Any normal meaning of the words can't possibly apply to the Christian moral system since the victim is left out of the exchange. There's no rectification for wrongs in Christian morality, only vicarious atonement; they're entirely different.
In your rush to defend Dawkins and rain thunder from the angry atheist pulpit, you clearly haven't properly thought-through your view.
If we care about justice, we ought to prefer perfect justice to imperfect.
Imperfect justice is in some ways no justice at all. If someone steals a thousand dollars from you, and only pays back 500, you can rightly say you haven't been made whole.
If that's the kind of justice you advocate, it's not justice. It's just a lesser form of injustice.