Richard Dawkins and the God of the Old Testament

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Randy, please try to grasp that atheism itself is not a worldview.

You are an ahinduist, an ashintoist, and so on through aaaaaaaaaaaall of the other religions.

We're all of the things you are, with respect to those religions. Just like that.

Except also yours.

It's that last step, no different from all the other steps you've taken, which make an atheist.

There are atheism-based worldviews, such as Secular Humanism, but they're not synonyms.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

*sigh* All right.

Wiker's point is that natural selection is no less callously indifferent to the sufferings of the weak than is the "God of the OT" as He is commonly misrepresented by atheists.

But Dawkins doesn't represent the God of the Old Testament as 'callously indifferent'. Look back at your first quote from Dawkins in this thread. Where is the 'indifference'? Nowhere to be seen. Dawkins' claim is that God, as drawn by the traditions of the people who created him is callous, certainly, but hardly indifferent. This God actively visits horrific calamity on humankind. He is malevolent, not indifferent.

While it is certainly true that natural selection (indeed, the universe as a whole) is callously indifferent - must kill you that Dawkins got this right, eh? - the same is not true of the fictional Jehovah. In fact, in Isaiah, God boast that he is the author of calamity (or evil, depending on which translation you prefer). Since God creates calamity, God could avert or eliminate calamity. Natural selection doesn't have the luxury of this choice.

Now perhaps you'll begin to understand why so few here addressed Wiker's 'argument'. And perhaps you can also grasp that using an ad hominem to answer a strawman isn't such a bad thing.

Boru

[Minimalist]

Randy is not interested in facts, man.  He'll just go find some catholick shithead to write something he can cut and paste.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

He grasps it (or maybe he doesn't), he just doesn't care. I've been an atheist before I even knew what a 'world view' was, before I knew what the universe or theories about its origin were.

And, for the sake of Randy, I self identified as an atheist about 18 years before I'd ever read any of Dawkins' books.

But again, he doesn't care. He thinks that atheists are only atheists because they follow a dogma created by Dawkin et al, when in reality that view is so demonstrably stupid every human adult should feel ashamed of themselves if they ever held it to be true.

But yet, here he is.

Again, he doesn't care. He's not here for anything other than egotism and his own self-serving beliefs.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Well put, Pan. If I were to wake up tomorrow and learn that every single one of Dawkins' arguments had been discredited, it wouldn't make me abandon atheism. Why? Because my lack of belief isn't contingent on Richard Dawkins.

Boru

[Crossless2.0]

He thinks that atheists are only atheists because they follow a dogma created by Dawkin et al, when in reality that view is so demonstrably stupid no human adult should not feel ashamed of themselves for holding it to be true.

Theist projection at its finest.

[brewer]

Folks, I've posted repeatedly on why interacting with Randy is futile, and the above demonstrates why.

I repeat, randy is not here for dialogue or discussion. He is not here to listen to learn, or to interact.

Agree. Only reinforces his twin delusions.

[Minimalist]

Still fun to shit all over him, his church and his fucking 'god.'

[abaris]

Folks, I've posted repeatedly on why interacting with Randy is futile, and the above demonstrates why.

That's why I'm not adressing what he considers a point, but actually is just another opinionated shitstain.

[FreeTony]

Evolution is amoral and can be cruel, in the same way gravity is amoral and can be cruel. Their amorality has nothing to do with whether they exist.

The God of the OT is a character in a book. The actions and/or lack of morality of this character also has nothing to do with whether it exists.


People don't believe the OT for far more straight-forward reasons, like talking snakes,magic whales and other absurdities. What we find ridiculous is that you take an obviously made up story, and not only claim it is true but also that the main character is prefectly moral despite doing all sorts of immoral stuff.