Is God a logical contradiction?

[Anomalocaris]

What you say have been so willfully disingenuous, there's no point to replying, even had replying been worthwhile in the face of your conceit.

[LadyForCamus]

But religion will always avoid admitting its intimate interest in kneecapping.




 

 Religion is always opportunistic, and as science progress ever farther beyond the bullshit most easily continence during the bronze age that form the basis of so many religions, the opportunities for these religion will lie ever more in being anti-science, for there will certainly be ever less opportunities they can exploit in being pro-science without being exposed for the fraudulent fabrications they are.

Religion is no more intrinsically anti-science than it is anti anything that reveals or threatens to reveal its foundational fraudulence, or to challenge the validity of the reasons it has become accustomed to using for demanding acceptance of its control over the hearts and minds of the people  and for justifying aggrandizing itself.

It just so happens that science is uniquely and sustainedly good at revealing fraudulence in foundations and invalidity of reasons given.  So it is entirely disingenuous to say old religions is not intrinsically against science.    They are unescapably against science in the long run whatever they had, in their confusion and conceit, been momentarily in the past, because in the long run in science there is only death for old religion.

Countenance and continence are different. 

What you say is so faith-based, so devoid of historical knowledge, that there's no point in replying.

I’m still waiting for a reply from you, Bel. If you don’t mind, that is.

[Belacqua]

I’m still waiting for a reply from you, Bel. If you don’t mind, that is.

I appreciate your sincere questions. 

Sometimes the discourse from others falls so low that I just have to walk away. Please give me a moment to stop face-palming.

[Anomalocaris]

Right, if your didactic tone and disingenuous quibble does not inspire the proper awe and reverential agreement, then the discourse must have fallen too low for you to remain.

[Abaddon_ire]

But religion will always avoid admitting its intimate interest in kneecapping.




 

 Religion is always opportunistic, and as science progress ever farther beyond the bullshit most easily continence during the bronze age that form the basis of so many religions, the opportunities for these religion will lie ever more in being anti-science, for there will certainly be ever less opportunities they can exploit in being pro-science without being exposed for the fraudulent fabrications they are.

Religion is no more intrinsically anti-science than it is anti anything that reveals or threatens to reveal its foundational fraudulence, or to challenge the validity of the reasons it has become accustomed to using for demanding acceptance of its control over the hearts and minds of the people  and for justifying aggrandizing itself.

It just so happens that science is uniquely and sustainedly good at revealing fraudulence in foundations and invalidity of reasons given.  So it is entirely disingenuous to say old religions is not intrinsically against science.    They are unescapably against science in the long run whatever they had, in their confusion and conceit, been momentarily in the past, because in the long run in science there is only death for old religion.

Countenance and continence are different. 

What you say is so faith-based, so devoid of historical knowledge, that there's no point in replying.

Yet you felt a need to reply anyway. Funny that.

[Belacqua]

[GrandizerII]

[Belacqua]

I remember Ignorant. He knew how to converse with atheists better than most theists here without insulting our intelligence, (though there might have been one or two mildly frustrating exchanges with him) and that made me like him even more.

He is a brilliant man! And he has the gift of bringing out the best in people during conversation -- something I lack.

He's also flying around the world to academic conferences and raising two small boys, so it's no surprise he's too busy for us!

[Fake Messiah]

He is a brilliant man! And he has the gift of bringing out the best in people during conversation -- something I lack.

Yeah you do lack the knowledge and ability to communicate because you read garbage books, like David Bentley Hart, Atheist Delusions

I mean look at some garbage this schmuck brainwashed you

Conditions in the world of print have never before been so propitious for sanctimonious tirades against religion, or (more narrowly) monotheism, or (more specifically) Christianity, or (more precisely) Roman Catholicism.

Oh, imagine that this schmuck sees Roman Catholicism under attack. Criticizing priests for demonizing gays and researching crimes of Catholic Church this guy sees as "sanctimonious tirades".

Then he continues

Never before have the presses or the press been so hospitable to journalists, biologists, minor philosophers, amateur moralists proudly brandishing their baccalaureates, novelists, and (most indispensable of all) film actors eager to denounce the savagery of faith

Biologists are the problem? But I thought Chruch was so pro-science - go figure. "Amateur moralists"? And who are professional moralists? Let me guess: the pope, bishops, priests.

The God Delusion, an energetic attack on all religious belief, has just been released by Richard Dawkins, the zoologist and tireless tractarian, who—despite his embarrassing incapacity for philosophical reasoning—never fails to entrance his eager readers with his rhetorical recklessness.

Awww, this schmuck steeps down to ad hominem attacks. If the book is so "bad" then he could have easily debunk it and not go on ad hominem tirade.

The journalist Christopher Hitchens, whose talent for intellectual caricature somewhat exceeds his mastery of consecutive logic, has just issued God Is Not Great,

What? Even more ad hominem attacks?!!

Over the past few years, Sam Harris’s extravagantly callow attack on all religious belief, The End of Faith, has enjoyed robust sales and the earnest praise of sympathetic reviewers.

Ad hominem fallacies. Needless to say religious people will embrace any book as proof for their God and that atheists are evil even if the book has nothing more than "Blah, blah blah God"

atheism that consists entirely in vacuous arguments afloat on oceans of historical ignorance,

Projecting.

In its early centuries, the church earned the enmity of genuinely imaginative and civilized critics, such as Celsus and Porphyry, who held the amiable belief that they should make some effort to acquaint themselves with the object of their critique.

Yeah, the church got so "acquaint" with Celsus works that Christian censors burned all copies of that "civilized critic's" Celsus' books meaning that Church is not civilized. Now how is afloat on oceans of historical ignorance? - David Bentley Hart.

[Belacqua]