Proof that God has ever killed anyone?

Nov 2013
2,766
1,224
NM
goober said:

Obviously an imaginary being hasn't actually killed anyone.
But people who believe in God have killed millions.
It's not the fairy tale that's the problem it's the people who think it's real.

end quote/


/facepalm

More ignorance or dishonesty about "imaginary", "imagination", and so forth.

By the same token then, since science has killed millions or billions, people who believe in the simplistic narratives, or who would blindly believe that "science" is a good thing even if millions were killed by nuclear warfare (as long as they got to own an iPhone), are indeed the problem.
No, the categories aren't symmetrical. God is typically defined as puissance incarnate (or whatever His substance). Science is a tool, & never acts of its own will - a non sequitur, by definition.

Your critique of everything seems to be that the first human assumption is always mistaken. Please tell us why the same isn't the case for religion &/or God Himself (Itself? Herself?)
 
Mar 2013
10,376
11,271
Middle Tennessee
/facepalm

More ignorance or dishonesty about "imaginary", "imagination", and so forth.

By the same token then, since science has killed millions or billions, people who believe in the simplistic narratives, or who would blindly believe that "science" is a good thing even if millions were killed by nuclear warfare (as long as they got to own an iPhone), are indeed the problem.

IF there is a God, and he/she/they/them/it is truly omnipotent, truly, all-seeing, all-knowing, timeless, seeing and knowing the past, present, and future, then it is God that gave us the ability to create these weapons you say have killed millions. God knew we would eventually develop these abilities when he/she/they/them/it supposedly created us.
 
Nov 2013
2,766
1,224
NM
IF there is a God, and he/she/they/them/it is truly omnipotent, truly, all-seeing, all-knowing, timeless, seeing and knowing the past, present, and future, then it is God that gave us the ability to create these weapons you say have killed millions. God knew we would eventually develop these abilities when he/she/they/them/it supposedly created us.
Yah, discussions of God's attributes are always skull splitters. The tenses get all cattywumpus, too. God is typically defined as being omnipresent too - so God exists throughout time & space, & any other dimensions one cares to name. & so the problem of evil falls upon God's omni-shoulders as well.
 
Oct 2019
676
48
USA
Yah, discussions of God's attributes are always skull splitters. The tenses get all cattywumpus, too. God is typically defined as being omnipresent too - so God exists throughout time & space, & any other dimensions one cares to name. & so the problem of evil falls upon God's omni-shoulders as well.
Were there no evil, there could be no good.
 
Oct 2019
676
48
USA
No, the categories aren't symmetrical. God is typically defined as puissance incarnate (or whatever His substance). Science is a tool, & never acts of its own will - a non sequitur, by definition.
Correct, so science isn't a physical object, and can't be seen with your on eyes - it's a method, an idea, a concept which only exists in pure abstraction.

Attributing things to "science" is therefore superstitious, it would rather be the inventors and thinkers who invented its theories and technologies to give attribution to, including those who exist prior to Bacon developing his specific methodology.
 
Nov 2013
2,766
1,224
NM
Were there no evil, there could be no good.
& so from God as the center of Western Civ., you're retreating to gnomic more-or-less Buddhist kōans?

"Two hands clap and there is a sound, what is the sound of one hand?"

Excellent - except, of course, that we're in the US, in 2019 CE, & not touring some monastery in China in Medieval Times.
 
Sep 2019
909
885
U.S.A.
/facepalm

More ignorance or dishonesty about "imaginary", "imagination", and so forth.

By the same token then, since science has killed millions or billions, people who believe in the simplistic narratives, or who would blindly believe that "science" is a good thing even if millions were killed by nuclear warfare (as long as they got to own an iPhone), are indeed the problem.
It is very telling that you are sidelining your own thread....rather pathetic actually.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lloyd Christmas
Oct 2019
676
48
USA
It is very telling that you are sidelining your own thread....rather pathetic actually.
Correct, it shows the arguments against science are stronger than the arguments against God, and people will have blind faith in science no matter what, as long as they get to own a cell phone, even if all of the evidence shows it would lead to nuclear war, or global warming destroying the earth.
 
Oct 2019
676
48
USA
& so from God as the center of Western Civ., you're retreating to gnomic more-or-less Buddhist kōans?

"Two hands clap and there is a sound, what is the sound of one hand?"

Excellent - except, of course, that we're in the US, in 2019 CE, & not touring some monastery in China in Medieval Times.
The beautiful thing about the times, is that they can easily be changed, if Bob Dylan is anyone to quote on that.
 
Sep 2019
909
885
U.S.A.
Correct, it shows the arguments against science are stronger than the arguments against God, and people will have blind faith in science no matter what, as long as they get to own a cell phone, even if all of the evidence shows it would lead to nuclear war, or global warming destroying the earth.
Dude...you really suck at this whole debate thingy.:no:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lloyd Christmas