50 Dead in Kentucky Tornadoes (2023 Update)

Nasty people prefer ad-hominem attacks that ignore the points other people are making.

Using screws would be far too expensive! And would not give stress- relieving give, I suppose...

Hmmm... Seems like you don't understand that it was God who created that distress, no? Or was it the devil? Or maybe Flip Wilson?

Just like when watching a lot of sci-fi movies, to believe in God requires a very large dose of "willing suspension of disbelief". That is to say, you must turn off scientific thought. The two are irrevocably incompatible.

Combine that with the total lack of unequivocal evidence of the existence of God and it is much easier to suspend belief in god.

Well, sure! But He has a master plan and your suffering is of no consequence. That is the point of Randy Newman's song.

"Man means nothing he means less to me Than the lowliest cactus flower Or the humblest yucca tree"

"Lord, if you won't take care of us Won't you please please let us be?"

"I burn down your cities--how blind you must be I take from you your children and you say how blessed are we You must all be crazy to put your faith in me That's why i love mankind"

You mean like life saving vaccines during a pandemic? Yes, they do.

The weather guys are talking about a couple tornadoes in south central Nebraska right now. It's really unusual for us this time of year.

And add the problem of if you want to believe then which god and protocol do you choose? There are so many, and advocates for each are equally convinced they are the only ones that are right! They can't all be right, now can they?

Are you proposing to take responsibility for all the evil done by atheists? Such as the Holocaust, Holodomor, Great Leap Forward, Uighur genocide....

Because, being such a rational guy, you'd obviously see the logic of your position.

And a merciful God is very patient even with His enemies.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

That's an interesting statement coming from someone who just compared atheists who have no belief in god to religious fanatics acting in the name of their god. Do you really not understand your fallacy? I don't think I've ever heard of an atheist committing any acts in the name of the god he doesn't believe in. I guess to you all atheists have some common bond of not believing in the same thing, or maybe they don't believe in different gods? I'll let you sort that out since it is your irrational generalization at issue.

I like the way you turn a comment on the lack of God's protection for his believers into a statement about his enemies.

Why would a God have any enemies? If God is all powerful no one can cause him harm and He would have no reason to let anyone cause His believers harm. So God's "enemies" would be impotent and of no consequence, in essence, not enemies at all really. Just creatures to be pitied.

Now if God were as merciful with his followers as he is with his "enemies".

I always love it when people ascribe a horrendous event to "God's wrath" toward some group when many, many others were harmed as well. God's mercy indeed.

As a practical matter, Christians are more peaceful, more productive, and more charitable than nons.

But maybe God might be a little more patient with His friends?

No they aren't - and I've got anecdotes to prove it.

And a little less nasty towards some people?

Remind me... how many billion dollars has the catholic church in the US been forced to give its victims as compensation? (As if there could be be any meaningful form of compensation for what they did).

Are you basing that on anything factual, or merely wishful thinking?

The percentage of people who call themselves "Christian" who actually follow the main teachings of Jesus, as given in the Gospels, is /tiny/. "Love God" ? They may go to church on Sundays, but that's not impressive dedication. "Love thy neighbour" ? That doesn't mean chatting over the garden fence or helping out at a school fundraiser. "Love your enemies" ? Not a chance. "Turn the other cheek" ? Only while you are reloading.

In the USA, there is a strong correlation between being violent, angry, ignorant, bigoted, gun-loving, conspiracy-theorist and identifying as strongly "Christian".

Being religious certainly does not make a person violent, greedy or evil. But being religious can give such people an excuse - it makes them think that what they are doing and how they are acting is "right" because they are doing what their god wants (based on whatever interpretation or misinterpretation they have made themselves or been fed by others).

It is a little like being drunk. Alcohol does not make people violent, angry or unpleasant - it reduces the inhibitions of people that were already violent and unpleasant, so that they cannot repress those aspects of themselves.

Basically, people use religion as an excuse not to think, not to make their own decisions and take responsibility for themselves. But it does not really change the kind of person you are - for better or for worse.

Yes, and in other countries - and other organisations too.

No church or religion has moral authority over anyone who is not a member of that church or religion. But some religious groups /think/ they have moral authority over others.

/Every/ organisation of a certain size has its bad apples. You should not blame the entire organisation or all its members for the misdeeds of certain members. But you /should/ expect the organisation to deal appropriately with those bad members, rather than covering things up.

Indeed.

But in those circumstances I'd term it immoral authority over their adherents.

Precisely.

As with engineering, how things fail is at least as important as how they work.

Churches (etc) perform as badly as commercial and political organisations.

You do understand the difference betwen "in the name of" and "by"?

He does. You don't.

Duh! This is "I don't need no proof" Larkin!

Now we are potentially in the realm of amusing oxymorons like: business ethics military intelligence feminine logic moral authority? etc