"Drawing the line on divine intervention"

**Papewaio** · 01-24-2006, 01:21

Originally Posted by Goofball

To hear them talk, one would think that all of the mainstream media and anyone who has attained any higher education believes that there can be no nobler pastime than casting aspersions upon the devout of the world.

It isn't the most noble thing to do? I suppose I should extract the beam first before going for anothers splinter.

I think some people need to go to a few science conferences and see how much sledging, aspersions, cutting down, sarcasm etc all in the name of the higher calling of science... scientists are pretty ruthless with each other, and at least in that niche environment of intellectual gladiators the winner tends to walk off with the prize money... well next years grants and tenure.

... while with cutting down religion there is not much to gain in a monetary sense.

**GoreBag** · 01-24-2006, 22:09

Not bad, but how are you reading the Ottawa Citizen, Goofball?

**Goofball** · 01-24-2006, 23:12

Originally Posted by NeonGod

Not bad, but how are you reading the Ottawa Citizen, Goofball?

The article also appeared in the Victoria Times Colonist.

**Lazul** · 01-24-2006, 23:27

Nice little afternoon reading.. ehr night.

Wouldnt it be more logical that it was Lucifer... you know,the "morning star", that created the tsunami... if I was a religius man, I guess that would be more logical to me.

If a buss crashed, wouldnt it be Lucifer that killed 28/30 people and the two that survived actually are just people he failed to kill.

....I need some sleep.

**Crazed Rabbit** · 01-25-2006, 00:10

Big-whoppity-frickin'-do.

A person who is obviously contemptous of religion writes a bunch of ad hominem attacks and commits the logical fallacy of comparing all Christians to Pat Robertson.

What makes no sense is to say that there is a God, that He is directly involved in the affairs of humanity, that He must be thanked for good fortune -- but that it is outrageous and unconscionable to ascribe the misfortune of a high-ranking man to divine will.

His understanding is shallow, and reveals his prejudice. Noone said that it was outrageous to ascribe Sharon's sufferings to God's will (another logical fallacy), Pat Robertson said it was God's punishment. All things are God's will-but only God knows for what reason they were done.

Another example of personal slander with no substansive arguments:

Those who believe that the Bible is something more than the collected writings of desert-dwelling primitives with too much time on their hands need only look at the Book of Job, wherein Job suffers a lot more than a stroke simply because God had a bet with the Devil. If the Lord would afflict you with boils and kill your children just so He could say "booyah!" to Lucifer, what would He do if you really pissed him off?

It also illustrates that the writer does not really understand the Christian concept of God. He thinks of God as just some guy with superpowers.

Crazed Rabbit

**Proletariat** · 01-25-2006, 00:22

What an idiotic argument. The story of Job is a testament to his unshakeable faith, not how psychotic God is. Even a frigging atheist can see that.

**GoreBag** · 01-25-2006, 00:24

Rabbit, he's not comparing all Christians to Robertson. He's saying that divine intervention is nonsense.

**Papewaio** · 01-25-2006, 00:31

Originally Posted by Proletariat

What an idiotic argument. The story of Job is a testament to his unshakeable faith, not how psychotic God is. Even a frigging atheist can see that.

I always thought the book of Job was a party

. Salt pillar, single guy... all he needs is lime and tequila.

**Goofball** · 01-25-2006, 01:23

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Big-whoppity-frickin'-do.

A person who is obviously contemptous of religion writes a bunch of ad hominem attacks and commits the logical fallacy of comparing all Christians to Pat Robertson.

His understanding is shallow, and reveals his prejudice. Noone said that it was outrageous to ascribe Sharon's sufferings to God's will (another logical fallacy), Pat Robertson said it was God's punishment. All things are God's will-but only God knows for what reason they were done.

Another example of personal slander with no substansive arguments:

It also illustrates that the writer does not really understand the Christian concept of God. He thinks of God as just some guy with superpowers.

Crazed Rabbit

Read the article again. He does not hold religion in contempt. Rather, he holds in contempt those who try to ascribe divine purpose (and therefor divine support of their own causes) to earthly events that they view as furthering their own causes. This is demonstrated by both the Muslim fundamentalists and the Christian fundamentalists claiming that God smote Sharon, but for completely different reasons. Not to mention that the reasons claimed for this divine smiting are diametrically opposed to each other.

But your response did go a long way in supporting my initial point:

Originally Posted by Goofball

Whenever any mainstream media outlet, public figure, celebrity, or politician says anything even remotely "anti-religious," it seems to me that religious folks the world over come down on them with both feet, screaming about bias and intolerance (not to mention hellfire and damnation) until the maker of the offensive remark(s) is left stammering apologies and retractions like a twelve year-old schoolboy caught stealing cookies.

Fortunately, I suspect Mr. Gardner has sufficient backbone to ignore the hate-mail he must be receiving demanding apologies for having talked a bit of sense.

**Alexander the Pretty Good** · 01-25-2006, 03:42

I don't have an issue with the doctrine of "divine intervention." I think God can and does manipulate things to serve His plan.

I just don't think we can tell when that is.

And especially not Pat Robertson.

**Crazed Rabbit** · 01-25-2006, 17:02

Originally Posted by Goofball

Read the article again. He does not hold religion in contempt.

Really? From the article:

Those who believe that the Bible is something more than the collected writings of desert-dwelling primitives with too much time on their hands need only look at the Book of Job,

Seems slanderous to me.

And you're right I'm going to come down hard on a pack of lies and innuendo that falsely impugnes religion.

Fervant christians is just that, fervant christians. In the "fervant" part you lose your rationality. If he was refering to the average Christians he would have said that Rabbit, so don't try to get to conclussions that aren't there.

No, he does not quite think that. To him, any Christian who actually beleives is 'fervent'.

Crazed Rabbit