An Atheist in New Zealand blogging on science, reason and blasphemy
rant - i hate blogger.. /rantthis 'argument' (the bit from 8:00) is hilarious, sorry. 1) many of those severe conditions of early humanity continue for some parts of the world today2) Hitchens affixes 'indifference' onto God as though the only way to not be indifferent would be to interfere/intervene - which I'm sure Hitchens would love. Patient, loving anger and grief? Apparently not an option in this straw-man scenario...
1) Much less so, and for the most part people understand why.2) How is it a straw man? Because it seems like this is actually what you believe. God leaves humanity to its own devices for 196,000-96,000 years before doing ANYTHING at all. Is your only gripe with this that he doesn't list other emotions? I can't see how a god could possibly be justified in being angry or grieving at the situation, since according to Theism, he caused it. Perhaps he could feel depressed at his inadequacy.
Take off the rose-tinted glasses, Dale..
kj - we're going to CUT OFF YOUR LYING HEAD happened to the OLD SH&THEADS? clubconspiracy.com/forum/f29/judgment-day-may-21-2011-a-13663.html
he makes fundamental assumptions about how God relates to the world. The extremes are total indifference and un-involvement on one hand, and manipulative, freedom shattering force on the other. it seems God is not allowed to relate in a way that is anywhere in between these two extremes. (I'd better make this my last comment)
Celestial North-Korea is unrelated to this 'thought experiment'.
Fundamental assumptions?? He merely contrasts the evidence from nature (indifference/non-involvement side of things, etc.) with what is found in the Bible (manipulative, freedom shattering force, etc.)On what grounds, Dale, do you base this seemingly idealistic "wishy washy inbetween 2 extremes" god?It's like God is whatever you want it to be bro..