L&FP, 60: Illustrating an all too common atheistical attitude

_{kairosfocus

September 30, 2022

Atheism, Logic and Reason, rhetoric}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The below is taken from a typical Internet Atheist trollish rhetorical stunt, illustrating all too familiar patterns of fallacious reasoning that are here seen in an attempt to bully and stereotype Christians as ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. For first level responses see here [Jesus], here [worldviews], here [evil Christians].

This sort of polarising snide stunt is what we need to recognise as a real problem (and no, turnabout projection is not an acceptable response), acknowledging that it is unacceptable bigotry and intellectual irresponsibility, and then set such aside, there are fate of civilisation issues on the table:

Now, let us ponder:

Where we do not need to go. END

U/D, Oct 1, on the real political spectrum by way of the Overton Window and BATNA concept:

Comments

SG, your denial does not change the telling significance of your behaviour. Dawkins presents an ethical caricature of God distorted to the point of slander, precisely by signally failing to recognise the core ethical framework of the Hebraic-Christian scriptural tradition and its importance for civilisation (contrast Bernard Lewis and Boteach). Journalistic failure to the point of being propaganda of the worst stereotyping, stigmatising and scapegoating atrocity story sort. It is obvious that he and other new atheists view God as an imaginary, monstrous bronze age domineering oppressive sky warrior god, thus directly they blood libel believers through guilt by association and equally loaded caricatures, try, ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. This willfully lopsided caricature distorts the history of civilisation and undermines moral foundational principle, needlessly polarising our civilisation. Did you notice how, to date, you have been unable to acknowledge core Hebraic-Christian moral principles or the contribution of adherents to advancement of civilisation, even as you repeatedly pose on oh you have to show yourselves innocent to my [hyperskeptical] satisfaction? (Whilst, you show not the slightest engagement of substantial matters, linked from the outset in the OP . . . for cause I have no confidence you would give fair hearing, on track record.) That is the endorsement, and, frankly, it reeks. I refuse to entertain that game, for cause. As a start, you are appealing to key moral principles that in our civilisation are rooted in the said core principles you are ducking and evading. Let us hear your reality root grounds for such principles that rise above might and manipulation make 'right,' 'rights,' 'duty,' 'freedom,' 'justice' etc. Without, falling into self referential incoherence incoherence and/or opening the door to nihilism. For sure, evolutionary materialistic scientism and/or fellow travellers cannot. So, let's hear your basis _______ (especially given the links in para 1 of the OP). Meanwhile, for cause, I stand on my fair comment rights, that anyone who poses on such a lopsided hostile caricature that fails the simple test of responsible balance is implicitly endorsing its implicit blood libel. KFkairosfocus_{October 4, 2022
October
10
Oct
4
04
2022
11:51 PM
11
11
51
PM
PDT}

KF: PS, as to Dawkins, he has long since been corrected, you just endorsed again.
I’m sure that you have convinced yourself of this.Sir Giles_{October 4, 2022
October
10
Oct
4
04
2022
09:12 PM
9
09
12
PM
PDT}

FG, after watching the vids you may find 69 above useful. Can you agree that this summarises the core of Hebraic and Christian ethics from main texts? Do you see why I include the Pauline statement (and cf 1:18 - 32 with 2:12 - 15)? Now, contrast the remarks by Dawkins [73], Boteach [74] and Bernard Lewis [87]. Which do you think give a more balanced picture, why? Now, surprise, the last two are Jews. Do you think followers of a monstrously evil, murderous bronze age sky war god with an ethic of conquest, mass murder etc would teach such principles as the core of their ethics? Do you see then how horribly Dawkins has misrepresented and in so doing has committed blood libel? For, the stigma he would affix on us is that we would be like that war god, ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. Which comes also from his writings, i.e. setting up bigoted scapegoating. That's why I have spoken to the serious attitude problem. KF PS, did you notice that these objectors are appealing to widely known moral principles? But, where do such come from, on what root do they stand? For sure atheistic evolutionary materialism and fellow travellers struggle to account for responsible rational freedom, the basis for reasoned discussion and for moral government. Where, it is fairly easily seen that unless the root of reality is inherently good, utterly wise and creator -- not merely half baked, sorcerer's apprentice trying to shape pre existing entities and running into trouble [yes, demiurge] -- then we cannot have a reality root IS capable of bearing the weight of OUGHT. A familiar figure, and the atheists and fellow travellers are here seen resorting to binding principles of moral government that they cannot ground within their system. In short, their whole pattern of argument is manipulative and loaded with fatal gaps. That is a key point to spot for going forward.kairosfocus_{October 4, 2022
October
10
Oct
4
04
2022
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT}

CD, personalities again, a sure sign you do not have substance. From para 1 of OP, there are three links to discussions of substantial questions. For example, if one assumed for argument Dawkins tried to summarise fairly Judaeo-Christian ethics, it would be astonishing failure to miss the core teachings cited above and the major contributions to civilisation over millennia; but the answer is obvious, we have here a toxic strawman caricature amounting to blood libel, proverbial village atheism writ large that somehow passed presumably competent editors and found those willing to praise such diatribes -- revealing about them. And that is not animus, it is fair correction for cause. But in fact unless toxic attitudes are dealt with no progress can be had on such. The case in the OP for example shows what happens when Divine omnipotence is confused with arbitrary power, reflecting utter want of familiarity with the substantial issue, but that objector would first have to climb down from the high horse he has mounted. As for Dawkins et al, much the same problems are at work, as can be seen from say the empty chair debate. KF PS, FG, those are notes, and yes there is a fairly serious range of issues to be addressed, from ontology to philosophy to scientific issues to foundation of civilisation and linked issues. Start with Stroebel's 1 hr vid on Jesus. You may also find Craig's empty chair debate helpful.kairosfocus_{October 4, 2022
October
10
Oct
4
04
2022
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

Sir Giles/94 KF/95 Which, after getting sidetracked (as usual) by KF's hissy-fit, brings us full circle to my original, unanswered post @ 63:
KF/60 Setting aside your animosity towards Dawkins (which may be impossible for you, I don’t know), what descriptor of the God of the Old Testament does he get wrong in the quoted passage from The God Delusion?
chuckdarwin_{October 4, 2022
October
10
Oct
4
04
2022
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

KF: "For those with serious questions, perhaps this may be a good start point, kindly scroll up to the OP and have a look at the three links in para 1." I looked at all 3 links and tried to read the content but didn't get very far. It's probably me but I don't find your writing style very accessible. Perhaps it just needs someone to do some editing?Fordgreen_{October 4, 2022
October
10
Oct
4
04
2022
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT}

F/N: Of course, SG has side stepped the already cited central ethical teachings of the OT and NT, which give key framework for understanding the ethics of the Judaeo-Christian tradition. In so doing he also sidesteps considerable history on how Jews and Christians -- alleged to be ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked followers of a morally monstrous bronze age sky war god to the point where one new atheist tried to claim that a religious upbringing is child abuse -- have made repeated major contributions to the upliftment of civilisation. Followers of a monster as claimed simply would not be like that. Such is obvious and it leads to the logical question, why these grotesque, blood libel projections? The key candidate answer comes back, confession by projection [to relieve cognitive dissonance tied to the inherent amorality of atheism], something that needs to be seriously considered, given the insistent hostile railing and explicit or implicit endorsement of same. Something is seriously wrong in the camp of the new atheists and their fellow travellers. KF PS, I have already cited Boteach and built on him, by way of a clip from one of the linked in para 1 OP. Likewise, with another excerpt, I contrasted the attitude of the noted historian, Bernard Lewis to that of Dawkins, which is at once revealing. Notice, not once has SG substantially responded to such; which tells volumes, none of it good. For those with serious questions, perhaps this may be a good start point, kindly scroll up to the OP and have a look at the three links in para 1.kairosfocus_{October 4, 2022
October
10
Oct
4
04
2022
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

SG, we were not born yesterday. When you are in a bad hole, stop digging in deeper. KF PS, as to Dawkins, he has long since been corrected, you just endorsed again.kairosfocus_{October 4, 2022
October
10
Oct
4
04
2022
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

KF: Then of course you failed to recognise that a railing, slanderous blood libel is not an appropriate argument, especially one that sets out to taint millions.
The Dawkins quote you provided only sets out to taint one. Not millions. From what I can see, Dawkins is merely assigning attributes to the OT God based upon his actions as depicted in the Bible. If Dawkins’ claims have no merit, it should be an easy task to debunk them.Sir Giles_{October 4, 2022
October
10
Oct
4
04
2022
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT}

Jerry, yes there is doubtless personal animus, there is clearly a troll assignment pattern and the like. However that also serves to bring out poster children for the problems our civilisation now faces. Notice, here, there is inability to face the attitude and fallacy problem highlighted from the OP. That tells us a lot. It also gives us opportunity to address the problem. Always, remember that those who took dignified silence in the face of the rise of Hitler and his guttersnipe tactics, ended up in the prison camps. Below, Niemoller. KF PS, Niemoller:
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. —Martin Niemöller
And yes, objectors, that is the fire you are playing with. BTW, Line 1 is in key part about something being studiously side stepped above, even as it is being played out again, the Reichstag fire incident.kairosfocus_{October 4, 2022
October
10
Oct
4
04
2022
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT}

CD, what you fail to see is that de facto blasphemy laws are built into the new woke censorship. And as this embeds moral inversion, it is chaotic, misanthropic and civilisationally ruinous. But then, it seems likely you do not recognise what is seriously wrong with the fulminations of a Dawkins et al, what it gives social permission to, and how it falls flat once one simply compares someone like Bernard Lewis. Wake up before the revolution's terror starts to devour its own children. Or, didn't they tell you that part? Ever since the French Revolution. KFkairosfocus_{October 4, 2022
October
10
Oct
4
04
2022
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT}

if you are so thinned skinned to resort to name-calling every time someone attacks your God or your sacred scribblings that is telling
When will Kf learn its mostly about him and a couple others here? Until they offer up something of substance, ignore them. No anti ID person has ever done so. All they offer is scientific nonsense or snarky comments.jerry_{October 4, 2022
October
10
Oct
4
04
2022
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT}

KF/85 Relevance is contextual--I was directly responding to Fordgreen's question @ 80. I didn't say that blasphemy laws in the US have been abolished. I said that they have been ruled unconstitutional. The US has a much more nuanced relationship than the UK between free speech and what you refer to as defamation, which, fortunately, favors free speech. Our free speech jurisprudence reflects the "attitude" (incorrectly attributed to Voltaire) that "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." If your God is insufficiently robust to survive Dawkins' harangue, then he/she/it isn't worth much. Likewise, if you are so thinned skinned to resort to name-calling every time someone attacks your God or your sacred scribblings that is telling......chuckdarwin_{October 4, 2022
October
10
Oct
4
04
2022
03:42 AM
3
03
42
AM
PDT}

Sir G , You want to question the scriptures , I wholeheartedly agree with you, for how can we learn or reach a proper conclusion without questioning. But can we then question your belief systems , so where do you get your standard of right and wrong good and bad from , and how do you know its sound in its reasoning.Marfin_{October 3, 2022
October
10
Oct
3
03
2022
11:43 PM
11
11
43
PM
PDT}

Sir Giles, your whole spiel about things getting better is a nonsense , you must not live in western Europe There is a TV show in Ireland called crimewatch just check out that show from 50 years ago , and watch the latest version and tell me things are getting better. Tell me there is no problem with knife crime in London , tell me bullying has reduced , you obviously never heard of social media , and kids killing themselves because of bullying. You also say smacking a child is violence , so is smacking your wife on the behind as she walks by also violence, or does it represent something else, all physical force is not violence, in a given circumstance it can and does represent something else.Marfin_{October 3, 2022
October
10
Oct
3
03
2022
11:25 PM
11
11
25
PM
PDT}

PS, Bernard Lewis, in his epochal 1990 Atlantic Monthly Essay, The Roots of Muslim Rage, is far sounder than Dawkins:
. . . The accusations are familiar. We of the West are accused of sexism, racism, and imperialism, institutionalized in patriarchy and slavery, tyranny and exploitation. To these charges, and to others as heinous, we have no option but to plead guilty -- not as Americans, nor yet as Westerners, but simply as human beings, as members of the human race. In none of these sins are we the only sinners, and in some of them we are very far from being the worst. The treatment of women in the Western world, and more generally in Christendom, has always been unequal and often oppressive, but even at its worst it was rather better than the rule of polygamy and concubinage that has otherwise been the almost universal lot of womankind on this planet . . . . In having practiced sexism, racism, and imperialism, the West was merely following the common practice of mankind through the millennia of recorded history. Where it is distinct from all other civilizations is in having recognized, named, and tried, not entirely without success, to remedy these historic diseases. And that is surely a matter for congratulation, not condemnation. We do not hold Western medical science in general, or Dr. Parkinson and Dr. Alzheimer in particular, responsible for the diseases they diagnosed and to which they gave their names.
Something like this allows us to strike due balance and move forward.kairosfocus_{October 3, 2022
October
10
Oct
3
03
2022
10:20 PM
10
10
20
PM
PDT}

F/N: Notice, how presentation of the core of Hebraic and Christian ethics, from key texts, has been repeatedly evaded above. That is not a coincidence. Similarly, first, self evident duties of responsible reason. Likewise, significance of our inescapable moral government. Not to mention, ontological and metaphysical significance of a world containing responsible, rational, significantly free creatures who are thus able to freely make and respond to argument. And more, including sobering lessons of history that is now generally unknown, but which in a more responsible age would be key parts of general mental furniture. None of this is coincidental, those who should have soundly educated and informed us about the heritage of our civilisation (for all its flaws and sins and moral hazards) have for generations failed in that duty. The result is, many lack due balance, richly informed by hard-bought lessons of history . . . notoriously, the record of men's crimes, follies and resulting disasters [as the microcosm in Ac 27 highlights]. In such an atmosphere, crooked yardstick thinking is readily established and will find fault with even a naturally straight and upright plumb line. These things need to be recognised and set in order before one can soberly address real difficulties. Failing such, Ac 27 is emblematic of the course of what we will have, de-mock-racy manipulated by moneyed interests and their bought and paid for technicos and face cards. The real question is, is it too late to avert going over the cliff? My hope, no, is frankly fading even as I behold dangerous escalation in a nuke threshold war by evident sabotage of gas pipelines. KFkairosfocus_{October 3, 2022
October
10
Oct
3
03
2022
10:13 PM
10
10
13
PM
PDT}

CD, you inject irrelevancy. Actually, the US has not abolished blasphemy laws, it has just shifted protected groups to certain fashionable causes, often exhibiting the moral inversion highlighted in Isa 5:20 as was cited. Further to this, for decades, the US Courts have weakened reasonable protection against defamation to the point where social permission has been granted for casual libel, slander etc. That is NOT due protection of freedom of expression balanced with respect for the right -- yes, right -- to innocent reputation. (Have you pondered why in Anglophone common law it is a core principle that one is held innocent unless proved guilty to appropriate standard?) As to your projections to imagined courts [thus, invidious association], they are sadly revealing of underlying attitude. KFkairosfocus_{October 3, 2022
October
10
Oct
3
03
2022
09:53 PM
9
09
53
PM
PDT}

SG, further projection and personalities, meanwhile you failed to respond to where there is a response to actual issues of concern, as noted in the three links in paragraph 1 of OP; and of course, now by linking the empty chair debate. Then of course you failed to recognise that a railing, slanderous blood libel is not an appropriate argument, especially one that sets out to taint millions. Had Dawkins said something like, while the Judaeo-Christian framework for ethics has been manifestly foundational to our civilisation and has contributed to many ethical advances, many people are troubled by some narratives and hard sayings in the Bible, that would be one thing. Indeed, Craig and I agree with that as would a good number of the most saintly people I know. A discussion could then proceed on a civil basis. Instead, he used raillery and tried to use accusations against Craig to avoid a debate he most likely knew he would lose badly, as philosophers of all stripes found serious defects in his arguments. Torley was quite justified to put Boteach on the table, as the accusations directly imply and invite antisemitism; and notice, this is from one of the linked discussions. Dawkins is grievously wrong on tone to the point that he grants social permissions that should never be opened up again, and a reasonable person should recognise that. No, it is not the job of a victim of blood libel to prove himself innocent to the satisfaction of accusers and those who go along with accusation. First, there must be a setting aside of raillery and then substantial matters can be soberly addressed. KFkairosfocus_{October 3, 2022
October
10
Oct
3
03
2022
09:43 PM
9
09
43
PM
PDT}

FG, there is a broader reference. KFkairosfocus_{October 3, 2022
October
10
Oct
3
03
2022
09:22 PM
9
09
22
PM
PDT}

KF: SG, once you spoke about Dawkins as you did, you endorsed it.
That is a whole truckload of BS. Endorsing his right to question biblical scriptures is not the same as endorsing his claims. You would know this if you truly believed in freedom of speech, and not just freedom of speech that agrees with you.
That declaration by Dawkins goes way beyond mere questioning. Dawkins is not questioning, he is making grossly irresponsible, blood libel accusations, as have too many others of the so called new atheists and those influenced by them.
Rather than taking your anger out on me, who has not tried to defend Dawkin’s claim, you would be better off actually trying to provide evidence to debunk his claim. It should be easy if his claim had no merit. Your response?Sir Giles_{October 3, 2022
October
10
Oct
3
03
2022
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT}

Blasphemy laws in the US have uniformly been held to be an unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech and violative of both the establishment clause and the free exercise clause of the first amendment. However, I could see the new wackadoodle “Trump court” coming up with a “novel” basis to gut the first amendment…….chuckdarwin_{October 3, 2022
October
10
Oct
3
03
2022
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT}

KF - I don’t understand the references to blood libel. I thought that had a very specific meaning regarding false accusations of human sacrifice. Or do you mean it metaphorically? On the issues outlined in the OP, do you think blasphemy laws should be reinstated in countries such as the States or the UK?Fordgreen_{October 3, 2022
October
10
Oct
3
03
2022
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT}

SG, once you spoke about Dawkins as you did, you endorsed it. Ever since, you have reinforced the point. That declaration by Dawkins goes way beyond mere questioning. Dawkins is not questioning, he is making grossly irresponsible, blood libel accusations, as have too many others of the so called new atheists and those influenced by them. Indeed, he used them to evade a serious debate over the claims in his book with a leading Christian thinker, itself a strong sign that he understood that he had a weak case on substance but was doing some shouting and table pounding; in defence of blood libel. That is telling, as can be seen from the empty chair debate at Oxford: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP9CwDTRoOE For the moment, I will ignore your gross insult as another case of projection to the despised other. KFkairosfocus_{October 3, 2022
October
10
Oct
3
03
2022
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT}

KF, perhaps I can clarify by telling you what I do endorse. I endorse the questioning of societal norms. Including cultural and religious traditions. It is through this type of questioning that resulted in the abolishment of slavery, the right of women to vote, inter-racial marriage, de-segregation, etc. Do you think that people should be legally prevented from questioning religious scriptures? Your answer will be instructive.Sir Giles_{October 3, 2022
October
10
Oct
3
03
2022
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

KF: SG, you are dealing with a blood libel and one that rides on coat tails of holocaust. That you duck responsibility for what you have endorsed speaks volumes.
I haven’t endorsed anything. Please stop lying.Sir Giles_{October 3, 2022
October
10
Oct
3
03
2022
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

SG, you are dealing with a blood libel and one that rides on coat tails of holocaust. That you duck responsibility for what you have endorsed speaks volumes. Especially as, here, at the outset of the OP, I set out links to discussions of genuine issues at 101 level. It is clear you have no defence for blood libel, but are unwilling to back away from it unless the victims of libel prove their innocence to your hyperskeptical satisfaction, which deep down you must know is even more telling about the kind of polarisation and moral inversion set loose in our civilisation. In the end, as the White Rose martyrs pointed out, the problem that has befallen us is metaphysical-spiritual-ethical. KFkairosfocus_{October 3, 2022
October
10
Oct
3
03
2022
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT}

KF: PS, let me make this concrete, you are sitting with Rabbi Shmuel, who has just shown you his tattoos from Auschwitz. He is concerned over this:
“The God of the Old Testament [= The God of Israel . . . ] is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully . . . ” [Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Great Britain: Bantam Press, 2006, 31.]
Your response?
I would simply tell the Rabbi that the best way to debunk a false claim is to provide evidence proving that the claim is wrong.Sir Giles_{October 3, 2022
October
10
Oct
3
03
2022
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

F/N: Just to make it more realistic, I clip one of the three links in para 1, OP:
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach speaks, soberingly, from a heart that has lurched like that. He therefore wrote in reply to the recent accusation of New Atheism spokesman, the late Christopher Hitchens, that "Torah verses will also be found that make it permissible to murder secular Jews as well as Arabs" in order to convert the West Bank zone of Judaea and Samaria into a radical Jewish theocracy, as follows: >> . . . any Rabbi who was to praise a Jewish murderer would be fired from his post and banished from his community. The Torah is clear: 'Thou may not murder' (Exodus 20) and 'Thou shalt not take revenge' (Leviticus 19). Second, no Biblical story of massacre, which is a tale and not a law, could ever be used to override the most central prohibition of the Ten Commandments and Biblical morality. Murder is the single greatest offense against the Creator of all life and no Jew would ever use a Biblical narrative of war or slaughter as something that ought to be emulated. In our time Churchill and Roosevelt, both universally regarded as moral leaders and outstanding men, ordered the wholesale slaughter of non-combatants in the Second World War through the carpet- bombing of Dresden, Hamburg, Berlin, and Tokyo. Truman would take it further by ordering the atomic holocaust of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. How did men who are today regarded as righteous statesmen order such atrocities? They were of the opinion that only total war could end Nazi tyranny and Japanese imperial aggression. They did it in the name of saving life. Which is of course not to excuse their actions but rather to understand them in the context of the mitigating circumstances of the time. [ --> WW2 was a nuclear threshold war and that was the ticking, secret time bomb . . . ] I do not know why Moses would have ordered any such slaughter even in the context of war. But I do know that the same Bible who relates the story also expressly forbids even the thought of such bloodshed ever being repeated.>> (In short the antisemitism concern raised above is not just theoretical, for here we see a case of outright blood libel from one of the top several New Atheist spokesmen that takes advantage of high feelings on the admittedly thorny Arab-Israeli conflict, to slip in the poisoned rhetorical knife. So, it was entirely in order for Dr Torley to conclude by asking Dr Dawkins, who used these texts as an excuse not to debate his anti-Christian claims in his The God Delusion with Dr William Lane Craig: "would you be willing to debate the topic of God's existence with an Orthodox Jewish rabbi holding such a view [as Boteach's]? Would you be prepared to look a rabbi in the eye and tell him, "Your God is a genocidal monster"? Or do you also consider rabbis holding such views to be beyond the pale of civilized debate, and would you shun them as you have shunned Professor Craig? ")
Ready to answer now? KFkairosfocus_{October 3, 2022
October
10
Oct
3
03
2022
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

SG, are you too endorsing anti semitic, anti christian, anti civilisational rants doubled down on through ad hominem projections when that is pointed out? That tells us a lot, not one bit of it good. KF PS, let me make this concrete, you are sitting with Rabbi Shmuel, who has just shown you his tattoos from Auschwitz. He is concerned over this:
“The God of the Old Testament [= The God of Israel . . . ] is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully . . . ” [Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Great Britain: Bantam Press, 2006, 31.]
Your response?kairosfocus_{October 3, 2022
October
10
Oct
3
03
2022
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply