look at the failures, the opposition cannot find any real error in monotheism so they do name calling: "tribal cult" to make an image of worship: "primitives shouting monkey style, while wildly jumping around a fire", but only stretching the word tribe that meant families. but stretch it to fool people.
i can use the ugly word "cult" too and MORE accurately toward the agno-atheism ugly "cult" characterized by hollow name calling and mocking, and worse a faith so blind that its "apostles" or followers only make "brief claims without basis" just as much "blind faith" as their accusation to christian proffessors and educated muslim sheiks.
BARBARIC describes our atheist culture with unending rapists... at least religions teaches rape is bad while godless said "who said WHAT is really bad?'
the oppositions call monotheism a "great evil" or "affliction" or "barbaric", without saying WITH that claim any harm? just hollow name calling but i can call "godlessness a great evil" but when i do it WITH reason pointing at so many many rapes... because people do not fear god and even deny god... they tell themselves, the evildoer said in his heart "who will stop me" even the few who hesitate, reassure themselves "dawkins said god is a delusion" [he did not, but opposite possible, but only the title is famous] causing people to feel free to rape... victims of any gender.
rape is the thing TRULY barbaric, that afflicted atheist socity who do not fear god. ask: is the only reason not to rape fear god? we see without fearing god NOTHING ELSE stops the incessant rapes.
the rape is barbaric, not a book that said "punish rapists" the "barbaric bible" said to punish those who rape, deter with money payment like a ticket for "runnin the red light" or speeding faster than the speed limit fines.
they mock with word games, "heaven=sky" and "father is called by kids lovingly daddy" so they mock, "sky god and sky daddy" as if they found a flaw?
the true flaw is the fool who described a SPIRIT as "literally patriarch HENCE loathe lady" as if logical support? it is a spirit.
while christianity is the one that preserved its lady leadership, not loathe lady. the foolishness was saying about a spirit so no "hence" nor "literal" in a package containning god is spirit. could mock mr. zeus that is not a spirit but the opposers FAILED to find real errors in monotheism.
i can agree the bible of judaism SEEMS "anti-human" with many death penalties... but aimed at the GUILTY not "blind indiscriminate killing the masses of humans" or innocents just the guilty... such as incest... a list of relatives in leviticus 18-20.
dawkins apparently could not bear seeing his sister [he did not have one?] as "off limits" so he and his apostles COMPLAIN, asking, "who said i cant do incest or incest is bad?"
is death penalty "unpleasant"? human courts have death penalty is that "unpleasant"? maybe but by now we know, when france cancelled its death penalty around 2006? surprise? the murder rate increased per capita. not just more murders as population grew but RATE increased when cancelled death penalty, surprise? the "foolish french" should have THAT year reinstated the death penalty. talk about "fiercely unpleasant" that is the hangings in pirates caribean 3, world end, not just centuries ago but by modern britian in 1930's maybe later... and gun "firing squads". or the ugly "tremors" the horrible quaking in the electric chair, i am not laughing.
the fastest painless death penalty is the one we humans do to cows and which a hit man did indiscrimanatley in video, when the guy took the cow killer and killed humans. the weapon of the hit man in 2007 "no country for old men". for guilty perhaps that is less barbaric, i mean first general anasthesia so no pan nor fear and then when out use the hole punch, less barbaric than the options listed. if i were guilty i would rather that painless cow "puncher", rather than hanging by neck until dead, or trembling vibrating in an electric chair or the terror of facing a row of rifles in a firing squad... that is the babrbaric godless society.
back to incest dawkins page 58 whines about the "morbid obssession with incest restrictions" what was he opposing? his neighbor's wife? some amazing aunt? such a complaint indicated his morbid obssession to do it? i could say the same UGLY WORDS "atheists oppose bible restrictions revealing their morbid obssession to do incest unhindered and without shaming" if they deny god they can tell people to stop feeling guilty for their urges and actions?
the only thing ugly in the phrase is the word obsession, but is it even true? that is baseless name calling who can measure if god was obssessed with anything? just name calling that can be mirrored MORE ACCURATELY at those who oppose limiting incest.
dawkins is a pro at finding ugly words "charred flesh" the image of a bomb scene... but the same words are "aroma of barbecued beef" same exact words but he mocks saying charred to try and make it seem ugly but anybody who does barbecues knows the aroma can be enjoyable. just words... because cannot find any real error.
he attaches harmless things to obsession... when as above we dont know if god was a judge or obssessed but what we can see from his wording that dawkins was afflicted by sevral obsessions and was clearly STRUGGLING to suppress his own sincere faith. that caused him to choose such failures and blunders.
when a boxer wins the match is he evil for "feeling superior to the many rivals he defeated" that is not bad but reality. in fact to deny the supperiority would be the bad detachment from reality. so dawkins lied that it is obsession.
one final lie to expose, dawkins whined that he is "not allowed in the private club" complaining about the "exclusiveness of the chosen tribe" those are his best attacks on judaism? exclusive can be a praise, of quality, but he meant exclude which is false as the famous story RUTH was not excluded but joined anybody can join if they wanted... not excluded and not an exclusive club either.
a lady can join without any surgery in contrast to the men.. who have an obstacle... they can only join if they do a surgery... yet those rare sincere men DID do circumcision as adults... and that is another reason to let infants grow up intact. if you believe they would agree then those sincere will do the religious cut themselves and if not sincere then let them choose not to cut. do not say "we must because no option" we see the option that sincere do as adults and with better anti-pain. the option is real... but parents KNOW almost certain the child WILL SAY NO as an adult and knowing they will "not consent" motivated them to rush, they "get it in against his will when powerless infant" THAT is where dawkins could attack judaism... that is the problem that dawkins should have found... the only reason for a modern parent to obey 8 days, if modern, is when they are certain the kid will not do it as an adult and then KNOWING against their will, the child will NOT consent do it against his will when a powerless infant... if they were not knowing "violating the son's decision" the alternative is "he would agree anyway" if so give him the chance to agree... or not. the parents if believed he would AGREE, no rush, he will do it later! and also give him the chance to AGREE WHEN ADULT that is the ugliness but dawkins was busy with the wrong uglinesses as above he was only bothered by the incest limitations, only.
No comments:
Post a Comment