The problem is that Ben is once again twisting the argument and completely failing to address what it's really about.
He knows he can't provide adequate answers that don't make the Biblical god look like an immoral dick, so he has to resort to claiming that I'm some sort of closet theist who hates god to try and distract from the issue at hand.
decides to make the argument about *me* instead of the issue at hand.

I'm asking you questions because a, you are inconsistant with your stated beliefs. Are you an atheist Boris? Then why do you believe that the Bible is accurate?
To summarize, the point of this entire argument was this: Ben called "unChristian," based on the idea that Robertson was supposedly stating that he knew that Haiti was suffering divine punishment for it's alleged devil pact long ago.
My contention was, given what Robertson really said, it couldn't be called "unChristian." To simply speculate that a disaster might have been divine punishment does not violate any rule, nor does it contradict the Bible, in which God visits disasters on peoples on several occasions.
Ben's argument was that these biblical disasters came with warning, so Haiti somehow doesn't apply.
However, I haven't seen any convincing evidence that the Bible says anyone was warned about the Flood or Sodom and Gomorrah beyond the few people god intended to save.
Even if those do count, at this point Christians couldn't be certain someone in Haiti wasn't warned and they just hadn't heard about it yet.
Likewise, they could also believe that Haiti's past calamities were a sort of warning. Ergo even with the warning argument, it stands that the earthquake could, to a Christian, be interpreted as possible divine judgment, given Biblical precedent.
The Egyptian children massacre was a wholly separate argument, and given Ben's latest attempt a response ("uhh... you must not really be an atheist!"), I'm satisfied he has no answers to why it's moral for a god to kill innocent children while it's supposedly wrong for anyone else to do so.
If your god's morals don't apply to himself, then they aren't morals at all, just arbitrary dictates that he's free to violate on a whim.
Now you'd have to be dishonest or a total moron to think that my stating any of the above requires me personally to believe any of it is true. It's pretty obvious I'm just engaging in hypothetical reasoning to get at certain religious beliefs of other people. How anyone cannot grasp that is beyond me. I suppose I could add the words "alleged" and "supposed" before every point I make, but that would be tiresome and should be wholly unnecessary for any thinking person to need.
Comment