Joined: Sep. 2009
|Quote (onlooker @ Nov. 05 2012,08:56)|
|I was just catching up over at The Skeptical Zone after a couple of days cleaning up from Sandy, and I saw a reference to something I thought was too offensive even for UD to host. Turns out I was wrong.|
Here's Mung explaining how he'd justify an omnibenevolent god allowing rape:
|I never argued that God allows rape because He values free will. If I were to make some sort of assertion, it would be that God allows rape because there’s nothing evil about it. So now what?|
So now what? So now I know that I was correct in choosing to ignore Mung on every UD thread. He's as ignorant as Joe, no more intelligent, but as thoroughly unpleasant and ethically challenged as Barry. Quite the combination there.
It is curious to me that folks like Mung, Barry, Gordo, Byers, and FL never bother to stop and ask why it is that the bible only mentions punishing those who "choose" (through free will) to commit such acts and omits any mention of actually providing comfort and complete health for the victims. Well, such things used to be curiosities to me until I realized that their god was an arrogant monster of their own imaginings that cheerful goes through eternity holding that all women deserve such treatment.
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo
The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis