The likes of Kirkstaller aren't 'slammed' for their belief in imaginary beings, they're 'slammed' for the vile, reprehensible views they espouse as a result of their interpretation of that belief. If you can't see the difference between the two, then I'd suggest that your grounding in psychology isn't all that strong.



As for their religion being ridiculed (rather than slammed) rational people will ridicule any belief that is not only unsupported by evidence, but which actually flies in the face of all the available evidence. Religion is not exempt from this rule, and nor should it be. Do you 'respect' the views of, for example, members of the [url=http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/Flat Earth Society[/url?

With which I don't disagree.



However, in terms of the [iSin Bin[/i, the people who come out to argue from a religious perspective show no interest in that. You only need to see Kirkstaller's thread from the other day on "BBC sinks to a new low". What the BBC has apparently planned is precisely such a discussion (or the opportunity to start one), yet not only was that damned in the OP, the same post also said: "***Please can we avoid the usual mud-slinging?***" Which would be fine – if the OP himself hadn't started the "mud-slinging" himself with the snide post that followed.



And to top it off, it's the entire thing about being offended ('should Christians be expected to pay for this immoral stuff/') when most of the rest of the population simply switched off what it doesn't like or doesn't even switch on in the first place.







But this is where you can come across as trolling – or 'taking sides'. You don't appeal to Kirkstaller to be a little less "aggressive" with their bigoted views, only to those condemning the bigotry.







These are not contradictions.







Have I called every religious believer a 'loon' – or the fundamentalists? Because if memory serves me reasonably well, I'm pretty careful to use words like 'some' and not to come out with statements such as 'all' in terms of religious believers.







As do we all within the confines of such a forum.

Probably the majority of people I know adhere to some extent to some religion or other. I respect their rights to believe what they like. I'm not rude to them about it.



On those rare occasions when a theological discussion takes place I do try to explain to them how utterly irrational beliefs in a deity are, and I must say that I find it increasingly incredible how so much of the world's population is seduced and brainwashed by such irrational beliefs. Not least that of the hundreds of religions and cults, each one would dismiss the millions who support other deities as misguided and wrong, yet vainly assume that the accident of birth (or, occasionally, adult brainwashing) that caused them to be of their particular religion happily meant they were in "the one true faith".



Why do they glibly believe that hundreds of millions around the world are misguided in their beliefs of their deity, while simultaneously being somehow able to miss the irony that it's just what they themselves do?



Anyway back to the point. I would start of any debate with all due respect and I use the word "due" literally. Kirkstaller has told me that i am Satan and that unfortunately means all politeness bets are off, he deserves no respect from me. I do believe he may however have some mental health issues principally if he actually believes he personally met Jesus by his rabbit hutch, as this would be a worrying level of delusion, and probably not a million miles from the same kind of delusions that convince people like Peter Sutcliffe (if you believe him) that his god was directing his murderous actions, or may have driven the appalling killing of this innocent schoolgirl.



Which brings me to another question or two that i think are pertinent?



1. Where was her god, and her family's god, when all this was going on, and why didn't he stop it?



2. If he couldn't, then he's not god. If he could but didn't, then he's an utter asshole who is worthy of nothing but the deepest contempt. The same contempt that I would feel for any human who had been in the perfect position to prevent the killing at no risk to themselves but chose to do nothing and let her die. Why anyone would want to "worship" and "praise" such a piece of work is the question that I can only assume all religious adherents somehow manage to fail to ask themselves.

I see you're channeling Epicurus.





"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

Don't think it was him who actually said that, but whoever it was, had a point that the kirkstallers can't answer.



Epicurus didn't deny the existence of "gods" per se, IIRC, just felt that if there were any anywhere, they just did their own thing whatever it is that gods do, wherever they do it, and had feck all to do with humans.



Which if by some quirk of fate we do have a local god, is certainly the attitude he she or it took to this tragedy unfolding.

In order to answer your question you need to understand the concept or sin.



The Bible tells us that the wages (punishment) of sin is death. Therefore we deserve to die as soon as we disobey God. This doesn’t happen – obviously – so we see here the patience and love of God. The fact that he lets us live at all is testament to his glory.



We should also remember that God planned the outcome of everything before he created the world. Every single electron on this planet is moving in accordance with God’s appointment. Therefore it is clear that God means everything to happen. God planned the Holocaust. God planned Dunblane. God planned 9/11.



And God planned this teenager’s tragic death.



You may find it hard to get your head around this - don’t worry, you’re not the first. However, this is reality.



So why do bad things happen? Because it is God’s righteous wrath on a disobedient people. It is not malevolent, it is just. An omnibenevolent God must be just, and God cannot simply ignore sin.

By your own logic – even that within this latest post – the 'disobedience' was created by your god. There is no 'choice' except that of god to kill people for doing what he decided they would do.

Your acquaintance with which is tenuous at best.





Here we go again...



God made man in his own image.

God planned everything.

Man did what God programmed him to do

God punishes man for doing what God programmed man to do



All so clear and logical, utterly [iproves[/i how benevolent God is, I can't imagine why the rest of us just don't go along with it ...

God's a 2@ then.

Just read the preceding "the wages of sin is death" bollox, then consider the innocents who die or are in pain, all in God's plan ... then tell me that utter contempt for the notion of a benevolent god (as described by St Kirkstall) is "aggressive".

He definitely does love us because we are alive instead of being dead. You ought to thank him for every second he keeps you alive for.

... should I also thank him for the teenager's death and for the pain and anguish her relatives will have been and probably still are suffering?



Did he not love her then?

Is he punishing her family?