You couldn’t understand it? I guess it’s not worth my time explaining it then.Read your own post again. I do not have the time to make a wall chart to parse the sentences.
So you’re giving a free pass to anyone in the entire history of the world who isn’t an atheist. Gee. Plus what Mike said.Point being that atheists in power were responsible for 20+ million deaths - at their whim. Even though that is only two individuals out of tens of millions of non-believers, they are extremely effective (and not affected) at shedding blood.
Not a phrase one normally sees in discussions such as this.Although I never met Hitler personally…
Auschwitz itself remains inexplicable. The most profound statement yet made about Auschwitz was not a statement at all, but a response.
The query: “At Auschwitz, tell me, where was God?”
And the answer: “Where was man?”
I don’t know, but that’s what I have heard. It’s like their way of saying that a God with the knowledge and power of what is happening has the responsibility to intervene on behalf of the innocent or weaker party.Where on earth does this come from? And why is it repeated incessantly?
The unbeliever isn’t complaining that they believe an actual God is failing to intervene. Does that make sense?I find it a little un-reasonable for a person who’s an unbeliever to claim that a God they don’t believe in allowed man’s inhumanity to man, when we have been given a clear moral code, which humans decided to disregard. (Kind of when people get upset about the Old Testament stories of God telling somebody to kill another person, then come to find out the complainer is actually perfectly okay with abortion and euthanasia
I would think that only if humans allow themselves play a role in that greater good. It takes forgiveness and love and compassion for our fellow humans.All evil acts permitted by God result in a greater good.
I dunno.The unbeliever isn’t complaining that they believe an actual God is failing to intervene.
True.Free will (if it exists) simply means that you are free to make your own decisions.
Depends on what you mean by “right.” That would be correct if you meant legal right. But ironically, even if someone doesn’t have the right to do something, some people still do it because their free will is in play. Of course they still will inevitably reap the consequences of their actions whether they like it or not.It DOES NOT grant you right to excercise those free will decisions.
Again, in society, we have laws. They don’t impede free will, but provide consequences for certain actions. If someone does something they legally have no right to do, they reap the consequences. It’s free will that is the reason why people are able to commit crimes in hopes they are not caught, unfortunately.Society would simply cease to exist if we all did whatever we wanted with no thought of the implications to others.