greeney2 wrote:Humphreys, You really are not seriously suggesting those in that link, compare to what churches and religions do, on a worldwide level or scale? Yet you just got done telling me off about how many people in your neighborhood are atheists or do not go to church. If you have such numbers, why such a dismal showing of atheist charities?
What dismal showing? You don't even know the figures to make such a claim.
You don't think that brief list I showed you is every atheist charity in existence, do you? You asked for examples, you got them, your point was refuted so deal with it. Now you're changing it to try to get a tit-for-tat run down of atheism versus religion which is meaningless. Just because atheists are less likely to form a group does not mean they are not out there in their numbers doing good and giving money to charities. Pretty impossible to put a number on it.
greeney2 wrote:Dawkins is very much the subject, since he was the main reason the Paster changed his thinking due to him, plus he was in the video.
He said the main reason was the problem of evil, not Dawkins. He likes Dawkins and his work, but the thread is still about the pastor and not about Dawkins, especially about Dawkins charity work which is irrelevant.
greeney2 wrote:I did not derail anything, I raised the questions of the concept of "If God is the cause of ALL misery", something Dawkins has convinced the Pastor of, what does Dawkins DO ABOUT IT personally, other than just tell the world God is so bad.
I have no idea, but it doesn't affect his point one bit if he does nothing.
Dawkin's points stand on their own regardless of whether he is a nice guy or a complete ass. Do you know what an ad hominem attack is? Because that's what you're doing, addressing the person and not the argument. It's fallacious reasoning.
greeney2 wrote:I'm still trying to figure out the logic that God does not exist, but all the misery in the world is casued by God???
Dawkins does not say God is the cause, he says if God is real, then explaining the existence of evil is a problem for believers.
greeney2 wrote:EH tells us everytime God is imaginary, than goes on to tell about, all the bad things God is responsible for. He tells me I loose the debate, when he counterdicts his own belief presenting the proofs. IF GOD IS IMAGINARY, GOD COULDN'T DO ALL THESE BAD THINGS HE QUOTES IN THE PROOFS. Which one is it?
One can believe there is no God whilst addressing logical problems that would arise if we assume he does exist.
It's a simple way of showing potential logical issues with your opponent's position, they use it routinely in court and elsewhere, the term is arguendo - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguendo
Come on greeney, this is f*cking basic stuff, really.
"All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will is an illusion."
- Sam Harris