[Hmm...are you trying to imply that your omnipotent god hasn't got the smarts to figure out how it should use its power to prevent cancer from recurring?]
I'm implying that our omnipotent God isn't obligated to play doctor.
[So much for the "loves mankind" gag.]
Love isn't the opposite of disease --- in fact [atheistic] love is the cause.
39 comments
If he has the power to heal and refuses to use it, he is malevolant.
"I'm implying that our omnipotent God isn't obligated to play doctor"
Then why pray for healing or anything else?
If two atheists fall in love they will get cancer???
All seems silly to me.
"I'm implying that our omnipotent God isn't obligated to play doctor."
Any being that is truly omnipotent has the moral responsibility to do away with such things as disease.
"Love isn't the opposite of disease --- in fact [atheistic] love is the cause."
I'm not even sure what the hell that's supposed to mean.
What the HELL is WRONG with you, you stupid ass?
Grr. I don't have a bad temper, but people deliberately acting stupid so they can avoid reasonable questions just pisses me off.
So, a parent who loves his/her child with unsurpassing, perfect love, allows his/her child to die from causes s/he could easily prevent and is still parent of the year?
@Damen- "But he does it with young girls anyway because he's a perverted old geezer."
I'm thinking it's young boys; you know, the whole "rainbow" thing.
Love isn't the opposite of disease
Maybe not, but love sure as hell is the opposite of letting someone die of a horrible disease when you could cure it with a wave of your hand.
in fact [atheistic] love is the cause
So everyone who gets a disease must be an atheist? I guess we're all atheists, since we all eventually die ...
I didn't know atheists had a special kind of love. Have you guys been keeping me in the dark?
Anyway AV1611VET I'll tell you something that should be of vital interest to you. That you, Sir, are a NITWIT! Although that is of course kind of obvious by now.
Y'know, if *I* was God and I noticed some people who weren't believing in me but had evolved to a point where they could understand love and moral (or even Morall) values on their own, I'd be *delighted*. It would mean I'd created creatures who were naturally drawn towards good and didn't need my guidance any more.
That said, what the heck is so different about "atheistic love" that it makes people ill? Don't tell me someone actually believes that idea that sex causes horrible diseases if you haven't been married in a church? Anyhow, that wouldn't apply to cancer.
Get lost, AV1611VET. If you love someone with all your heart you'd rather suffer yourself than see them sick. What you describe is like a parent disowning a sick daughter and refusing to see her in hospital because he doesn't approve of her lifestyle choices. And that's NOT love.
"Love isn't the opposite of disease --- in fact [atheistic] love is the cause. "
Oh my god! I think I can think like a fundie! I know what s/he meant!
Fundie reasoning:
All homosexuals are atheists (and vice versa). AIDS is a homosexual disease. Therefore all atheistic love spreads disease!
I think that is really what s/he meant.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
