You have still failed to explain why it is that, if your god has the kind of power that would allow him to murder all the amputees with but a single word, he cannot equally grant them all the miracle they so devoutly wish for and restore their missing limb. All those rededicated worshippers! All those new converts!

From you, as with every other fundamentalist believer i have ever had the misfortune to have to engage with, we just get empty platitudes and a verse from the bible. Often pretty, but with little function or relevance.God is Love? No, actions speak louder than a platitude, and there is no real world evidence of that. And granting amputees their wish for a restored limb would be a fantastic act of love – a worldwide declaration of love,and power and a willingness to use it to shelter and support humanity. But no, what we do get is, ermm, nothing at all – because there is no one there.

This idea that god would just strike down all he hates, so the fact that there has not been a genocide of amputees is evidence of a lack of gods hate for amputees is so lacking in logic, so circular, that I am surprised you are not burning in shame for offering it in a public forum. So tell us all again – why does god hate amputees so much that he cannot be bothered to grant them their most earnest wish? To put their faith on trial for everyone else to see? Must be a sociopath then. Or it it because they do not exist?

Then you talk about how powerful god is. You claim that god cannot hate amputees, because with just one word, he could kill them all.The fact that he hasn’t is evidence in your mind that he does not hate amputees? Only in the mind of the deluded could that piece of circular logic actually seem like evidence. And the opposite is equally true – If god is as powerful as you claim , able to suspend or circumvent the laws of nature and become a mass murderer just by uttering a word, then he should, just by uttering a word, be able to regrow all those amputees missing limbs. Surely a loving god, one who is capable of such miraculous feats would do this? Think of all the undying gratitude and renewed faith of the believers! Think of all the new converts!

No, more fairy-tale thinking on your part i am sorry to say. The evidence says that a deity is extremely improbable.And if there is a god, it is either uncaring of the plight of its worshippers, or positively hates them.

So – once more, I ask you – Why does god hate amputees? Why does god not give all those devout amputees the miracle they all crave – a new limb?

And you prate about god bestowing “gods grace”, as if it some measurable, quantifiable state which offers actually benefits to the recipient- when it is actually nothing of the sort. According to fellow travellers of yours, god gives his devotees this even though they do not deserve it, because he loves them! This meaningless drivel sustains the true believer but it carries no weight outside of that circle.

Tell us all again – Why does god hate amputees? Why does he deny the devout and fervent believer of his the small miracle that they have been desperately praying for night after night, and bestow a limb upon them? Oh, they may well put a brave face on it – they may come to terms with the loss of their limb(s). They will demonstrate bravery and fortitude and resolution in adapting to their loss. But they will still pray for that miracle. And your selfish, powerless god will continue to deny them. After all, how else can you describe someone who denies people what they want, gives them nothing and tells them to be grateful they get even that?

I wll tell you why- because he does not exist except in the confines of the believers mind. An outdated precept of superstitious origin, created by frightened people to explain the natural phenomena and our place in the universe. We now know better, we have no need for such a man -made construct. It is time to put away our toys.

Your attempt to defend a “trial of faith” as a marketing exercise for christianity rather than an information exercise for god is both risible and pathetic.

The only conclusion that any sane,rational person can come to about the whole Abraham-Isaac human sacrifice thing is that Abraham was deluded maniac who decided to follow the instructions of the voices in his head to murder his son in a sacrificial manner. Hypothetically, were a deity to exist who actually instructed Abraham to commit this act, what could we conclude about that deity? Again, rationally speaking. the only conclusion we can draw is that the deity is a jealous and insecure entity, continually testing the faith of even his most faithful adherents! A somewhat difficult marketing sell, it seems to me.

And you still have not explained just why it is god hates amputees? According to you, god is using amputees as a marketing tool, proclaiming their continued belief in a deity which, although allegedly omnipotent, decides not to exercise compassion and perform a miracle, replacing the missing limb, but would rather cynically exploit them to offer some sort of PR message!

Does any of this sound rational, or sane or logical to you? No, the only conclusion we can draw from the lack of any miraculous replacement of a phantom limb for a devout amputee is that god does not exist; The alternative is that there is a deity- one that is so petty, so insecure, so jealous, so xenophobic of other faiths that he would goad one of his flock to murder his own child, or deny any compassionate treatment of amputees. Some god, some message.

You say that “God does not hate amputees. He merely allowes them to go through that. The reason could be a number of things. The reason could be either as a trial or testing period of the person’s faith, it could be as a “whale”( or great fish) in their life, or to draw them closer to himself, or to attract them to be saved, but the reason is never because He hates the amputee.”

He “merely allows them to go through that” – as if it is a mere trifle, a bagatelle, something easily dismissed. And why does he do this? Why does this omnipotent, omniscient, being who again according to you can transcend or suspend the very laws of nature in order to perform a miracle? To “Test their Faith” – And the really sick thing about this, is that you think that such a reason would be acceptable from a loving god. Why would such a god need to test them anyway? Knowing all, seeing all, god would surely know exactly how strong their faith was.

The excuses for inaction by your supposed god become evermore stretched, everymore improbable. The bible contains inconsistencies and errors. It is a non contemporaneous book of myths, and stories and parables, but it contains no evidence, no divine wisdom.

These are the propositions that we can conclude; If your god exists, he hates amputees, or is such an unfeeling, jealous jerk he is willing to subject them to misery and futile praying in order to “test their faith” – already knowing just how faithful they are!

Or,

He does not exist.

Which is the most likely? ( hint: Real world, actual evidence supports the second option)

You still have not answered the question; Why does god hate amputees? You offer the anodyne “god loves everyone- even you ” response, which is a response devoid of any substantive points.There are, and there will have been throughout history amputees without number who were devout believers, conscientious christians, slavishly following doctrine – And of those amputees, many will have devoutly wished for – prayed to god for – a miracle – the miraculous replacement of their missing limb.

How often has god responded? Ermm….. never. This omnipotent, omniscient being, capable of cirumventing the laws of physics and biology and nature is either incapable of replacing the limb, or indifferent to those prayers.

So, I ask you again – Why does your god hate amputees? Why does he refuse to answer their prayers? why does he not offer the odd miracle here and there? The simplest answer is the most likely one, and the simple answer is that there is no-one there.

Your god has no evidence base and no plausibility. Just a heavily edited holy book that is constantly “re-interpreted” by the faithful to mean anything they want it to mean. Your refusal to question the dogma of your church leads you to reject reality, reject the real world observation and evidence supporting fundamental scientific concepts such as evolution.

However, since you mention the Gospel of John it is worth mentioning that scholars have agreed that of the four gospels, the words and actions attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of John are the least historically accurate. The work of Jesus Seminar – which does include conservative Christian scholars from fundamentalist seminaries, as well as those who have a more liberal view of the New Testament – have come to a consensus based on their understanding of textual analysis that most of Mark is likely things the historic figure of Jesus actually said or did; Matthew and Luke have a bit of historical accuracy and a bit of fiction added by later scribes, translation issues/errors, or simply revisions to present a certain orthodoxy; while John is primarily content added by later scribes, translation issues/errors, or simply revisions to present a certain orthodoxy.

I would actually challenge you to sit with the book of Genesis and a notepad, and write down what God did on each of the first seven days each time it is mentioned. You can similarly sit down with the four gospels and write a chronology of the life of Jesus. In both instances you will find that things are out of order. What God does on each day of the week changes with its different descriptions, and the things that are described in terms of the life of Jesus also fall out of order from one Gospel to the next (and interestingly enough, when the same story is told in two or more Gospels it is often at odds in the details).

As a scholar, I did want to add this to the discussion – as the contributions that you, napplegate, have made to this discussion thus far have been based solely on a changing intepretation of your good book… Literal in some instances and figurative or metaphorical in others. It would do you good to actually do some research – using scholarly, as opposed to dogmatic sources – to see how the Bible, and in particular the New Testament, was arrived at and the rationale for the decisions about inclusion and exclusion of the various books. It would also do you well to learn something about textual analysis, so you can see how much of what you are clinging to has been added by scribed and biblical leaders well after the original orthodoxy was established to suit the dogma of one group over another. I’d be happy to recommend some books that have been written by scholar for popular audiences (as not to be too academic), if you’re interested. I suspect that you own dogma will mean a negative response, but I felt it proper to offer it all the same.

What were Jesus’ last words, according to the bible? ( clue: 3 different versions)
How many months of famine did God promise David? (cliue: 2 different periods)
How about whether God can be seen or not? ( clue: bible seems unsure)
How did Judas die? ( At least 2 different accounts)
How old was Jehoiachin when he started his reign ( At least 2 different ages)

There are a lot more, but I grow bored. The bible has inconsistencies. The bible is not inerrant. Get over it.

You still have not answered any of my questions. Where, in evolutionary teaching, does it claim that the origin of the universe, or the origin of the solar system can be explained by evolution? Where, in evolutionary teaching, does it explain how life came to be?
Where, in evolutionary teaching, does it claim that man was descended from an ape?

You could also answer a question for me – why does god hate amputees?

How about this then?
LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
Neither Hares nor Rabbits chew the cud.

or this?
MAT 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
Which mountain did the devil use, that can show all the kingdoms of the world – on a spherical body like the earth?

Which snake is it that eats dirt?
GEN 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

There are plenty of examples of inconsistencies and inerrancies. And we have not even started on the likely selective editing for political purposes especially during its early history.
You wish us to believe the bible offer a literal interpretation of the creation of the earth – but insist upon a metaphorical interpretation when challenged.

Intellectual dishonesty, outright bias and rejection of science typify the mindset of the evangelical ,along with a wilful misunderstanding of what little they might think they understand about evolution. I find it immensely depressing.

Which first–beasts or man?

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Now, going back to your original diatribe – you show me anywhere that a science or an evolution text has claimed that the genesis of the universe or the solar system or life on earth can be explained by evolution. Whats that? You can’t? Thought not – more evidence of your scientific illiteracy….

Since you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of evolution, your comments about de-evolution can safely be dismissed as faith inspired rambling too. Apes having claws or even greater strength proves that humans have “de-evolved”? This is just an absurd reductionism. This is the same kind of specious logic that allows other faithheads to attempt to “disprove” evolution by pointing out that yeast has not yet evolved into man, Fatuous analogy.

Your other arguments attempting to assert the bible as being 100% accurate when it comes to science are equally poor. The bible, when talking about the shape of the earth, talks about edges, and corners, and pillars. for instance.The bible is full of contradictions and errors. In all seriousness, and without wishing to be unduly offensive, anyone who seriously believes that the bible is inerrant is delusional.

Primitive tribes having a religion all their own is unremarkable, and certainly does little to support the notion of a god, since most of their religions revolve around animism. A primitive tribe spouting the bible when first contacted might be interesting though.

I cannot speak for all atheists, but i can tell you this. In my heart of hearts, I know there is no god, but as a scientist, I cannot speak with complete certainty, of course – There always has to be room for the highly improbable. The certainty with which you pronounce on subjects where you demonstrably know nothing illustrates the dangers of dogmatism to any impartial reader out there.