Who Let the Dogs Out?

[POI]

Theists will state Satan rules the roost here on earth. But someday, God will (contain/remove/isolate/other) him.

Imagine you possessed a very violent dog. He attacks or disrupts all animals and all people for which he encounters. Your only job is to contain him, by leash. You opt not to, citing free will or something other. Would you be considered wise?

For Debate:

Someday, God is going to contain Satan, but not yet. Why?

[Purple Knight]

Yes. The point being, perhaps, that the advice should be taken on its' own merits and not on side issues such as what their character is or is claimed to be (unless the point being argued is based on character). I look at an argument about history or cosmology or whatever on its' own merits and don't consider whether they have a grubby personal record, which is perhaps why I sometimes mistake which 'side' a poster here is on. I don't list which ones are believers and which are not.

I'm with you 99% of the way here. Arguments about things other than morality, about history, cosmology, whether a fish has legs, sure, I think even if the argument is clearly badly motivated, it might still be a good one. It's part of open debate to let anyone throw anything they have at the wall and see what sticks.

I just also think we should avoid, at all costs, the situation where kind stupid people are bamboozled into listening to smart evil people because all that counts is the argument, which they don't fully understand of course, so they now have to accept. I think people have this instinct that they don't have to listen to Bob about morality if Bob is a murderer or paedophile, and I think it's a great instinct that needs to be encouraged, not refuted.

You have these churches and paedophiles flock into them, and it's already a problem, the only way these people ever get booted out is because people universally reject being bamboozled by a known rapist, and if you propagate the idea that logic is on their side when they rape children and raping children doesn't mean they're unqualified to speak on morality, I'm afraid this problem will get worse.

I also think this instinct and people manipulating it have gone out of control in the case of politics. If you want in, but you're an outsider, they will just find something on you. They can find something. Perhaps you picked your nose at one point, and because the voter has been trained like a dog to only use this instinct and expect unhealthy levels of squeaky-clean, he won't vote for you. Whereas if you're an insider they'll just cover it up. So there's a case for discarding it, yes. I just don't know if it outweighs the benefit.

like for instance the impudent claim that being a Christian is supposed to mean that they are morally better than non Christians.

They might think it's true but if they put that out there then let's address it. Atheists commit the fewest crimes.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #51]

Yes. Finger -pointing and claims of Bias go both ways, but in fact bias doesn't matter; because if the argument is sound, then the person making can be as partial as you like - if the argument is sound. The Bias flag is relevant as a signal that the claim can't be taken on trust, not either way. The claim that the 1914 prophecy was validated was of course biased, and that signalled that it needed to be checked. It turned out to be really not that accurate but a near miss is enough to Interpret it a bit so the end days is claimed to be the start of final prophecy, now 100 years old and not looking much like it. Which didn't stop it being claimed again later on. And there's probably bias in the Atheist argument. There's as much bias in my suggestion that the order of events in the Assyrian Siege of Jerusalem is reversed (the submission was after the siege had begun, not before) as in my opponent's insistence that Bible was right, miracle and all, and you can't believe what the Assyrians say.

So some claims are more compelling than others, (though the faithful can dismiss even solid hard evidence) and in some cases they can make a pretty good counter claim, though that only means the atheists have a no better argument than the believers, and in some cases, not. But it's always been about getting public knowledge out there and that means first those who do the talking have to hear that the nativities can't both be true, the resurrections really don't fit together and Daniel is not a prophecy but a history.

Anyway, way off the topic of why God doesn't tether Satan, but we can guess why; Stan is doing God's dirty work for him. That is if one believes either in Satan - or God.

[POI]

Bumping this topic for some new blood. Any believers to address this debate topic?