Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on February 10, 2012 at 2:16am

You're aware, Tex, that in Genesis, all of the animals in the Garden of Eden were vegetarians - can't you just imagine a tiger sinking those canines into a mango? Only after the "flood," was Man allowed to eat meat. Can't you just imagine Adam coming home after a hard day's work in the fields, saying, "What, grass AGAIN?! We just had grass LAST night!"

(While I believe that what I say is true, you might want to run it past Nelson, for an accuracy-check - that would appear to be his forte.)

pax vobiscum,
archaeopteryx
www.in-His-own-image.com

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tex on February 10, 2012 at 9:17pm

LoL...Case in point, he's one sadistic POS.

I was thinking he could have created all animals using some type of osmosis to feed or he could have made man like walking celery sticks so all we would need is sun and water or something along that line, he is god after all. I think he could have made us to require a little less maintenance...lol.

He didn't plan things worth a crap. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Bumbalough on February 12, 2012 at 3:52pm

The Genesis creation myths were probably originally used to explain a limited set of issues facing iron age communities in the Levant, cross roads of empires. Only much later in the Middle Ages did Christian theologian-philosophers segway into speculations regarding consequences of Creation Ex-Nihilo by the hybrid deity their predecessors had fabricated by stuffing the guts of the Platonic philosoper's God into the hollow shell of the Hebrew tribal totem God, YHWH. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Bumbalough on February 12, 2012 at 3:43pm

Hello Tex: I too live in Texas, so I'm very sure your own understanding, derived from observation of your neighbors, that "believing in" a set of religious propositions to derive emotional comfort in a community of like minded individuals is quite different from integrating factual knowledge that a set of propositions is harmonious with reality is intact. Its no surprise there are so many little chruches about as the ratio of believers to non-believers is very high. These people are not stupid, and they are very able to compartmentalize their religious faith and cognitive works in segregation from knowledge used for normal worldly pursuits.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Bumbalough on February 12, 2012 at 3:08pm

Hello Helen. Your point is well phrased and points to the heart of Abrahamic Theism's gross failure to account for, explain, or offer any viable method to live and deal with suffering. That my Christian friends is why Buddhism is so preferable to either Jesusism, Mosesism, or Mohammadism (and Hinduism too) despite the supernatural superstitions in Buddhism.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on February 9, 2012 at 11:59am

Couldn't GET more off-topic, but I just had to share - here's a whack-job's website that maintains that Adolph Hitler was the second coming of "our Lord, Lucifer Christ" - http://oregoncoug.wordpress.com/2011/04/18/answer-to-a-question-by-...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Little on February 9, 2012 at 8:01pm

Pardon my pun, but.... OMFG!! There are some freakin' Wackadoodles out there! Thank you for sharing that link!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ateo1979 on February 9, 2012 at 1:03pm

It's hard to debunk an ignorant mind and sometimes it's a battle left to be uncontested, unless you enjoy the aggravation of trying to explain to a closed mind that there need not be a Creator for existence.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Bumbalough on February 12, 2012 at 3:59pm

Hello Ateo1979. Its really not hard to debunk a religious mind when its understood that the reason for belief is not the same as reason for thinking faith propositions true. What has to  be done is to offer an emotional support community to replace similar functions of the religious institution because the former reasons have meaning priority and significance over the later.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mo Trauen on February 9, 2012 at 1:45pm

It's an unjustified assumption and reveals their circular reasoning.  No one knows why the universe exists.  Saying "godidit" only shows that one has already assumed the existence of god.  We don't even know what the possible causes of existence are and we have no reason to assume that god is even on the list.  Anyone who claims to know how the universe came to be is either a liar, a fool, or a madman (or some combination thereof).  And, being agnostic on the question of the universe's origins is not the same as being agnostic as to god's existence.  Religious people assume it is the same, but that only proves their circular reasoning again.

Try these:

http://goodatheistarguments.blogspot.com/2010/09/believers-ask-well...

http://goodatheistarguments.blogspot.com/2010/10/does-universes-exi...

http://goodatheistarguments.blogspot.com/2010/10/does-universes-exi...

http://goodatheistarguments.blogspot.com/2010/11/is-earthuniverse-j...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dave G on February 9, 2012 at 1:48pm

"You haven'teven demonstrated that your god exists, much less that it was responsible for creaating the universe."

also

"If one was taught that pixies cause rain, then even storm would be seen as evidence of pixies existiong. That doesn't mean they do."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Little on February 9, 2012 at 8:05pm

Lmao! Your last statement made me giggle out loud, lol! Cute (I even had a cute little visual of Pixies- not to be confused with The Pixies, lol!)!

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• …
• 10
• Next ›
• Page