I thought this was quite the interesting thought. I was gonna write this
as a response to one of a other discussions, but thought that I'd like
to get a bigger audience in on this one.
Many, if not all, good atheist believe that God simply does not exist. But I beg to ask the question: "If he doesn't exist and nothing in creation lends to the existence of God, why do we have so many thoughts about God? Are not our thoughts shaped by our environment? If our environment does not support the existence of a God, why do so many of us rule him into the equation? Is it that we are inclined to desire a god. Are we naturally inclined to think about one irrespective of our environment?"
The light bulb was created based on something that already existed, light! So I imagine Ben Franklin was inspired by the sun. Even the delusional has inspiration of thoughts based on things that exist. So why do we think about God if he doesn't even exist?
Yes, how is showing how the universe works insulting? The real universe is much more interesting than the universe described in the Bible. The ancient Jews, Sumerians, Babylonians and Egyptians did the best they can but they were limited technologically. They made a good effort to understand the universe but we now know better.
Exactly. It wouldn't be insulting to say that doctors of the Bronze Age would not be able to comprehend medical technology today. It's a fact. We know more than we knew then. And our descendants will (hopefully) comprehend more than we do now.
I missed the insult. I think the post is about the huge, awesomeness of the universe that no one could have known thousands or even hundreds of years ago. I could see how you might think it's irrelevant since God didn't mention any of this wondrous science, but it's not insulting.
it is so beyond the conceptions of the those people that wrote the Bible that they would think they were Wonderland if they really saw the micro and macro complexity we all take now for granted I just thought it interesting that doone would include this in the post. Was it really necessary in bring across the point? I am not at all offended, no reason to be really. Yet these kinds of post show some character, which I believe we all ought to be careful in showing. Words don't have smiley faces and joking characters and can often be misunderstood.
If you mean in reality, there are very few parental divorces so the argument is kind of moot.
If you mean in the metaphorical sense then I completely disagree with the analogy as it is dependent on original belief. Children start out without beliefs, those have to be taught and are usually done so by parents.
Either way the sidenote was a fairly inane question.
the reality of it happening is not the argument. It is a rare occurrence. The argument is that someone said that parental divorce is ok! The mindset behind such a person Is what we ought to take a look at. Obviously that person doesn't think well of family. And as we know, family is the building block of a great society. Without that solid family structure, we are sure to fall. Which also begs the question: if everyone decided to become gay and hence relied on technology for the propagation of the human race, would societies fall as we know it. Or would we have simply evolved into something greater. Anyways, that's a discussion i'll leave for a couple months down the line.