Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First of all, the fact that we exist would only prove that A god exists, some kind of creating force that somehow (unexplainedly) managed to create a universe.
The fact that we exist says NOTHING about Christianity being true - and it says NOTHING about whether this creating force is Yahweh God of the Christians (or more accurately, the god of a desert tribe called the Hebrews).
You're making this unsubstantiated leap from A to N without making a case for any of the points in between.
Would it be fair then to say that the leap of A to B must be proving that the supernatural exists?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
Secondly, I could just as easily claim that our existence is proof that we defied the odds and evolved naturally without any help from a creator. That seems far more logical to me given the serious, even ham-handed flaws in the human body.
Why, for instance, would a creator, especially God who is supposed to be omnipotent, create us so that we have to use the same pipe that we eat with to also breathe with. Does God get a big chuckle of watching people choke? Or ... what kind of idiot would design our reproductive organs to be right next to, and in some cases doubling as, our waste ejection organs? Thanks, Mr. Creator, for exposing us to all of that harmful bacteria every time we have a go in the hay, so to speak.
The human body is a marvel, and man can not even come remotely close to reproducing the intricate mechanics of our body. Yet that doesn't stop skeptics for claiming that they could have designed the human body better. As for the choking example, if it was such a design flaw, why isn't everyone choking on a daily basis? Instead, most of us can eat hundreds of times in our lifetime and never choke because of designed features like the epiglottis which directs food correctly. And what about the flipside? Why would evolution create man with this type of anatomy? You might as well be blaming God for creating holes in our ears for bugs to crawl in or skin that can be easily penetrated. He created features that protect our bodies and keep us alive, but it is not bad design because the human body can not combat every possible dangerous elements or the thousands of ways to die. Human stupidity plays a role in that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
And speaking of sex, it is nonsense to believe that a creator (God) stuck us with a) wanting sex all the time and b) making it one of the most powerful biological urges while making sex dangerous and laying down rules that essentially forces us to war against our own bodies.
Moreover, there are all of the "extras" left over in the human body that have since been phased out via evolution. The appendix, for instance. Did God create us with that ticking bomb just to giggle when it burst and killed people? That's all it seems to do. Or how about male nipples? That's always a good one. Or goosebumps. Did you know that reaction was from an era when our bodies were covered with fur? It allowed us to raise our hackles - like a cat, to make ourselves appear larger, more powerful to our adversaries. Or wisdom teeth which usually have to be removed because the human jaw has grown smaller via evolution, giving wisdom teeth nowhere to grow.
This is where I have a problem with people putting so much faith in science. Your argument is flawed because it assumes that we have achieved complete 100% supreme knowledge of the human body. How do you know that there isn't an important function of the appendix that we don't know about?
Examples like male nipples suggest that every physical feature on the human body must serve an important active function. The male nipples serve quite well as part of sexual stimulation. Why isn't that good enough? Also, does evolution explain why males have nipples? Did we once breast feed??
No, the text actually shows that Abraham lied to Isaac about the nature of the sacrifice, so of course he'd carry the wood.
First, in Genesis 22:5, Abraham told his servants to stay with the donkeys, that he and the boy (Isaac) would go over there (to the sacrificial place) and worship and then WE will come back to you.
We.
Who do you suppose Abraham meant by "we" ... that ubiquitous mouse in his pocket? Of course not. I'm quite certain Isaac was within earshot when Abraham gave instructions to his servants. Abraham had to tell a bald-faced lie about both of them coming back so that Isaac wouldn't know what was REALLY going to happen.
Abraham believed that God would raise Isaac from the dead if he went through with it. That's how "we" would have gone back.
Quote:
Secondly, when Isaac asked where the lamb was for the sacrifice, Abraham again lied by saying God would provide it.
He did provide it.
Quote:
Obviously Isaac was completely clueless that he, himself, was to be the sacrifice. This scene only makes this story all the more disgusting - because it clearly shows the absolute and innocent trust Isaac had in his father, and Abraham was knowingly going to betray that trust. What's worse, the Bible portrays Abraham having absolutely no remorse, sadness, reluctance, or regret for having to murder his own son (and lie about it to lure Isaac like a prey animal to the place of sacrifice).
Any parent should be mortified at this story - and should regard Abraham as nothing short of a villain. How many awful times have we read in the papers or seen on the news a story about how a parent violated the unwavering trust of a child? Sometimes it was to molest them, some times it was to rape them, sometimes it was to kill them. And we all, rightfully so, feel absolute loathing for that parent.
But oh no, not with Abraham. No, he's a friggin' HERO, a paragon of faith, the founder of the Religions of the Book.
It only proves my point about how Christianity literally twists and perverts morality; it rots morality like a festering disease.
Henceforth in the story, Isaac's reaction is not even mentioned. The Bible just says Abraham bound Isaac and threw him on the altar. Was Isaac scared? Why wouldn't he be? The Bible never says that Abraham took the time to explain the situation to Isaac and Isaac willingly went to die. Nope. It was deception from the very beginning, so it stands to reason that, once more, Isaac let his father bind him out of that heart-wrenching trust a son has for his father. A trust so sickeningly betrayed. Perhaps that's what this story ought to teach us - though then we would argue that betraying trusts grants rewards from God.
Moderator cut: delete
Quote:
Oh, and as an aside about this story, here's what I find interesting:
Genesis 22:18 says that, because Abraham obeyed God, ALL of the nations of earth would be blessed. Yeah, ALL of them ... not just America. This verse should show any Biblical adherent that American Exceptionalism is a load of steaming manure.
Okay, carry on.
all nations were blessed. Through him the Messiah came. People from all nations can be saved as a result. I have no idea what American Exceptionalism has to do with it.
Last edited by june 7th; 08-19-2014 at 12:11 PM..
Reason: Inappropriate as you know.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,928,903 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
I'm not the one that started the thread.
Vizio, then I will ask you directly why this concept of morality is not valid, in your mind. No god of any sort needed, is that why?
If it feels good, do it.
If it harms you or someone else, don't.
Simple, direct, self-explanatory, workable, applicable in all situations, and best of all, needs no god to be involved. No sacred texts to advise people. It just works.
Vizio, then I will ask you directly why this concept of morality is not valid, in your mind. No god of any sort needed, is that why?
If it feels good, do it.
If it harms you or someone else, don't.
Simple, direct, self-explanatory, workable, applicable in all situations, and best of all, needs no god to be involved. No sacred texts to advise people. It just works.
I've not said it was wrong, or invalid. I'm just asking you why you believe we should use this system? Can you answer that? What makes this the "best" system? Because you think it is? Because it matches your set of criteria?
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,928,903 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
I've not said it was wrong, or invalid. I'm just asking you why you believe we should use this system? Can you answer that? What makes this the "best" system? Because you think it is? Because it matches your set of criteria?
As I said:
Quote:
Simple, direct, self-explanatory, workable, applicable in all situations, and best of all, needs no god to be involved. No sacred texts to advise people. It just works.
It can match anyone's criteria, but the best part is that it requires NO doctrinal belief system. It works whether you are a fundy christian, fundy muslim, fundy jew, fundy pastafarian, fundy wiccan, or fundy anything. It also works if for those that are fundy nothing, or just plain are not associated or believe in any god or set of gods.
So, if we all keep in mind:
If it feels good, do it.
If it harms you or someone else, don't.
We can dispense with the religion argument about it only can define morality. Whether religion of any kind provides other needs, is a different discussion. But clearly, the morality construct does not require religion, faith or doctrine.
It can match anyone's criteria, but the best part is that it requires NO doctrinal belief system. It works whether you are a fundy christian, fundy muslim, fundy jew, fundy pastafarian, fundy wiccan, or fundy anything. It also works if for those that are fundy nothing, or just plain are not associated or believe in any god or set of gods.
So, if we all keep in mind:
If it feels good, do it.
If it harms you or someone else, don't.
We can dispense with the religion argument about it only can define morality. Whether religion of any kind provides other needs, is a different discussion. But clearly, the morality construct does not require religion, faith or doctrine.
So if anyone disagrees with you....who is right? And why?
I someone tells you that you are being hurtful, then you are. You will have to reconsider your actions.
OK? And is that bad? If so...why? How do you determine it's bad?
I keep asking you these questions....you either cannot comprehend the question of WHY? Or you just don't know how to answer it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
