Debate Comments: Bible or Atheism

[ImprobableJoe]

Really, pecker and titty size? No way is biology proof of supernatural anything... in fact, the existence of biology AT ALL is an argument against an god-like intelligent designer. Period.

Magical God-guy? He doesn't invent DNA or any moving parts at all. A perfect creator doesn't need extra bits like dicks or boobies.

 

[Thomas Doubting]

Really, pecker and titty size? No way is biology proof of supernatural anything... in fact, the existence of biology AT ALL is an argument against an god-like intelligent designer. Period.

Magical God-guy? He doesn't invent DNA or any moving parts at all. A perfect creator doesn't need extra bits like dicks or boobies.

Yeah quite obvious that if we are designed.. the designer must be a brainless tool.
Takes 4 bil years to rewrite the sub-microscopic RNA into DNA of all the fragile and imperfect life all around us.. I mean why does he need to rewrite the "code" at all if he is the super magic sky daddy who speaks things into existence.. makes the universe out of less than thin air within a day but then he needs to start with a bacterium and brain dead viruses to come up with such a ridiculous construct like the human body.. after billions of years.
Why would i worship some fuckwit like that? Lol.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Yeah quite obvious that if we are designed.. the designer must be a brainless tool.
Takes 4 bil years to rewrite the sub-microscopic RNA into DNA of all the fragile and imperfect life all around us.. I mean why does he need to rewrite the "code" at all if he is the super magic sky daddy who speaks things into existence.. makes the universe out of less than thin air within a day but then he needs to start with a bacterium and brain dead viruses to come up with such a ridiculous construct like the human body.. after billions of years.
Why would i worship some fuckwit like that? Lol.

Yeah, it is my "Bugs Bunny argument against the existence of God" thing. Does any Christian claim that angels have internal organs? Why or why not?

 

[Thomas Doubting]

Yeah, it is my "Bugs Bunny argument against the existence of God" thing. Does any Christian claim that angels have internal organs? Why or why not?

Do not despair my friend, the religious brain has all the answers you need, just pick one.

1) Yes, Goddidit.
2) No, Goddidit.
3) I don't know, because Goddidit that i can't understand him, however, Goddidit.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Do not despair my friend, the religious brain has all the answers you need, just pick one.

1) Yes, Goddidit.
2) No, Goddidit.
3) I don't know, because Goddidit that i can't understand him, however, Goddidit.

So, in other words no answer at all. How wrong and illogical are these people... and why are they often so eager to show it off?

 

[Anachronous Rex]

We can make good guesses as to the social conditions under which we first evolved by comparing our reproductive morphology and behviours to that of other primates.

And indeed when this is done, it becomes obvious that even under the most conservative models humans are not designed for the sort of monogamist relationships outlined in any of the world's allegedly holy books. Some of the more radical models go so far as to postulate that natural human sexuality resembles that of bonobos (i.e. is communal), and has most likely been skewed by the society of agriculture (which emphasizes possessiveness.) I recommend the book Sex at Dawn for more information.

So apparently god played quite a trick on us by commanding us to be monogamous, and then programing our bodies and minds for adultery.

 

[Thomas Doubting]

So, in other words no answer at all. How wrong and illogical are these people... and why are they often so eager to show it off?

HMMM...

That's a good question.. if i may guess:

1) they want to "save your soul"?
2) they fear your "irrational" influence on the world.. and want to tell you the "truth"?
3) fuck it, i can do that too, Goddidit?

And indeed when this is done, it becomes obvious that even under the most conservative models humans are not designed for the sort of monogamist relationships outlined in any of the world's allegedly holy books. Some of the more radical models go so far as to postulate that natural human sexuality resembles that of bonobos (i.e. is communal), and has most likely been skewed by the society of agriculture (which emphasizes possessiveness.) I recommend the book Sex at Dawn for more information.

So apparently god played quite a trick on us by commanding us to be monogamous, and then programing our bodies and minds for adultery.

I also heard he placed the appendix into our bodies to confuse us and test our faith.. just like he did with the fossils.

 

[Isotelus]

We can make good guesses as to the social conditions under which we first evolved by comparing our reproductive morphology and behviours to that of other primates.

And indeed when this is done, it becomes obvious that even under the most conservative models humans are not designed for the sort of monogamist relationships outlined in any of the world's allegedly holy books. Some of the more radical models go so far as to postulate that natural human sexuality resembles that of bonobos (i.e. is communal), and has most likely been skewed by the society of agriculture (which emphasizes possessiveness.) I recommend the book Sex at Dawn for more information.

I read a paper a while ago that explored the possiblity of sperm competition occurring amongst humans as well, and the male penis evolving in part to displace other men's semen from the vagina. That would also suggest humans, as you say, are naturally promiscuous.

So apparently god played quite a trick on us by commanding us to be monogamous, and then programing our bodies and minds for adultery.

God must have a great sense of humour. I'll bet he's laughing is holy buttocks off right now. Kinda like that: :lol:

 

[Gnug215]

Do not despair my friend, the religious brain has all the answers you need, just pick one.

1) Yes, Goddidit.
2) No, Goddidit.
3) I don't know, because Goddidit that i can't understand him, however, Goddidit.

So, in other words no answer at all. How wrong and illogical are these people... and why are they often so eager to show it off?

Cognitive dissonance is a bitch.

If there ever were a good argument for a creator, it has to be the state of human psychology. Not the brain, but the mental state, because nowhere in the universe seems there to exist such a massive capacity for fuckedupness and delusion as in the human mind. The fact that nature has been able to conjure up this kind of messed up is incomprihensible.

Seriously, though. What we're most likely looking at is a clash of emotions and intellect inside a single mind. I'm not saying that either of them is particularly well-developed or poorly developed, but they're there, which they are in most minds, and that puts them at odds.
That is to say... I'd argue that the emotional side "has won" in these people's heads, and the intellect is now being dragged along for the ride... kicking and screaming... tied to a rope behind the speeding car.

As a former theist, I know quite well how good one's emotional side can be at controlling the "intellectual state" of the mind. It didn't even feel particularly... dissonancy a lot of the time.

But yeah, if anything, pity these people.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

I liked what he did there:

"You want to talk definitions? Alright."

*Actual Definitions.*

"Come at me, bro."

(In summary, at least)

 

[Squawk]

One of the few occasions where I don't disagree with much of what has been written. My only issues are tiny niggles, and they are niggles not really worth mentioning. Quite an achievement to plow through all the waffle.

I do note that in dotoree's post we once again see an example of a most amusing facit of religious apologetics. The unconcsious recognition that faith is a bad thing, with the subsequent effort to project it onto atheism. People of faith, for the most part, recognise that it is a worthless concept, and seek to taint every other belief with it in an attempt to validate their own position.

On the whole very entertaining. I predict a myriad of dictionary definitions are coming.

 

[australopithecus]

I think Dotoree would be better off re-reading the last thread he started, as it seems he's just rehashing the same arguments again despite those being called out before. By us no less.

 

[Prolescum]

I've just realised why Dotoree waffles on and on and on and on and on... He's under the impression that being Christian gives you an extra ten years of life. That I didn't connect the dots earlier is a source of personal shame.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

I've just realised why Dotoree waffles on and on and on and on and on... He's under the impression that being Christian gives you an extra ten years of life. That I didn't connect the dots earlier is a source of personal shame.

Too bad that 10 will be spent posting in Forum debates at around 10,000 unique words per post.

 

[IBSpify]

I've notoced that dotoree's posts are like nephilimfree's videos, 10 times longer then they should be, is this a common trait among creationists or something?

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

I've notoced that dotoree's posts are like nephilimfree's videos, 10 times longer then they should be, is this a common trait among creationists or something?

The more nonsense and fluff you pile up, the harder it is for people to realize that you have nothing to offer aside from word-games. And when people criticize you for playing wordgames and tossing up fluff and stuff, they're dilluded and trying to cut down your Free Speach!

>.>

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I've notoced that dotoree's posts are like nephilimfree's videos, 10 times longer then they should be, is this a common trait among creationists or something?

Well... if nothing else, piling on pages of rambling nonsense means that if Inferno doesn't address every single letter of every single post, dotoree can claim that things have been taken out of context or Inferno is running away from points he can't recruit, and then he'll claim victory.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

... It's gone oddly quiet in the Debate Thread ...

 

[Squawk]

Not really, it was expected that there would be long gaps between posts. What he lacks in punctuality he more than makes up for in verbosity, so meh.

 

[Prolescum]

I expect there are lawyers, schools, wives and ex-colleagues between TruthisLife7 and the web presently.