The Atheism Thread - Part 7

[Alex_Spider]

Here is a plain denial of what is set before you. You asked at the start if I even read the link and that I only respond as per links?? Yet you yourself in your previous post to me was full of links??? Hmmmmmm....

Yes, God judges fairly and that is why he had to wait until the sins of the people were complete before sending the Hebrew people in. God only punishes when punishment is due. The US in it's many wars kill tons of kids and while sad, it is accepted. Why is it wrong with God? God judges people and their sins and when they reach a certain level, his actions are just. If the kids had lived, they would have caused a future outbreak of sins. But those kids have eternal life. It won't mean anything to you but that's because you are not in the spirit so why would you understand this? Nonetheless, you received an answer to all your questions but you only answered this one. What about all my other answers?

Really? So, we don't have to shed any tear or even care every time a woman, man or child gets ripped to pieces or die from hunger, because the Lord has foreseen that they would commit sinful acts in the future had he let them live? What are u talking' about man...?

 

[Alex_Spider]

And we're done. I'm not a fan of Christians who believe in the end times because they seem so excited about it and they see atheists and homosexuals and feminists as the signs that those times are coming. It's disgusting. People who revel in the idea of the rapture or of sinners being stuck on Earth to rot are awful human beings.

Very well said

 

[Alex_Spider]

http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=55295

Before the flood all people looked like normal folks, white or close to it.

God's curse upon the Hammites caused them to look like apes as a study by a black woman has proven. Being an uppity negress, she naturally comes to the wrong conclusions as to why. She claims it was the white man's dehumanization of blacks and not that it's because they do look like apes.

Christians are superior because we possess an understanding that unbelievers lack. It is through the Power of Jesus only the converted mind is able to understand what is going on in the world; what the Communists are really up to; what Satan's intentions are. Most unbelievers do not even believe in Satan and cannot understand his tactics.

Indeed. The negro race has a lot of ape blood in them. When God created them, I think He used spare monkey parts. This is also what gave birth to the idea of evolution, since people like Darwin saw strong similarities between blacks and apes. I can see why they would be mistaken.

Thank God that I'm a normal white person and not some baboon.

Couldn't take any more of this. Baptists have got to be the worst representation of human beings for sure.

 

[Feenix]

You haven't shown anything to be true. The people in this thread who are rehearsed in the sciences picked apart your arguments and crushed them. I can see why you don't see it, because it would destroy your faith. You should try to free yourself from the constraints of religion and see the world in a more humane and accepting manner.

 

[The End]

Here is a plain denial of what is set before you. You asked at the start if I even read the link and that I only respond as per links?? Yet you yourself in your previous post to me was full of links??? Hmmmmmm....

I've spent such a long time describing my position in my own words. There are paragraphs and paragraphs of my arguments, along with links. It isn't just me going, 'whoop, here's a link'. Except in the case where, I was mocking the end of your post where you just drop a bunch of links with no context, so I dropped a bunch of links with no context at the end of a post of mine as a riff on what you were doing. But that aside, I spent SUCH a long time writing out my position, and for the most part you haven't dealt with what I wrote.

Yes, God judges fairly

How did you determine this?

How do you know the god of the bible is good?

Where does evil come from?

and that is why he had to wait until the sins of the people were complete before sending the Hebrew people in. God only punishes when punishment is due. The US in it's many wars kill tons of kids and while sad, it is accepted.

No, not accepted. Many believe such actions to be unnecessary.

Why is it wrong with God? God judges people and their sins and when they reach a certain level, his actions are just. If the kids had lived, they would have caused a future outbreak of sins. But those kids have eternal life.

You're just making it up. Don't you see that? You're just inventing, wholesale, reasons for why god does what he does as though you understand his will. An omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving god would find a better resolution than commanding the slaughter of children.

Think about this. He commanded children to be killed.

If you think that's justified, you can justify ANY action, making your moral system utterly worthless.

If any human being killed a child, and insisted that they did it because they believed the child would grow up to sin, we would think that person was insane.

It won't mean anything to you but that's because you are not in the spirit so why would you understand this? Nonetheless, you received an answer to all your questions but you only answered this one. What about all my other answers?

Dude, you left massive portions of my post untouched.
Worse than that, you actually in a later post copy/pasted your own statements that I addressed, as though there was no rebuttal to them.

Your bias is so damn deep, that you don't see how you're basically interpreting passages to say whatever the hell you want them to say.

Stars do indeed die and scripture in Isaiah 40:26 does not say anything otherwise. What this scripture says is that stars will not fail to meet God's will for them

That's not what it says.

Here's what it says.

Isaiah 40:26 Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth.

You're making it up, when you say the scripture says they will not fail to meet god's will for them. What does that even mean? If they live, that's god's will. If they die, that's god's will. What a completely arbitrary interpretation. You're adding extra bits to it, so that it makes sense in your head.

It's like making up fan fiction.

And to you, this "stands the test", to the rest of us it just looks like you can interpret it to mean whatever you want it to. It's pretty much good evidence for how delusional a literal interpretation of the bible can make a person.

Continued talk about humans, chimps, etc... having a common ancestor.. I say God could have created many in a very similar way to each other, why couldn't he have done that?

You don't understand what occam's razor is, which I distinctly stated in my original post on human chromosome 2.

Why couldn't god have done that?

Why couldn't the wizard that lives on pluto have done it?

Occam's razor. You're inventing a more complex explanation, than the already available natural explanation, so your argument is invalid. And if you insert magic, you can insert that as an explanation for ANY evidence! It wouldn't actually matter what the evidence is, you could always assert the omnipotent being as the explanation, which makes god unfalsifiable, untestable.

Poetic metaphor does not make these problems go away. That we should ignore evidence that fits the exact predictions of science, and instead conclude that its just the way the magical sky daddy decided to make it, is too much for reasonable people to accept.

You keep using these goofy phrases "for those seeking truth", when its apparent you're NOT interested in seeking truth. You're seeking to confirm your bias, leap to overly complicated conclusions that aren't needed when the natural explanation exists, and invent absurd interpretations of poetic metaphors that you believe contain scientific truths (except when they contradict reality, then they don't mean what they say, they mean something else when you just use your imagination to reinterpret it to say what you want).

This is such an awful, shallow world view and I pity you.

If you're a seeker of truth, you have to be open to being wrong, and it doesn't seem you are. It doesn't seem you're open to accepting the more likely explanations.

 

[The End]

http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=55295











Couldn't take any more of this. Baptists have got to be the worst representation of human beings for sure.

Landoverbaptist is a fake site. They fake being fundamentalists, as satire.

Poe's Law. When you can't tell if someone is a fundamentalist, or just pretending to be a fundamentalist for laughs.

 

[-Arya-]

Isn't our DNA also about 98 or 97% identical to that of mice, except the chimps?

Compared to mice, I believe our DNA is approximately 70-80% identical. I could be wrong about that.

 

[regwec]

All credit to The End, who is perhaps the most patient poster I have ever seen in action.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Third, evolution, as opposed to devolution, is the increasing of genetic information, not the reduction of information, moreover, if ANY animal tried to devolve to lose even a single chromosome, the loss would be fatal for all the future progeny prior to their gestation.

You're talking about the piecemeal loss of entire chromosomes at a time, but a gradual loss of genetic information isn't unfeasible. This is the observed trend, in fact, for many lineages, particularly those that adopt parasitism as a strategy for survival and reproduction. Their genomes tend to be fairly reduced when compared to their next closest relatives.

There are also cases of polyploidy to consider here (redundancy of genetic information via the duplication of entire genomes), but we really don't need to get into that.

Secondly, I see where you're trying to go with this, but the fact is that there was no real loss of "information" when the two chromosomes fused to create human chromosome #2. The loci remained virtually intact. This is because the chromosomes fused at their ends.

Chromosomes are capped on either end by stretches of repetitive non-coding DNA sequences. We call these sequences telomeres.

Telomeres exist to deal with the fact that each time DNA replicates itself, a small fragment is lost at the very end of the strand. This has to do with the process of replication and with the physical/chemical structure of DNA itself (5' --> 3', etc.). With each replication event, instead of losing the important stuff, we lose a little bit of the telomere. No big deal, really. When a cell doesn't have enough telomere left, it results in what we like to call "programmed cell death," or apoptosis. But I digress...

The point is this: on human chromosome #2, we see telomere sequence in the middle of the chromosome, not just at the ends. Furthermore, chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans have DNA sequences that are nearly identical to those found on the human chromosome #2, but they are found on two separate chromosomes. Thus, this fusion resulted in no substantial loss of genetic "information."

Make sense?

Also...and this is very, very important: the loss of genetic information is still evolution. De-evolution isn't actually a thing. It's a misnomer.

 

[Doctor Evo]

I've given my reasons and they've stood the testing around here thus far.

No, they haven't. You refuse to actually discuss them, and to discuss the objections to them.

The only thing the has really been objected against is the "after their kinds" (though it has not been done away with, I could easily show info from a creation site to support what I've said).

Then why don't you?

I also have to disagree - it has been "done away with." The argument for "kinds" ignores any semblance of biological reality, especially when you acknowledge that speciation can and does occur (which you have, more than once, in this thread).

 

[MrsKent26]

Good for you. On the internet, I most often see Christians being called "bible thumpers" as in they are in a sense thumping unbelievers over the heads with their Bibles. I for one appreciate the zeal in people whether or not I agree with or believe what they are saying. I realize that in the end, each person is an individual and deserves to be treated as such.

Also, I am not one that enjoys conflict to the degree I want to engage in it every time I use the internet. Life is too short. However, like you my mind is set and my beliefs are etched in stone as to the 100%, complete veracity of the Bible.

Now, if you will excuse me, I have to go cling to my Bible and guns.

Toodle-loo t:

Ummm...enjoy?

Don't bully him off the thread. I love discussing this stuff. And frankly, the more he gives us, the more holes we can poke, the more he has to reflect on what he believes. It's win-win.

Discussion is fine and wanting to stick to that isn't bullying. He almost admitted back there that he wasn't here for discussion. Attempts to convert the heathens add little to discussion. However, he seems to be discussing today, so it's fine.

 

[Marvolo]

http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=55295











Couldn't take any more of this. Baptists have got to be the worst representation of human beings for sure.

Easy with the hyperboles. Yes, baptist can be repressed bigots and ignorant, but they all arent like that. Ive got a family full of baptists to testify to that.

Speaking of the crazies, I went to school with a fundamentalist baptist kid whos father would not let him untuck his shirts (except when dropping a duece) and they had to wear pants at all times. They swam in windsuits. I **** you not. And at 17 years old this kid didnt know a thing about sex-ed. And I mean he knew absolutely nothing. The basic mechanics of penis goes into the vagina alluded him. Basically in his mind sex was a magical gift from god. When we explained to him the full details he had a look of shock and revulsion on his face. Thats repression you have to experience to believe.

 

[MrsKent26]

Speaking of the crazies, I went to school with a fundamentalist baptist kid whos father would not let him untuck his shirts (except when dropping a duece) and they had to wear pants at all times. They swam in windsuits. I **** you not. And at 17 years old this kid didnt know a thing about sex-ed. And I mean he knew absolutely nothing. The basic mechanics of penis goes into the vagina alluded him. Basically in his mind sex was a magical gift from god. When we explained to him the full details he had a look of shock and revulsion on his face. Thats repression you have to experience to believe.

Holy ****. That's truly frightening. I pity the poor woman who has to give birth to his children. What a lovely sex life they shall have...

 

[regwec]

To be fair, a lifetime of exposure to porn does not seem to turn people into particularly sensitive lovers, either.

 

[Feenix]

To be fair, a lifetime of exposure to porn does not seem to turn people into particularly sensitive lovers, either.

At least they know what's going on.

People fear what they don't understand. In Hitchens' book, "God is Not Great", he talks about the sexually repressed Muslim men who are so naive and so childish in their attitudes towards women that they oppress women because they know nothing about how to speak to one or how to court one and so on.

Maybe if those men had actual conversations with women (and got some sexual experience under their belt) they wouldn't need to fear and hate them.

 

[MrsKent26]

^ It would also help if they weren't indoctrinated from birth with such beliefs. That is how religion and oppressive views thrive.

 

[Lighthouse]

Wanted to know if any other atheists here who have trouble with other atheists? People who have seen me before know I'm a pretty staunch atheist, but I have to admit that I have big problems with others who identify by that title.

I really dislike Richard Dawkins. His whole incident with Rebecca Watson totally soured me to him. I also really hate the r/atheism site on Reddit, which is just filled with massive, trollish a-holes. I find that I don't have too many atheist friends around, not just because of the lack of them, but because they always wanna talk about Dawkins, and I tell them I think Dawkins is an a-hole, and then we don't become friends after that.

 

[MrsKent26]

Wanted to know if any other atheists here who have trouble with other atheists? People who have seen me before know I'm a pretty staunch atheist, but I have to admit that I have big problems with others who identify by that title.

I really dislike Richard Dawkins. His whole incident with Rebecca Watson totally soured me to him. I also really hate the r/atheism site on Reddit, which is just filled with massive, trollish a-holes. I find that I don't have too many atheist friends around, not just because of the lack of them, but because they always wanna talk about Dawkins, and I tell them I think Dawkins is an a-hole, and then we don't become friends after that.

Well, I'm an atheist and I don't know who Dawkins is.

I don't remember having many problems with other atheists. I usually don't have problems with religious folks either unless they try to convert me and/or exhibit extreme or bigoted views.

 

[rodhulk]

I've spent such a long time describing my position in my own words. There are paragraphs and paragraphs of my arguments, along with links. It isn't just me going, 'whoop, here's a link'. Except in the case where, I was mocking the end of your post where you just drop a bunch of links with no context, so I dropped a bunch of links with no context at the end of a post of mine as a riff on what you were doing. But that aside, I spent SUCH a long time writing out my position, and for the most part you haven't dealt with what I wrote.



How did you determine this?

How do you know the god of the bible is good?

Where does evil come from?



No, not accepted. Many believe such actions to be unnecessary.



You're just making it up. Don't you see that? You're just inventing, wholesale, reasons for why god does what he does as though you understand his will. An omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving god would find a better resolution than commanding the slaughter of children.

Think about this. He commanded children to be killed.

If you think that's justified, you can justify ANY action, making your moral system utterly worthless.

If any human being killed a child, and insisted that they did it because they believed the child would grow up to sin, we would think that person was insane.



Dude, you left massive portions of my post untouched.
Worse than that, you actually in a later post copy/pasted your own statements that I addressed, as though there was no rebuttal to them.

Your bias is so damn deep, that you don't see how you're basically interpreting passages to say whatever the hell you want them to say.



That's not what it says.

Here's what it says.

Isaiah 40:26 Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth.

You're making it up, when you say the scripture says they will not fail to meet god's will for them. What does that even mean? If they live, that's god's will. If they die, that's god's will. What a completely arbitrary interpretation. You're adding extra bits to it, so that it makes sense in your head.

It's like making up fan fiction.

And to you, this "stands the test", to the rest of us it just looks like you can interpret it to mean whatever you want it to. It's pretty much good evidence for how delusional a literal interpretation of the bible can make a person.



You don't understand what occam's razor is, which I distinctly stated in my original post on human chromosome 2.

Why couldn't god have done that?

Why couldn't the wizard that lives on pluto have done it?

Occam's razor. You're inventing a more complex explanation, than the already available natural explanation, so your argument is invalid. And if you insert magic, you can insert that as an explanation for ANY evidence! It wouldn't actually matter what the evidence is, you could always assert the omnipotent being as the explanation, which makes god unfalsifiable, untestable.

Poetic metaphor does not make these problems go away. That we should ignore evidence that fits the exact predictions of science, and instead conclude that its just the way the magical sky daddy decided to make it, is too much for reasonable people to accept.

You keep using these goofy phrases "for those seeking truth", when its apparent you're NOT interested in seeking truth. You're seeking to confirm your bias, leap to overly complicated conclusions that aren't needed when the natural explanation exists, and invent absurd interpretations of poetic metaphors that you believe contain scientific truths (except when they contradict reality, then they don't mean what they say, they mean something else when you just use your imagination to reinterpret it to say what you want).

This is such an awful, shallow world view and I pity you.

If you're a seeker of truth, you have to be open to being wrong, and it doesn't seem you are. It doesn't seem you're open to accepting the more likely explanations.

I find it odd that you began your post as you did and the continued with the rest of it as you are completely at odds with the scriptural message and meaning that I addressed. You received all the answers you need, thanks be to God, and what's so great about them is that they all remain as per the post, all glory to God.

For example, you need to understand that the stars that do not fail that you mention is only your interpretation but a weak one. My interpretation is one that results in checking various translations and as per part of my previous reply to other topics, the Hebrew meaning even. In the case of the stars, when other scriptures were used, we get the meaning being conveyed in scripture and that is what I mentioned, the stars never fail "to be in their place at their time." It's not saying they would "never" die. That's what "you're" saying.

I left much of your post untouched you say... perhaps (tho I honestly don't remember where), but I answered more than you answered in your reply.

Just because many don't accept God and the killings he called for doesn't mean it's wrong, it just means that some, as you say, don't accept them. Sure it is painful, so are so many things that I see in the world today including so many posts here, but this is the world we live in and this is the God that rules over us. I have no problems with God judging sin and the punishment for them just like so many have no problem with wars of the past that killed many (including the many children). Yes, these deaths are sad but many accept that to bring about something greater, perhaps even greater amounts of death in the long run had war (or God's lack of punishment) not occurred. For myself and so many, the problem is yours, not mine. God is just and righteous! Amen.

As for the "after their kinds," it does work (even an evolutionists here a couple of years ago had made a comment that "after their kinds" in and of itself doesn't go against evolution - I can agree to the variations inside of "kinds" but not that a new and unique "kind" or perhaps "family" would ever evolve as the Bible doesn't mention that, plus we have the Adam and Eve account) - and that man or beast do not have a common ancestor. Well, I gave my simple reason why as did you. You feel you have the best evidence to what you believe as do I to everything that we understand. I don't have a problem with the way God works. If you want a better explanation, go check some creation sites such as the two that I listed.

I will keep you in prayer.

 

[rodhulk]

No, they haven't. You refuse to actually discuss them, and to discuss the objections to them.

Then why don't you?

I also have to disagree - it has been "done away with." The argument for "kinds" ignores any semblance of biological reality, especially when you acknowledge that speciation can and does occur (which you have, more than once, in this thread).

First, my message isn't just about one topic that you want to address but many topics that show how God is so wonderfully present in the making and unfolding of events (past, present, and future) of our world and universe.

As per my discussions with you, you know why. You lost me in my initial attempt with you. Plus you gave me the impression you were full I'm not here for you for that reason either. I know you don't like that but if you don't like what I bring here, then I'm not here for you.

You are free to think what you want.

 

[Doctor Evo]

I am somewhat familiar with polyploidy (AKA: Down syndrome) insomuch as knowing that it negatively affects both the physical and mental health of people when this redundancy of genetic information occurs.

In animals, polyploidy tends to be fairly detrimental, yes. But it turns out that plants do just fine with it. Go figure.

However, when I say "polyploidy," what I'm really talking about is whole genome duplication. Gene duplication happens in animals all the time with no detectable ill-effects.

As I recall, sheep actually have three fused chromosomes very similar to human #2.

Define "similar."

Did sheep also split from chimps millions of year ago by way of having not one, or two, but three fusions of six different chimp chromosomes? Wait, sheep have 54 chromosomes, so I guess it was a sheep to chimp devolution by way of six sheep chromosomes fusing so as to give chimps a total of 48 chromosomes. Wait, do chimps have three fused chromosomes?

Sheep and chimps did share a common ancestor at one point in time, yes, but we're talking about a split very deep in time here. To treat this divergence as somehow equivalent to that between chimps and humans is simply inappropriate.

Also, you keep using this word "devolution," but you use it incorrectly. I'll address this below.

Seriously, even with three fused chromosomes, sheep are still having sheep as offspring and no macro-evolution is occurring.

Do you really not see the flaw with this reasoning?

I cannot honestly base my beliefs on a single piece of knowledge about the human genome which both geneticists and biologists have no idea of how such a fusion could have occurred. They have their beliefs of what, how, and why happened, but it is all at best speculation at this point.

What makes you think they have no idea how it could have occurred?

So then you believe that the fusion of two chimp chromosomes into a single chromosome created humans (homo-sapiens)?

Nobody is claiming that, Old Timer. Also, because this is a pet-peeve of mine: it's Homo sapiens.

Which came first then, males or females?

I'm afraid I don't understand how this relates to the current topic of conversation.

If you're asking about the origin of sexual reproduction (which occurred long before even mammals arose), I simply don't know. Then again, that's not really my area of expertise. I would imagine, however, that there is a rich literature on this very topic, and I happen to know that it is an active area of research.

If you were so inclined, you could probably find a review paper summing up our knowledge on this topic. But something tells me that you're not legitimately interested in finding an answer to that question...

To me it really makes no sense to believe in macro-evolution based on the existence of a human #2 "fused" chromosome. To make such a leaping conclusion seems at best based on a presuppositional belief system or worldview rather than being based on good scientific discipline.

Well, for my part, I'm not asking you to do any such thing. However, to behave as though it is the ONLY evidence for evolution is more than a bit disingenuous.

Also, just what experience do you have with "scientific discipline," if you don't mind my asking?

Yes, it makes sense the way you put it, but DR EVO, aren't you being a bit liberal with what scientists actually know as opposed to what they don't know about genetics?

Not in the slightest. It is my field, after all. And I'll be the first to admit what we do and what we don't know (provided that it's a subfield with which I'm familiar).

But losing genetic information is NOT evolution. As I said previous, losing genetic information is devolution, or degeneration if you'd rather...

You're aware that I study evolution professionally, correct? The loss of genetic information is indeed evolution. Evolution is not defined as the gain of genetic information.

Most simply, evolution is defined as genetic change in populations over time. More precisely (and yet just as simply), evolution is defined as the shift in allelic frequencies over time.

Thus, even a loss of genetic information constitutes evolution. There is no evolution vs. de-evolution. De-evolution doesn't exist. De-evolution would require the reversion of a population to its ancestor, and it would require that the population to be genetically identical to its predecessors. This simply can't (or, rather, doesn't) happen.

...but semantics aside, and up front I admit I am merely a layman with regards to genetics, how does finding a fused chromosome in humans mean humans split from chimps some multi-millions of years ago?

It is merely one component in a massive and overwhelming body of evidence to that effect. What it does do is explain why we have fewer chromosomes even though we shared a (relatively) recent common ancestor, and make the objection on the basis of this difference obsolete.

Personally, I need more to hang my hat on before throwing away my bible.

Why are you convinced that acceptance of evolutionary theory requires you to disavow your religion? I find this perceived dichotomy concerning, and a bit sad, really.

Now, on the other hand, if I were an atheist, I would readily welcome this kind of speculation.

That would make you a rather stupid atheist, if I do say so myself.

Beyond all of this, I find it rather odd that you've responded to my post the way you have, especially since the entire point of my post was intended to explain how you can have the fusion of chromosomes without any loss of genetic information (a concept with which you seemed to struggle), and said nothing the about validity of this line of evidence for common ancestry between humans and the other great apes.

 

[The End]

I find it odd that you began your post as you did and the continued with the rest of it as you are completely at odds with the scriptural message and meaning that I addressed. You received all the answers you need, thanks be to God, and what's so great about them is that they all remain as per the post, all glory to God.

Actually you don't answer the problems raised, you just make assertions, which I'll show in a moment.

For example, you need to understand that the stars that do not fail that you mention is only your interpretation but a weak one. My interpretation is one that results in checking various translations and as per part of my previous reply to other topics, the Hebrew meaning even. In the case of the stars, when other scriptures were used, we get the meaning being conveyed in scripture and that is what I mentioned, the stars never fail "to be in their place at their time." It's not saying they would "never" die. That's what "you're" saying.

I'd just like to know where you're getting your translations.

The Hebrew Names version says this.

Isaiah 40:26 Lift up your eyes on high, and see who has created these, who brings out their host by number; he calls them all by name; by the greatness of his might, and because he is strong in power, not one is lacking.

Doesn't mention that the'll be in their place at their time. You're drawing on someone elses interpretation. This is the point - you can reinterpret poetic metaphor, ANY number of ways. 'Not one is lacking', lacking in what way? To me, its like fans disagreeing over what passages in Lord of the Rings means. Whatever, though I'm not satisfied, I don't find it that interesting (except in the sense of how unreliable it is as a science textbook), I'm more interested in the moral argument.

I left much of your post untouched you say... perhaps (tho I honestly don't remember where), but I answered more than you answered in your reply.

Nope, the conversation can't move forward if you're not acknowledging where you're going wrong. Which I'll show in a moment. I'm really going to have to insist that you give better answers on morality. I'd really like for us to concentrate on the morality question because its easy to show you're relying on presuppositions about the bible and not thinking it through.

Just because many don't accept God and the killings he called for doesn't mean it's wrong, it just means that some, as you say, don't accept them. Sure it is painful, so are so many things that I see in the world today including so many posts here, but this is the world we live in and this is the God that rules over us. I have no problems with God judging sin and the punishment for them just like so many have no problem with wars of the past that killed many (including the many children). Yes, these deaths are sad but many accept that to bring about something greater, perhaps even greater amounts of death in the long run had war (or God's lack of punishment) not occurred. For myself and so many, the problem is yours, not mine. God is just and righteous! Amen.

You see how you just make an assertion? You just assert that god is righteous. You don't explain how you came to that conclusion. Perhaps if Hitler had won WWII there would be less war today - does that make Hitler's actions moral? And consider how much worse god's actions are, as described in the bible. He commands that children be murdered. He sends bears to kill children. He kills off the entire planet, all the people and all the animals, save for the few that are on the arc. Presumably you believe in hell? Eternal suffering and torment, infinite, for 'crimes' that can only be considered finite. How did you actually determine that god is good? I'm going to have to insist that you put some thought into this. Just asserting that god is righteous does not answer the question.

This video clip is good food for thought for anyone that thinks their god is moral, or that we have no right to judge the actions of god. The theist in this clip, in defence of god, tries to defend the position that it would be moral to send your children to the basement and torture them if they disobeyed or betrayed you. That IS the theist position in a nutshell, in regards to how god treats us.

[YT]JBBOYfvElLM[/YT]

Exodus 21 gives instructions on how you can keep control of your slave after six years of servitude.

How does it play out, when a theist tries to defend the bible as morally correct?

[YT]oTkRadM9e5w[/YT]

I'm SURE what you're going to do, actually, is try to pretend it doesn't say what it says and come up with yet another re-interpretation. "Well maybe slave doesn't really mean this, and maybe when it says the master can keep the wife and children it means something else", go for it. I dare you to reinterpret it, to show us the kind of mental hoops you're willing to jump through in order to believe that an omnipotent god would be so damn incompetent as to have his only instruction manual be limited to a remote desert region, translated and re-translated and reinterpreted with no originals existing to the point that people can't even agree on what it says. Go for it.

And all the while, you'll still not answer how it is that you actually determined that god is good.

The mental hoops you have to jump through to defend this crap is extraordinary. The most likely explanation for these stories is staring you in the face. These stories are over 2000 years old, written by primitive, sometimes barbaric people, and that's it.

As for the "after their kinds," it does work (even an evolutionists here a couple of years ago had made a comment that "after their kinds" in and of itself doesn't go against evolution - I can agree to the variations inside of "kinds" but not that a new and unique "kind" or perhaps "family" would ever evolve as the Bible doesn't mention that, plus we have the Adam and Eve account) - and that man or beast do not have a common ancestor. Well, I gave my simple reason why as did you. You feel you have the best evidence to what you believe as do I to everything that we understand. I don't have a problem with the way God works. If you want a better explanation, go check some creation sites such as the two that I listed.

I've been through them, I've argued with creationists that have used their arguments many times. "Truth seeker", when you're confronted with the evidence that shows we have common descent with chimps, "after their kinds" as you understand it in genesis cannot be correct. Could the bible be wrong? Yes or no? Could it be wrong? Acknowledge that "after their kinds" is wrong based on our best understanding of the evidence, and then we can move on.

Maybe you should read actual science articles, and journal abstracts, from the people that actually do all of the leg work, from the people that actually make these discoveries. Instead of polluting your mind on creation sites from people that don't do the work, people insistent on forcing evidence to fit a conclusion instead of allowing evidence to lead them. It's apparent across creationist articles that the starting position is a literal interpretation of the bible and science cannot operate like that.

I will keep you in prayer.

You'll pray for me, I'll think for you.

 

[regwec]

Wanted to know if any other atheists here who have trouble with other atheists? People who have seen me before know I'm a pretty staunch atheist, but I have to admit that I have big problems with others who identify by that title.

I really dislike Richard Dawkins. His whole incident with Rebecca Watson totally soured me to him. I also really hate the r/atheism site on Reddit, which is just filled with massive, trollish a-holes. I find that I don't have too many atheist friends around, not just because of the lack of them, but because they always wanna talk about Dawkins, and I tell them I think Dawkins is an a-hole, and then we don't become friends after that.

I haven't really found this, but I live in the UK where most people are atheist anyway (I rely on experience rather than the census, over which households lie to reach other).

I think that, where no religion is the default, people don't feel the need to identify themselves by their stance on the topic, and it rarely comes up. Most people who are religious also keep it private.

 

[Alex_Spider]

So, god created Adam and Eve, whom then had some children and those brothers and sisters married one another eh? god sure loves him some incest perversion.

 

[Dr.]

Although the number of chromosomes is important to evolution, it’s my understanding that it’s essentially internal “accounting” - how particular genetic information is organized. Presumably, even a staunch creationist accepts that there’s no direct correlation between the quantity of chromosomes and apparent “complexity” (the so-called “higher/lower” organisms in “the great chain of being”). For instance: a carp has over 100 chromosomes; one species of fern has over 1000; the highly intelligent and mobile chimpanzee has the same number of chromosomes as the fairly mindless and sedentary tobacco plant; etc. So if you’re beef is about the gradual accumulation of genetic “information,” the number of chromosomes (and their occasional splitting and fusing) is a bit of a red herring.