I guess 'it' sounds too impersonal?

In college, I once argued that, since maleness is something that evolved later in the development of genetically-reproducing life, it stands to reason that a Creator, if one exists, cannot be male. To me, the reasonable pronoun to assign to the god-concept would be the female pronoun, if any. Life began as all-female; the development of sexual reproduction, and thus the possibility of "maleness", was not a thing for the first billion years of life on earth. Some have even posited that while the mechanical structures for sexual reproduction appeared about 3 billion years ago, it may have been less than one billion years ago that actual sexual reproduction began.

Either way, God is not a dude.

Edit to Add: By "mechanical structures", I don't mean penises, but the biochemical basis for DNA that is "male" and "female", set up for genetic recombination based on pairing.

To be pedantic I guess technically god would be genderless if it existed.

(September 27, 2015 at 9:31 am)Little Rik Wrote:

(September 27, 2015 at 9:11 am)TubbyTubby Wrote: Lit.
I lost count of the number of times folk come on here and claim that their personal god exists.
Not believing in beliefs is not a belief. Are you shitting me.

You are not paying attention to what is written here by atheists.
Most of them make claims which has really nothing to do with not believing in beliefs.
You never thought about it Tub, did you?  

I realize this thread is now up to page 69 and I'm late to the party but I felt the need to reply to this anyway because I'm not sure if anyone did.

It doesn't matter what is written here by atheists, one atheist on here might be in favour of guns being outlawed, that doesn't make atheism a belief about guns.

(October 16, 2015 at 11:11 am)Homeless Nutter Wrote: Wow. For a few pages there this thread was beginning to look like a civilized discussion... Then, of course Rico Suave came back online, having finished milking his sacred cow, or whatever and it's right back to "Hindus say the stupidest sh*t".

Sigh...

When my son was really little if you asked him "como te llamas?" He would always answer "Rico Suave!"

(October 18, 2015 at 3:07 am)Losty Wrote: When my son was really little if you asked him "como te llamas?" He would always answer "Rico Suave!"

I had to take that to Google translate. I coulda sworn that meant, "Who ate my llamas?"

(October 17, 2015 at 10:12 pm)jenny1972 Wrote:

(October 17, 2015 at 9:11 pm)Homeless Nutter Wrote: Let's not forget, that she claims, that people turn to atheism, not because they find religious doctrines illogical and obnoxious - but because god doesn't speak to them...

She get pissy at us, for not believing in god and then she says, that only god can give us evidence. Why isn't she angry with god, then? There seems to be literally NOTHING we can do to find the god hypothesis convincing - unless he decides to start whispering to each and every one of us - as he allegedly does with her.

your assuming that everyone becomes atheist for the same reason , because they dont believe in the Bible and thats it . well if they had a relationship with God regardless of what they thought about the Bible or how illogical and obnoxious the religious doctrines were , they would still believe in God . and therefore would not become an atheist.

And im not getting upset what makes you think im getting upset with you for being an atheist ive said over and over again you need proof to believe i know you dont have it yet and as long as you dont close the door completely to the possibility of God youll get that proof eventually its worth the wait .

 I did not "become an atheist". I have never believed and never seen a reason to start. But then over in the UK religions are dying. The church I was christened in (my mums idea apparently) is now a pub and that is a far better use for it as far as I'm concerned.

(October 17, 2015 at 11:12 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: In college, I once argued that, since maleness is something that evolved later in the development of genetically-reproducing life, it stands to reason that a Creator, if one exists, cannot be male. To me, the reasonable pronoun to assign to the god-concept would be the female pronoun, if any. Life began as all-female; the development of sexual reproduction, and thus the possibility of "maleness", was not a thing for the first billion years of life on earth. Some have even posited that while the mechanical structures for sexual reproduction appeared about 3 billion years ago, it may have been less than one billion years ago that actual sexual reproduction began.

Either way, God is not a dude.

Edit to Add: By "mechanical structures", I don't mean penises, but the biochemical basis for DNA that is "male" and "female", set up for genetic recombination based on pairing.

But in early jewish tradition he had a wife.

Quote:Some biblical scholars believe that Asherah at one time was worshiped as the consort of Yahweh, the national God of Israel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah

(October 18, 2015 at 2:59 am)paulpablo Wrote:

(September 27, 2015 at 9:31 am)Little Rik Wrote: You are not paying attention to what is written here by atheists.
Most of them make claims which has really nothing to do with not believing in beliefs.
You never thought about it Tub, did you?  

I realize this thread is now up to page 69 and I'm late to the party but I felt the need to reply to this anyway because I'm not sure if anyone did.

It doesn't matter what is written here by atheists, one atheist on here might be in favour of guns being outlawed, that doesn't make atheism a belief about guns.

The problem Pablo is that is not one or two or few.
It is most of them.
Just scroll the forum and see how many times atheists carry on with the same old mantras.
You will be surprised.
Not only that but even if you would deal with a lonely wolf you would be wrong anyway.
Why?
Because by not doing anything to correct or take the distance from the lonely wolf you would allow the atheist image to be polluted.