RE: Atheism. The UNscientific belief (part two)
October 17, 2015 at 11:12 pm
(This post was last modified: October 17, 2015 at 11:14 pm by TheRocketSurgeon.)
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.
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.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
