I guess 'it' sounds too impersonal? 
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: December 29, 2024, 2:59 pm
Thread Rating:
|
Atheism the unscientific belief (part one, two, and three)
|
 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.
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. 
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 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. Are you ready for the fire? We are firemen. WE ARE FIREMEN! The heat doesn’t bother us. We live in the heat. We train in the heat. It tells us that we’re ready, we’re at home, we’re where we’re supposed to be. Flames don’t intimidate us. What do we do? We control the flame. We control them. We move the flames where we want to. And then we extinguish them. Impersonation is treason.  (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". When my son was really little if you asked him "como te llamas?" He would always answer "Rico Suave!"  
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." - George Bernard Shaw
 (October 17, 2015 at 10:12 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: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 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... You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid. Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis. (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. 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 Israelhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid. Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.  (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. 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.
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 121 Guest(s)
