Kara D. Perkins
I love this regardless of what anyone says. And I'm not even atheist.
I love this regardless of what anyone says. And I'm not even atheist.
Some of the advance questions are pretty good, at least. Overall, this page is rather harsh, though.
I've never seen an athiest who hated gays. Fuck this shit.
You know, this started out with some good points and then turned ugly fast. You're not going to get someone to agree with your points if you flat out attack them. And, some of these questions can be answered religiously if you ask the right sources. For instance, the reason that dinosaurs and what not roamed the earth without being in the bible is because, according to jewish tradition, the bible started with a NEW god. ie, there had been a different god era before this god era. Second, its scientifically proven why there werent ice age mammals in the bible: the ice from the last ice age did not reach anywhere close to Israel/Egypt/that area. The biological need for animals to adapt to the ice did not exist in that region; therefore, the people in that region would have had no reason to record such animals. Thats like asking why Panda Bears dont show up in American Indian tradition.
As for the talks about Adam and Eve being the only, they werent the only, they were just the first. And according to Hebrew tradition, Eve wasnt even the first woman. The bible does not talk about the rest of them being created because that would just be ridiculous. But, Eve leaves to join her people, Cain leaves to join his own, etc. And, for that matter, the creation story supports the idea of evolution because in the Hebrew texts, when the second Eve is created, god takes Adam's tail, not rib, to create her.
As for asking about original sin, that is highly dependent on which sect of Christianity you're referring to. Many, like the Mormons, do not believe in original sin being passed down to every person. So this argument has absolutely no ground to stand on.
As much as I agree that the whole idea of creationism is backward and small minded, there is nothing that will come from this "interview" besides angry words and maybe even a fist fight. And as much as this person seems to be "demanding the truth", they're just as ignorant/small minded as creationists. In act, this person seems more like the kind of person that became an atheist because it was cool rather than because it's something they actually believe. A true atheist is one because they have studied IN DEPTH all the things they dont agree with to ensure that it is, in fact, something they dont agree with. Rather, this person took a few basic ideas everyone throws around and just blows them out of proportion. I dont agree with this type of action/reaction and I think it just goes further to instill the idea that atheists/agnostics are bad, immoral people.
I am not a Christian, but the majority of this list is some combination of unscientifically vague, has an extremely ugly tone, or has premises that make the writer seem extremely ignorant while trying to appear intelligent.
Let's take some of the Genesis questions for example:
2. Q) How did Noah find all of the animals and get them back to the ark? Did he bring them back one pair at a time, or did they all follow him in a line as he visited other continents to collect more animals?
A) "Gensis 7:15 15 Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark." The bible tells us that the animals came to him, not that he went out and collected them. The bible never implies it is Noah's duty to collect animals.
3. Q) What did the carnivores eat on the ark?
A) "Genesis 7:2 Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth". It also goes on to say that various sources of food were prepared for the animals before hand.
9. Q) Why do you believe your god made only one breeding pair (Adam and Eve), instead of many? With only one breeding pair, fathers are forced to have sex with daughters, brothers with sisters, and sons with mothers, in order to propagate the species. Is this a divine endorsement for incest?
A) The bible never says there are originally only two people (Adam and Eve), infact it could be seen as to imply their are more as Cain (one of the first children of Adam and Eve) goes off to an already established land (Nod) where he begets a line of descendents after killing Abel. And no, incest is explicitly prohibited in numerous parts of the bible.
10. Q) 10. If all civilisations resulted from Adam and Eve, and oral traditions about the god that created them were passed down from generation to generation, why are there so many other creation stories in the world? Why didn't all civilisations keep their 'true' religion?
A) Again, this question starts of with an ignorant premise. The bible doesn't say that Adam and Eve were the first people, the only breeding pair or anything of the sort. If you actually read genesis there's lots of subtle hints that imply this isn't true such as naming various lands and then talking about one particular one where Adam is. As far as I can tell, the story is really more about the Garden of Eden and the Tree of Life than the story of the first two humans or anything like that.
A lot of the rest of the questions have an extremely presumptuous tone, as if it say "how dare you be talking to me, but try and answer these questions to prove what an idiot you are". Some of the questions are very vague as well, such as "How does the bible account for quantum mechanics?"; does this mean the bible is somehow contradicting modern physics, or that if it were a real holy book it would go into depth about physics/chemistry etc.? It doesn't even mention some of the major things the bible does get wrong, like assuming pi is directly 3 or misclasifing insects.
I don't agree with there total idea's but that's cool good questions be nice when world can wake up and know but each there own in there life's walk.
rymcmanus, ur doin it wrong. If you became an atheist "because it's cool", then please GTFO of my religion (or lack thereof) and go back to talking about how your music is so deep and underground.
These are the simple questions that kind of quantify how a person can become an atheist. In other words, religion makes no fucking sense.
I'm trying to figure what is so silly or stupid about this. Do you people not like it when things are constructively criticized? That's how it's done in science; logic and evidence are the foundation of any idea. If you can't adequately support it, or point out how the questions being presented are flawed, it's safe to discard. And rymcmanus, I'm having trouble discerning you from an actual stupid person. You seem to like or hate things based on how "cool" it is; what kind of fucking process is that? It's the method of a huge fucking tool, that's what. "I miss the days when athiesm was more non-conformist than religion! MAN IT WAS SO COOL BACK THEN. Well, better find something new to conform to that appears non-conformist!"
From the page: If you're going to say there's not enough energy in photosynthesis, why couldn't your god design a more effective photosynthetic system?
On a more serious note: "If you're going to say there's not enough energy in photosynthesis, why couldn't your god design a more effective photosynthetic system?". I actually was totally about to make that comment. Well played.
A lot of good questions for creationists.