This game discriminates against Atheists!

[kcbrett5]

And for what it's worth, the Bible doesn't explicitly identify Cain as the oldest, it's just that none of the births before him are mentioned at all. Guess he was the most significant . . .

Technically speaking, doesn't Genesis then prove that evolutionary theory is real? If Adam and Eve are the source of every other human being on earth, then every other human being would share the same genes. Doesn't the fact that we are all so different only confirm that mutations can and do happen on a regular basis? Or would you all just say that god made the people different?

I guess that is the problem with arguing about the existence of an all powerful god. No matter what argument you think of, you can always explain it by saying god did that on purpose.

That's why I prefer to poke fun of man's interpretation of god, called religion. It is far easier to point out all the way's man screwed up religion and religious institutions.

 

[Datian]

Your fault is thinking this is in chronological order. There is no reason to assume this. In fact, this type of accounting (1 - 2 - 3(but 3 before 2)) happens a lot in the Scriptures.

You can take it in any order you want - although you'll agree with me that giving oh so holy scriptures in random order is a strange idea and doesn't help enlightment - the whole story can't make sense without incest. There are no women in the genesis except Cain's and Seth's sisters and mother.

Here's why any logical reasoning about religion vs science is faulty:

There are two situations, either God is true or not.

-situation that God is not true. We have no way of knowing God is true or not since everything is explainable in multiple ways. (See kinetic vs thermodynamic theory, or Aether vs Relativity)
-Situation that God IS true. Since He is true, he can do anything he want, at any time. Even create a basis for science which seemingly contradicts His own works. (like planting fossils which age 5 million years back) In fact, this is supported by the Scriptures passages which talk about godly vs wordly knowledge. (The Lord will 'trap' those 'wise men' in their own 'wisdom')

Since we have two situations in which there is no logical and inductive way of us finding out which is true, it is futile to discuss this. In fact, childish arguments like 'religion is just as silly as fairy tales' make my philosophical organs wince. It all comes down to subjective arguments which have no place in these type of arguments.

So the only exit believers can find when someone points inconsistences is to answer "well, in fact, it doesn't make any sense, if you put words in random order it's as relevant, all you have to do is forget about this, about logics, about explanations, about coherence, about intelligence, just believe. And don't ask anybody to explain what you're supposed to believe in, since it can't make sense, just do it. And don't forget to burn the bad guys who take the scripture another way" ?!

Once again, as long as we're speaking about god or miracles, science is out. That's the whole point of miracle. But even a miracle has to make sense.
For example, Lazarus can't walk, Jesus come by, works a miracle, Lazarus is healed and can walk. There is no scientific explanation, at least at that time (let's assume that even with a contemporary Lazarus, no medical science could help him), but the miracle makes sense. And the moral of the story is more or less "believe in the goodness and almightiness (does the word exist ?) of god."
Take the same Lazarus. Jesus appears, and turns Lazarus's bed into a giant flower. It's a miracle too, but it's absurd. And the moral of the story is, well, don't take that chronologically, not even logically, don't think, just believe.

My fault is not about chronology, it's about reasonning. I'm ok with the irrational, but please, show some coherence.

 

[TheBoatman]

suicides? do you have any proof that suicide rate is higher among agnostics? because i have a feeling the opposite is true

and a science bonus is much more appropriate than a cultural bonus. religious sites give out huge cultural value in real life. science tends to stagnate in a heavy religious atmosphere, such as in the dark ages and well, parts of the US right now

it wasn't meant so seriously and i wrote 'agnostic' not 'atheist' which is a kind of faith

it's because when you're a true agnostic you have to deal with reality as it is, which is very difficult. Doubting everything leads to situations, when you have to decide among choices lacking information which of will give the best result. Choosing somehow shows what you "believe" in.
A kind of wu-wei erh wu-pu-wei.

Faith is quite natural part of human mind, but it is fine when people limit themselves to their OWN mind. Creating outer institutions of faith usually ends wrong.

 

[garric]

"In some awful, strange, paradoxical way, atheists tend to take religion more seriously than the practitioners." --Jonathon Miller

 

[KrikkitTwo]

You can take it in any order you want - although you'll agree with me that giving oh so holy scriptures in random order is a strange idea and doesn't help enlightment - the whole story can't make sense without incest. There are no women in the genesis except Cain's and Seth's sisters and mother.

The point is that chronological order is almost Never followed when explaining something, and in a typical speech/writing often needs to be clarified. This can happen whenever the narrator breaks in and provides the 'backstory' or 'flashback', and explains why something that just happened is important, or when a Western civ History book has Babylon Chapter 1, Persia Chapter 2, Greeks Chapter 3, Romans Chapter 5,.... the fact is you are listing events on some other basis than chronological.. quite common. Just look at a movies that switches between one scene and another, the idea is they are happening simultaneously.

So unless the time periods or order of events are specifically made clear, or one event directly connects to another, or is strongly tied to it (which is the case for most of a narrative, with the occasional breaks), you cannot assume that it is in chronological order.

As for incest, yeah it happened, and was still quite common in historic times among royal families. It wasn't until after the Flood that eating meat and capital punishment were permitted, so it stands to reason other laws may have changed at other times (ie incest banned at Sinai)

Again, until a deleterious gene that is not totally dominant is introduced into the population, inbreeding is not a problem... except for a generic decrease in genetic diversity... which is fine as long as no deleterious genes are there to get rid of useful ones.

(indeed this is what is normally done to establish pure breeds of animal or plant... it has all sorts of problems because of the deleterious genes that are crawling around... but it is still done that way.)

 

[Veritass]

Unless I have been sleeping in a cave for awhile, cousin-cousin lovin' is still illegal in America last time I checked.

Actually, it's not. I know a pair of first cousins who got married. She did the genetic research to make sure it wasn't too messed up. The twisted part is when the common set of grandparents shows up to the wedding, do they sit on the bride's family's side or the groom's family's side?

 

[DigitalBoy]

Actually, it's not. I know a pair of first cousins who got married. She did the genetic research to make sure it wasn't too messed up. The twisted part is when the common set of grandparents shows up to the wedding, do they sit on the bride's family's side or the groom's family's side?

They share.

 

[viz]

Yes, most atheists know more about religion than the people that can be described as 'faithful'. How else would atheists exist? We are labled 'atheist' as such because we look rationally and questionably at all the facts - the 'facts' as outlined in that bronze age book (and its counterparts) as well as scientific and observation based evidentiary means - in order to come to the conclusion that it is a falacy, not only a falacy but a dangerous, immoral, sexist, homophobic, contradictory, hipocritical, intolerant, unreasonable, murdurous and incestual falacy.

Of course atheists take it seriously, would you in all honesty read a book with a view to living your life by it, and your childrens lives knowing that it contains slavery, child abuse/murder, genocide, theft, suicide, adultery, unforgiveness, beastiality, human sacrifice, cannabilism, prostitution, voyeurism, rape, natural disasters, anger, fury, jealousy, pillaging... etc etc and not take it seriously?

Of course you would, it appears that the ones who believe in it - don't (which I might add goes against the whole underlying message, god is perfect, gods word is final and you either obey it and believe it ALL or you don't).



As for Civ IV, see my previous post regarding my view on the the power of religion in the game.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Hey, just because there is bestiality and incest and rape and murder and all that in the Bible doesn't mean that it is always recommended. The entire Book of Judges, for instance, which contains a lot of the juicy stuff, basically says, "don't do this at home". It would actually require a demonstration that these things are usually advocated to convince me the Bible is evil.

Also, I am fairly certain I know more about my religion than just about any atheist, at least one who has never been a member.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Of course atheists take it seriously, would you in all honesty read a book with a view to living your life by it, and your childrens lives knowing that it contains slavery, child abuse/murder, genocide, theft, suicide, adultery, unforgiveness, beastiality, human sacrifice, cannabilism, prostitution, voyeurism, rape, natural disasters, anger, fury, jealousy, pillaging... etc etc and not take it seriously?

Any book person or idea that purports to talk about life and does NOT include those things cannot be taken seriously.

 

[Chose]

And a few pages later, he gets so fed up with all of his humans that he brings the flood to destroy all but one family.

So what happens after the flood? I imagine we repopulate the world with incest again. Shouldn't god have learned that method didn't work very well the first time? Only this time, he decides to extend his incestuous model to every single living being, bringing only 1 male and 1 female each to be saved. Not only did god fail to learn about the problems of incest in his first few centuries (Noah was 500 years old or so when he built his ark), but he decided incest was so wonderful that all living things should try it.

Its amazing anyone continues reading the bible beyond this point actually.

what did not work about it, what does cain killing able have anything to do with incest.

speaking of things that dont make sense u guys say we come from a rock that just started spinning them went BOOM and made the earth witch was lava then it rained on it and birds came... right

 

[Chose]

Yes, most atheists know more about religion than the people that can be described as 'faithful'. How else would atheists exist? We are labled 'atheist' as such because we look rationally and questionably at all the facts - the 'facts' as outlined in that bronze age book (and its counterparts) as well as scientific and observation based evidentiary means - in order to come to the conclusion that it is a falacy, not only a falacy but a dangerous, immoral, sexist, homophobic, contradictory, hipocritical, intolerant, unreasonable, murdurous and incestual falacy.

Of course atheists take it seriously, would you in all honesty read a book with a view to living your life by it, and your childrens lives knowing that it contains slavery, child abuse/murder, genocide, theft, suicide, adultery, unforgiveness, beastiality, human sacrifice, cannabilism, prostitution, voyeurism, rape, natural disasters, anger, fury, jealousy, pillaging... etc etc and not take it seriously?

Of course you would, it appears that the ones who believe in it - don't (which I might add goes against the whole underlying message, god is perfect, gods word is final and you either obey it and believe it ALL or you don't).



As for Civ IV, see my previous post regarding my view on the the power of religion in the game.

the bible can be aplied to your life because it contains those thing, if there bible was about just love then how on earth would we know what is right and wrong, and how to live how God wants us to. the bible says all those things but never says slavery, child abuse/murder, genocide, theft, suicide, adultery, unforgiveness, beastiality, human sacrifice, cannabilism, prostitution, voyeurism, rape, natural disasters, anger, fury, jealousy, pillaging are right, but that all of those are wrong.

Also the underlying message in the bible is that God send hes son to die for our sins, because we all mess up and sin (its not AT ALL obey it all or dont because God knows we cant be perfect) and we cant get to heave by our own works but its Gods gift (his son) to us so that we can go to heaven. (i know some of you thinks that a load of bull but im just telling you what it says)

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Way to completely misrepresent/misunderstand/misstate the theory of evolution and current theories of the origin of the universe and of life on earth (all separate things), Chose.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I believe, hope that was his point... straw men are easy to tear down.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I believe, hope that was his point... straw men are easy to tear down.

No, over in OT we have lots of threads on the topic, and there are plenty of people who really think that

we come from a rock that just started spinning them went BOOM and made the earth which was lava then it rained on it and birds came

is an accurate description.

 

[dh_epic]

Civilization 4!

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Lost Cause, dh.... I'd say this thread is not redeemable it is best given the OT treatment

 

[JrK]

"seeing they do not see"

 

[Chose]

No, over in OT we have lots of threads on the topic, and there are plenty of people who really think that is an accurate description.

that is what it basically is, People who believe that theory dont like to hear it in a spimply way like that because it makes no sense. Yes that was a bit extream, But most scientist know that the big bang is not possible it just could not of happend by the laws of siense today. But they have no other choise at the moment, so they have to believe it.

why was all the matter here, where did it come from or who did it come from, what made it explode, why are all the plaints spinning in diffent directions, how did the none living thing make living things (somthing the was proved to be impossible many years ago).

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

that is what it basically is, People who believe that theory dont like to hear it in a spimply way like that because it makes no sense. Yes that was a bit extream, But most scientist know that the big bang is not possible it just could not of happend by the laws of siense today. But they have no other choise at the moment, so they have to believe it.

That is not true at all. Who are these "most scientists"? They accept the Big Bang because there is evidence for it, that's what scientists do.

why was all the matter here, where did it come from or who did it come from, what made it explode, why are all the plaints spinning in diffent directions, how did the none living thing make living things (somthing the was proved to be impossible many years ago).

No, life arising from non-living matter was not proven to be impossible. That's not what Pasteur did. Experiments have shown that organic compounds can come from natural conditions, as Miller and Urey demonstrated.

But that's all beside the point. There is a great thread in OT if you want to talk about it; this thread is supposed to be about other things.