This game discriminates against Atheists!

[kcbrett5]

Why hidden sister? The bible doesn't say Cain and Abel are their ONLY children now does it?

No, but according to genesis, all of humanity is based on incest no matter how you slice it. Unless god just continued to pull women out of men's bodies by the rib. How does a rib grow into a woman anyway? Sounds like cloning to me, but then why is cloning considered so immoral today by religious people? It seems our entire existence was made possible by cloning. And would women appreciate owing their entire existence to a man? Furthermore, Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel had the entire world all to themselves. 4 people on an entire planet and 1 of them killed another 1 of them. This isn't exactly the positive role model I am looking for in a religion. If we can't avoid murder with only 4 people on the planet, what hope does the world have for peace now?

Genesis is a tragically depressing way to start a religion. I say we delete it.

 

[Datian]

Why hidden sister? The bible doesn't say Cain and Abel are their ONLY children now does it?

I won't quote litteraly since the bible I have is in french, so there would be no point in translating back and forth. However, in the genesis, I read :
4.1 : Adam and Eve have a first son, Cain, then a second, Abel
4.8 : Cain kills Abel
4.16 : Cain goes in the land of Nod at the east of Eden
4.17 : Cain has a child with his wife (whose name we don't know) and calls him Henok, he builts a city and names it the same. Henok has children who in turn have children of their own, follows a whole genealogy with polygamist weddings
4.25 : Adam and Eve have another son, to replace Abel, and call him Seth, who also has a son (with whom ?), who in turn etc.
5.3 : Adam lives 130 years, has Seth, then lives 800 more years and has "sons and daughters"

The only women here are Eve, her daughters, and their future offspring. Something's amiss. Besides, Cain marries, and the text suggest (but doesn't state in the translation I read) that he has his first child before Adam has any other children - one can wonder where the mother comes from. Or else we can admit that Cain and Seth have their own sisters as wives, and excuse me but we can safely assume it's gross, by any standards, especially jewish/christian ones.

I'm ok with the rib thing : I mean, if a god is involved and is credited for creating a whole world, making a woman out of a rib isn't spectacular. The centuries Adam and the others spend alive, why not, it's mythology so any miracle can happen. But the stories of the children of Adam and Eve, even with miracles popping everywhere, doesn't make sense. It's not coherent nor consistent.

 

[Chose]

The fact that maybe a flood could have happened (and you'd better do some research about it because it's everything but proven yet) doesn't mean it was the will of some god. It just means it rained a lot.

As for the Bible well, the genesis itself is a problem, taken litterally. Let's sum it up :
Adam and Eve are the first - therefore, the only - man and woman. They have two kids, Cain and Abel. Cain kills Abel. Cain is left alone to wander and ponder what he did. Ok divine justice. Then he sets up, gets married, and have loads of children. Hmm ok, with whom ? His hidden sister ?

u should not post if you have no idea what your talking about, the bible does not say adem and eve had only 2 childern, in genesis 5 : 3 and adam lived an hundred and thirty years and had a son in his own likeness after him, and called him seth. So the bible says they had atleast 3 children. and back then disease were not a problem so you could marry your sister.

 

[Datian]

u should not post if you have no idea what your talking about, the bible does not say adem and eve had only 2 childern, and back then disease were not a problem so you could marry your sister.

As long as my quotes are relevant, I think I'm as qualified as anybody to point incoherent stuff. And please, don't say "back then" as if you had been there, the good old days or whatever, it's not even history, it's mythology. Incest is prohibited by almost every society, morals, religion, and last time I checked, by jewism, christianism and islam too.

 

[Chose]

No, but according to genesis, all of humanity is based on incest no matter how you slice it. Unless god just continued to pull women out of men's bodies by the rib. How does a rib grow into a woman anyway? Sounds like cloning to me, but then why is cloning considered so immoral today by religious people? It seems our entire existence was made possible by cloning. And would women appreciate owing their entire existence to a man? Furthermore, Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel had the entire world all to themselves. 4 people on an entire planet and 1 of them killed another 1 of them. This isn't exactly the positive role model I am looking for in a religion. If we can't avoid murder with only 4 people on the planet, what hope does the world have for peace now?

Genesis is a tragically depressing way to start a religion. I say we delete it.

ok, it is considered immoral because it is for GOD to do not man so it makes perfect sense that God can clone, we think is wrong because God says male and female i created them, it not our job it Gods.

 

[Chose]

As long as my quotes are relevant, I think I'm as qualified as anybody to point incoherent stuff. And please, don't say "back then" as if you had been there, the good old days or whatever, it's not even history, it's mythology. Incest is prohibited by almost every society, morals, religion, and last time I checked, by jewism, christianism and islam too.

That was before the law, so they were not under the law (according to the bible)

 

[Datian]

That was before the law, so they were not under the law (according to the bible)

But they were still not allowed to kill each other or eat the fruit that would trigger their brain, just to have incestual sex before it's prohibited too, as well as almost any kind of sex. Thank god I'm no believer

 

[Lars_Domus]

Thank god I'm no believer

Pun utterly intended, I hope

 

[kcbrett5]

ok, it is considered immoral because it is for GOD to do not man so it makes perfect sense that God can clone, we think is wrong because God says male and female i created them, it not our job it Gods.

Then why do you believe in a god who screwed up such a high percentage of the time? You say there were 2 rules at the time, dont eat the fruit from the forbidden tree and don't kill people. So out of his first 4 people, 3 of them broke the rules (2 fruit eaters and 1 murderer). If I was going to start a religion, I would base it on a god who gets it right more than 25% of the time. Plus, this god only figured out at a later date (through some perverted experimentation I imagine) that incest is bad for his creations. Shouldn't he have had the foresight to know that already?

 

[Datian]

You say there were 2 rules at the time, dont eat the fruit from the forbidden tree and don't kill people. So out of his first 4 people, 3 of them broke the rules (2 fruit eaters and 1 murderer).

...and the fourth, the one who obeys, is granted a shovel between his ears. I'm not sure of what we have to do with the morale of this story

 

[kcbrett5]

...and the fourth, the one who obeys, is granted a shovel between his ears. I'm not sure of what we have to do with the morale of this story

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.

 

[viz]

Then why do you believe in a god who screwed up such a high percentage of the time? You say there were 2 rules at the time, dont eat the fruit from the forbidden tree and don't kill people. So out of his first 4 people, 3 of them broke the rules (2 fruit eaters and 1 murderer). If I was going to start a religion, I would base it on a god who gets it right more than 25% of the time. Plus, this god only figured out at a later date (through some perverted experimentation I imagine) that incest is bad for his creations. Shouldn't he have had the foresight to know that already?

Amen!

 

[KrikkitTwo]

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.

1. Incest is only a Medical/genetic problem under certain situations (deleterious recessive genes)
2. If one accepts that people were regularly living 900 years, then obviously the situation was different on some biological level
3. The incest may have been planned... it is After the second round that God apparently figures out people live way too long (dropping average lifespans by about a factor of 10... the inbreeding would probably help with that)

[also as a note: the second human round woiuld be cousin-cousin as the Noah's sons had wives Before getting on the ark]

As for God's success rate, well that doesn't get mentioned to the end...

I'd agree Humanity's success rate seems pretty poor (the first 4 mentioned either having a great sin or getting killed, and humanity being subjected to the most literal ethnic cleansing for its violence does look pretty poor for human peace prospects)..
but I'd say that is supported by experience...The one region on earth that can be considered Somewhat peaceful, between near equal nations and in projecting its power is Western Europe... who had tens of millions of people killed/die horribly in the last century... give them another 100 years and they'll probably be over it.

I'm not saying its not fantastic but at least know what something says before you criticize it.

 

[kcbrett5]

I'm not saying its not fantastic but at least know what something says before you criticize it.

I don't understand your point. I have read Genesis and you didn't really correct anything I said. I am well aware that the incest of Noah's family was on the cousin-cousin level. This is why I said he had his whole family with him, not just him and his wife and kids. Unless I have been sleeping in a cave for awhile, cousin-cousin lovin' is still illegal in America last time I checked.

And I know why incest is a problem. But see, even healthy people can't just go around mating with their sisters. It restricts the gene pool and makes it more likely to have recessive gene problems.

And so western Europe hasn't fought a major war in their own countries in 60 years. Yay. Should they be awarded a medal for that? All they have really learned is that it is better to invade other continents, like Asia for example. And I hardly think 60 years of peace in 6000 years of biblical existence is much of an accomplishment. Thats a 1% success rate which is even worse than my original point.

And if incest is your god's preferred method of population control, why is it illegal? Seems like it might come in handy now as we face more and more overcrowding problems in the world?

 

[lateralis]

ok, let's take a step back here.

religiously minded people are arguing FOR incest.

W T F?

if this is what happens when you follow these things to their logical conclusion, is it any wonder why we've chosen to abandon religion?

 

[picardathon]

Also, the flood itself can also be argued. It appears that one of the last glaciers of the Ice age actually moved far enough south to the point where it melted into the Black Sea, which proved a disaster for the coastal villages in the nearby region. It isn't a stretch to argue that the villages located on the southeast coast, over time, were able to have its story migrate to the middle east.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I think you really want to research what you are talking about, Eran of Arcadia. And then try saying that again.

What are you talking about? Are you criticizing me for saying the Bible contradicts itself, or for believing it at all? Because I have read the Bible, Genesis to Revelations (that's not the order in which the books were written, by the way, that's an order imposed later) and I can assure you it contradicts itself - or more accurate, some parts contradict other parts.

If you are saying I shouldn't believe it at all, I would just say that the internet is not the best place for arguing about beliefs . . .

 

[JrK]

I won't quote litteraly since the bible I have is in french, so there would be no point in translating back and forth. However, in the genesis, I read :
4.1 : Adam and Eve have a first son, Cain, then a second, Abel
4.8 : Cain kills Abel
4.16 : Cain goes in the land of Nod at the east of Eden
4.17 : Cain has a child with his wife (whose name we don't know) and calls him Henok, he builts a city and names it the same. Henok has children who in turn have children of their own, follows a whole genealogy with polygamist weddings
4.25 : Adam and Eve have another son, to replace Abel, and call him Seth, who also has a son (with whom ?), who in turn etc.
5.3 : Adam lives 130 years, has Seth, then lives 800 more years and has "sons and daughters"

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.

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.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

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 . . .

 

[romelus]

maybe agnostic civic - no state religion, -1happy because of doubts, -1health because of suicides, but +30% culture because of those existencionalists' masterpieces

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