351. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188372 by Philip1978 on June 4, 2008 at 2:57 am

irate_atheist

Ceiling Cat sayz DO NOT WANT!

Appleby

You are not a love doctor, I can guarantee it!

Plus Quetz has spoken, heed his words or suffer the Fruit Flies!

Quetz, if he continues in this manner shall I contact Billy and send the Flies forth to fiddle with his Genes?

352. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188361 by Philip1978 on June 4, 2008 at 2:44 am

).

I didn't say that out of arrogance. I just said that because I know the girls will remember me because I was their first time (and actually took the time to teach them some useful things where other guys probably wouldn't bother

353. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188355 by Philip1978 on June 4, 2008 at 2:29 am

.

In fact, most the guys these women finally end up with or marry have me to thankt

354. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188338 by Philip1978 on June 4, 2008 at 1:04 am

And I enjoy teaching them to make up for their lack of experience.

355. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188226 by Philip1978 on June 3, 2008 at 11:45 am

Slurps at tea.... still naughty....

Bonzai

Next thing you will be telling me is that you drink from the coffee cup....? :)

356. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188215 by Philip1978 on June 3, 2008 at 11:21 am

Rachel

I think that would be decidedly painful on anyone's parts if there was a goat involved! ;)

Sorry.....Taxi for 1 idiot!

357. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188174 by Philip1978 on June 3, 2008 at 9:51 am

When I went uni in Southampton a lot of people thought I was gay simply because of my accent but I must be losing my appeal these days as I seem to get my arse pinched less!

358. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188111 by Philip1978 on June 3, 2008 at 8:31 am

Before I bounce home, congratulations Rachel!

May you and your partner complete the Daily Telegraph crossword happily ever after and always keep the dictionary handy in case you feel the need to play scrabble! ;)

359. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188102 by Philip1978 on June 3, 2008 at 8:24 am

I am a bit confused here, doesn't everybody here agree that, despite our sexual preferences, bestiality is just fucking wrong? :) I'll get my coat...TAXI!

Come on Appleby, I really don't understand your grievances- I think its been shown to you that consensual romping between 2 adults, who can at anytime say they do not want to do something, is perfectly reasonable? The adults can discuss it, we have language, we can define when sex is wrong simply if someone does not want to do it yet is forced - easy enough.

I am aghast you feel that any other bedroom Olympics other than the one you feel comfortable with has any affect on your daily life. You are not involved are you? So don't worry so much, its not worth it.

Irate made a good point, your connection between killing animals and sexual consent is confusing to say the least. The lion doesn't want to fuck the gazelle its chasing, he has his pride of females to do that - he eats food to survive - how he goes about his shagging is utterly different.

How I condone my not being a vegetarian has nothing to do with my sexual preferences, those two matters are separate surely?

Philip

360. Scientists rally against creationist 'superstition'

Comment #187384 by Philip1978 on June 2, 2008 at 4:53 am

One thing that grabs me about this article is the "hurt and insults" that seem to arise whenever this subject is raised.

I for one am happy for others to question things, thats one of the ways new ideas can be generated and discussed fully, especially if the subject is one like evolution, we do want to get it right don't we?

I have always thought that in order to find the right answer you have to test things, gather evidence, discuss it etc. Why is it such an offensive thing to then say back to a person with a question or a theory about something like evolution that they have got it wrong?

What is so ghastly about being wrong and then finding out a better answer to the question? There is no shame in admitting you are wrong about something once it has been explained, I think that makes that person a better one.

Is it not worse for a person to yell til their face becomes a rather dangerous shade of puce that they are absolutely right no matter what? Is it not more embarrassing to hold on to an idea that can be convincingly proved wrong?

I am never ashamed of admitting I am wrong, though I can be stubborn sometimes and do hold on to some ideas for nothing more than sentimental reasons. But thinking about it after I have been convinced I realise what the fuss is all about, I realise why my friends or family have to kick me up the arse once in a while, its simple - ITS FOR MY OWN GOOD!

:)

361. Scientists rally against creationist 'superstition'

Comment #187351 by Philip1978 on June 2, 2008 at 3:02 am

Athena's Mini Skirt!

I leave you guys alone for a couple of weeks and then I find out David is a creationist!

David, what the hell happened to you? I thought you were happy with evolution, I honestly thought that was one subject we could all agree on!

Ah well, if you can go and find another explanation that can stand up to the rigorous punishment and testing that evolution has managed to weather then by all means produce what you have and let it be tested.

I for one would be happy to read about another explanation, I have been reading a few chapters of Pale Blue Dot and Climbing Mount Improbable, one day I hope to finish them but what I have read so far has been mind blowing. I intend to read more on this to get a wider opinion but I would be very interested to hear your version of things.

To be honest, I am slowly starting to understand the simplicity of evolution and the massive complexity when you start adding higher intelligences into the boil. I will need more convincing to really see how a higher intelligence, even if its Matrix style super computer, could possibly affect the Universe considering the size and the number of things in it.

Ah yes, please can you possibly refrain from using the words Fundamentalist Atheist, you know the reasons why!

Philip

362. We happy hooligans

Comment #185994 by Philip1978 on May 29, 2008 at 10:25 am

Thor's Trousers!

A Hooligan at my age, fantastic!


I have just come back from holiday, I got into a strange conversation about the Christian religion where I, very calmly, explained all I know about science and how it holds better evidence for a lack of gods than for an actual one messing around with evolution etc In short I did my best to explain the complexity of having a god and how it was simply better to use an Occam's Razor approach.

The Christians then got utterly frantic with me, TELLING (not telling, it involved shouting!) me all sorts of things like how wrong I was etc but the thing that made me giggle into my beer was the sentence

"You can't trust all those mad scientists, what do they know about anything!"

These people are afraid of scientists helping them yet when some idiotic "holy" man tells them sheer dribbling nonsense they lap it up, what the hell is the matter with this world I ask you, no wonder scientists get a bad press!

Oh well, if scientists and anyone else who actually likes proper evidence is a hooligan, I had best go start yelling E=MC2 at the next church! :)

Philip

363. Group finds Starbucks logo too hot to handle

Comment #180852 by Philip1978 on May 16, 2008 at 1:09 am

The same way as you and I.

364. Group finds Starbucks logo too hot to handle

Comment #180844 by Philip1978 on May 16, 2008 at 12:41 am

Aaahhrrrrrrggggghhhhh

Must control my uncontrollable lust, I saw her midriff....must find sedatives.... Gaaaahhhh I have become so overwhelmingly concupiscent all of a sudden... my lascivious nature just simply is bringing out words I never knew how to spell let alone say...my goodness, will you look at that Mermaid with the 2 Tails, my prurient mind simply cannot take it any more, JOSH, remove this filth that has already stained my mind and eyes before I finally lose it all and start using words like libidinous! :)


I'll be back after my cold shower....

365. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #180551 by Philip1978 on May 15, 2008 at 7:41 am

Vergil

I feel stupid :)

Oh well, it is Thursday, could never get the hang of them!

My sincere apologies if I offended! :)

Philip

366. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #180548 by Philip1978 on May 15, 2008 at 7:35 am

Honestly Max, how could you say yuiopqwert! to a lady? I thought you were a gentleman! :)

367. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #180526 by Philip1978 on May 15, 2008 at 6:55 am

I am glad you agree, if it aint in Latin, people might be swayed off the idea!! :)

368. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #180515 by Philip1978 on May 15, 2008 at 6:32 am

Vergil

I just want you to know my singing voice is awful and so I opt out of joining any choirs! What Reverend Dark says just happens to make sense to me and I would advise you to listen to him, he is a clever man who backs up what he says.

Theistic Evolution requires a deity, that is speculation based on no evidence whatsoever, you cannot test it, you cannot do anything but imagine it. God cannot work because he is too complex and unnecessary in explaining evolution as it works better without him being there. If you are trying to tell me that god is the Artificial Selector, that he is the one who decided to eradicate 99% of all species even before humans arrived I am sorry I need more convincing. Did he really control all the ice ages or droughts etc to then kill off all the creatures who did not develop the necessary genes to be able to survive whatever natural disaster He threw at them?

The theory of evolution by natural selection has been proved beyond doubt to be the best explanation that we humans have for the progression of life on this planet. You want to provide a testable alternative that manages to stand the same rigorous barrage of questioning and testing that the theory of evolution by natural selection has faced and defeated, by all means do it, I will be very impressed if you managed it.

Philip

369. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #180507 by Philip1978 on May 15, 2008 at 6:16 am

txpiper

You wanted something larger, hows about humans for example taken from Wikipedia, in chronological order by genus:

* Sahelanthropus
o Sahelanthropus tchadensis
* Orrorin
o Orrorin tugenensis
* Ardipithecus
o Ardipithecus kadabba
o Ardipithecus ramidus
* Australopithecus
o Australopithecus anamensis
o Australopithecus afarensis
o Australopithecus bahrelghazali
o Australopithecus africanus
o Australopithecus garhi
* Paranthropus
o Paranthropus aethiopicus
o Paranthropus boisei
o Paranthropus robustus
* Kenyanthropus
o Kenyanthropus platyops
* Homo
o Homo habilis
o Homo rudolfensis
o Homo ergaster
o Homo georgicus
o Homo erectus
o Homo cepranensis
o Homo antecessor
o Homo heidelbergensis
o Homo rhodesiensis
o Homo neanderthalensis
o Homo sapiens idaltu
o Homo sapiens (Cro-magnon)
o Homo sapiens sapiens
o Homo floresiensis


So, all these fossils found and you still think that evolution is not possible?

Philip

370. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #180467 by Philip1978 on May 15, 2008 at 3:08 am

Txpiper-

I am interested into what more is needed to help you understand the process?.

What other alternative can be tested and tested and tested over and over again and still stand up as good evidence?

Its not like these scientists made it up did they? My tone might sound sarcastic here but my point is if the scientists were just faffing around they would have been lynched by now, the scientific method will catch them out if they are really not researching the facts properly.

Yes there is complexity in understanding the mechanisms, I get almightily confused by the nitty gritty of it all, it goes whoooshing past my head very easily half the time.

But the process itself is so EASY to understand, I find it hard to cobble science together at the best of times, I am a historian and English graduate, but evolution by natural selection is not as complex as you envisage.

Hope that made sense, it kind of did when I was typing it! :)

Philip

371. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #180464 by Philip1978 on May 15, 2008 at 2:49 am

It was a good thread, I enjoyed it.

I still comment on how cool it was to type to Mark back then whenever I get the chance, whilst we ended up disagreeing I still found conversation with him fascinating.

Cheeeeeeeeeers

Philip

372. A natural selection

Comment #179974 by Philip1978 on May 14, 2008 at 3:43 am

Rod-the-farmer

Cool, I will take that under consideration, I just thought I would air an idea and see where it got me. The English and History Graduate in me wanted to pick on something! :)

I really don't want to understate the importance of what these guys are doing, I fully appreciate the idea that they want to confront this ridiculous notion that evolution is false. Too many people are being warded off the idea and its time to project a better image, knowledge of evolution should never be a scary thing.

But I still think that the future of this breaking of the "controversy" surrounding this issue would be better placed to not keep invoking something too complex like a god to explain something like evolution. Teaching evolution should be a lot easier than that, religion has built up a very unnecessary wall to stall attempts at furthering its progress.

I think the How/Why argument is still annoying and unhelpful, it does not do much good mucking around sticking gods into it but I will give the magazine its due credit and hope it encourages other magazines to do the same and possibly further people's understanding rather than scare them off it

Right, I will get back to my tea, thanks for the advice

Philip

373. A natural selection

Comment #179899 by Philip1978 on May 14, 2008 at 1:15 am

Hmmm good and bad I think.

I like the idea that this magazine is open minded enough not react in the frantic manner of lets say the creationist movement, I find that encouraging.

But I still have this small annoyance with the words

I was struck by how it captured the intellectual excitement of Darwin's age, the sense that his theory of natural selection helped humans unlock some of the mysteries of life - maybe not the why, but the how.

374. Church of Scotland mediators to quell disputes

Comment #179894 by Philip1978 on May 14, 2008 at 12:43 am

David?

Hello?

Want to back up your assertions?

Perhaps?

I asked you a basic question, got an answer?

Or do you think that was enough since you felt it your duty to come back here and tell us that we all have "fundamentalist certainties"?

Does Jesus still love you for doing that?

375. Fleabytes

Comment #179402 by Philip1978 on May 13, 2008 at 8:00 am

Rian

You are very right, God has the worst body count in the book, Satan kills 10 people because God tells him to and gets labeled as the bad guy! Double standards I tell thee!

376. God seekers go public

Comment #179388 by Philip1978 on May 13, 2008 at 7:41 am

Quetz

Have I been channeling Satan again? I guess that accounts for all the bad language and want to discover more about evolution!

If Dumbski and Behehehhehehhehe....no really...hahahhahahaha.....remember the Dover trial..hehehhehehhehe! ever qualify as peers I will have to call upon your services and unleash the army! :)

377. God seekers go public

Comment #179382 by Philip1978 on May 13, 2008 at 7:30 am

What the fuck....?

Is their idea of "Peer Reviewed" just some red stamp on the paper saying "Goddidit"!

I would REALLY love to see these idiots provide the justification for some magnificent "Intelligence" arsing around throughout the ages thinking "Yes, another Ice Age will do, I can kill off so many animals, make way for some new ones that are more likely to survive in the freezing conditions then I can kill those animals by drought, mwhahahahahahaha!"

What utter dribble, the more I learn about evolution the more I think these guys are that word that Irate wishes us to fill in his comment section! :)

378. Church of Scotland mediators to quell disputes

Comment #179335 by Philip1978 on May 13, 2008 at 6:13 am

David

So its basics you want is it?

How come your church is the right one to go to and not one of the others mentioned in this article, are you not all praying to the same god?

Philip

379. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #179309 by Philip1978 on May 13, 2008 at 5:24 am

txpiper

One thing that does confuse me and I hope you can explain it because I don't understand how you can arrive at your conclusions.

From what I understand of evolution it simply about life evolving from very simple things to more complex life forms which can take a vast number of years.

From what I have read on the subject there are things called transitional fossils that confirm that these changes have taken place. The fact that the people studying this subject have managed to predict where these fossils found - eg Tiktaalik -tells me that there must be some foundation to their studies.

If you want you can do an experiment of your very own, which has been done throughout the centuries its called "Artificial" Selection. This can be done with breeding things like dogs or horses, mating the strongest or fluffiest or whatever you want - always removing the dogs or horses that don't have those characteristics you want. You will begin to notice over the generations of these animals that the characteristic you are looking for will become more noticeable and dominant in your set of animals or if you want you can do this with plants - the idea still stays the same.

Now imagine this simply happening in nature, ie with no outside influence, nothing prodding it along except changes in the environment like temperature or lack of a certain kind of food, a disease - something random. The animals or plants or whatever that have the right DNA that is passed on down the generations will survive better and longer than those who didn't get that change in the gene pool. In a nutshell - Natural Selection.


I find it VERY difficult to then insert a God into all this or outside "intelligence" that would essentially play the role of artificial selector - How does that work?

Does this intelligence or God suddenly think "right, time for an ice age - what I will do is over time let the generations with the fur gene live and all the others die in the bitter cold because they wont have this gene!"

This intelligence or god then does this all over the Earth, doing different things to the trillions and billions of forms of life on the planet - all clicking it into place over millions of years. Making sure of course that around 99% of these creatures don't make it by chucking a few natural disasters all over the place etc

That sounds rather too complex to me, that is without posing questions about how the Intelligence or god went around fiddling with it all, which god it is etc The list gets endless and pointless because the god or intelligence is pointless in showing how this happened. Evolution is a VERY good explanation as to how this happened, it is not too complex and its provable. Gods are invisible, un-contactable and highly improbable figments of the imagination that don't help prove anything that has not already been explained.

How come you like the god idea better than something less difficult to explain?

Sorry for the long post! :)

Philip

380. Church of Scotland mediators to quell disputes

Comment #179283 by Philip1978 on May 13, 2008 at 3:13 am

epeeist

What on Earth do you mean? Elgar wrote a lovely cello concerto in E Minor its fantastic stuff!

381. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #179273 by Philip1978 on May 13, 2008 at 2:32 am

hungarianelephant

Yes, I would hate to think what the religious incredibly wrong would be like! :)

382. Church of Scotland mediators to quell disputes

Comment #178761 by Philip1978 on May 12, 2008 at 2:25 am

I can just imagine olde Yahweh sitting there thinking "Oh for fucks sake, what is it THIS time?"

To have so many denominations, so many ways of describing what supposedly should be the same deity it amazes me just how pathetic religion is, all those who said this was Pythonesque are far too right.

Brian: We should be united against the common enemy!"

All: The Judean People's Front?


All this ridiculous need for change in the churches tels me a few things

1 They are making it up as they go along

2 They have had 2000 years to come up with something more credible than Bronze Age plagiarised myths and they still keep buggering it all up!


3 They should give up now and save the money!

Tis a mad world my masters!
:)

Philip

383. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176822 by Philip1978 on May 8, 2008 at 5:57 am

Quetz,

In all the time you have communicated with me over the Internet when have I ever made sense?

I have had 4 cups already today and its going swimmingly, in fact, I hear the call of the kettle now, WOOO HOOOOOO!!! :)

384. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176818 by Philip1978 on May 8, 2008 at 5:51 am

Bonzai

Theres no LOGIC in your Bertrand!

Tea is 1.87 so in this case, tables turned. :)

385. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176809 by Philip1978 on May 8, 2008 at 5:20 am

alan baylis

I asked Clearmind if he/she/it liked drinking tea and I still am waiting for a straight answer! :)

386. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176754 by Philip1978 on May 8, 2008 at 12:49 am

Oh my Dog!

What a brave man, I could NEVER have put myself through that, not in a million years! Once they started telling me I was supposed to think gay people are born of pedophiles I would have had to have left in disgust after swearing at those evil bastards.

In fact I am outraged that people do this to themselves, its so utterly wrong I think I too might need one of the vomit bags!

I mean Harry Potter for Zarks sake, what is wrong with these people? - OH NO, that fantasy stuff is bad for you! WTF?? Pot - Kettle- Black!


There you go Reverend David Robertson, if you want to cheer up your sermons and get the dwindling numbers of the Free Church back to normal, this is how you do it, more intensive brainwashing! I can see you and Phil Fortenberry would get on like a house on fire, plus you wouldn't have to pray for cheques to appear to pay for Church days out! :)


What a brave man this guy is, I learned a lot from this article and I will see if I can find his book at some point, I like his style.


Philip

387. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176388 by Philip1978 on May 7, 2008 at 8:16 am

seeker_of_truth

I'd take your own pulse there old chap, how they hell did these guys and ladies deceive themselves?

Do peer reviewed papers and experts mean nothing?

Did they imagine what they found or did they test it?

Or are you just imagining a God so you can justify your weak arguments?

Stand and fight your ground you big wimp! God would be disappointed in you if you just gave up now wouldn't he - or would he? - bugger, we will never be able to know cos its tough to ask God isn't it?

Oh well, I suspect you will come back one day, you know, test the pulses. Catch you later!

Philip

388. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176358 by Philip1978 on May 7, 2008 at 7:52 am

Quetz cannot be blamed for it, you can see now the Earth never floods whole again so Quetz in his mighty wisdom cleared up the mess and did it himself!

I would get Quetz to smite the plumber, seems only fair! :)

389. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176350 by Philip1978 on May 7, 2008 at 7:47 am

You fools, don't you know Quetz created the Earth? He got sub contractors in to do some of it, thats where the flood came in and everybody knows you can't get the right bloody plumbers these days! :)

390. 10 cc of atheism

Comment #176223 by Philip1978 on May 7, 2008 at 12:40 am

mymelody95

Even Brian Singer never knew that Laurie was English saying something along the lines of the kind of compelling American actor he was looking for!

Its funny for me to see him do it because I have grown up hearing his English accent all the time especially in Blackadder, Jeeves and Wooster and a Bit of Fry and Laurie, its hilarious!

Its a bit like hearing James Marsters or Alexis Desinoff from the Buffy and Angel series, Alexis sounds like he has a fake American accent to me!

Good series House, will get and watch it properly one day!

Philip

391. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175751 by Philip1978 on May 6, 2008 at 1:16 am

Wow, what an article!

Out of all the writers whose books I have read, Sam Harris was the first one to get me spooked - End of Faith scared the crap out of me when I first read it. It taught me a lot about fundamentalist religions and the strange authority they seem to wield in the face of their barbaric and dangerous customs

I like the way Sam delves right in with his writing and I like the way his points are direct and full of what makes a lot of sense to me.

There is an uncanny irony here that many have noticed. The position of the Muslim community in the face of all provocations seems to be: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn't, we will kill you. Of course, the truth is often more nuanced, but this is about as nuanced as it ever gets: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn't, we peaceful Muslims cannot be held responsible for what our less peaceful brothers and sisters do. When they burn your embassies or kidnap and slaughter your journalists, know that we will hold you primarily responsible and will spend the bulk of our energies criticizing you for "racism" and "Islamophobia."

392. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173664 by Philip1978 on May 1, 2008 at 4:35 am

Calilasseia

First, thank you for making me look up the word encephalitic

Secondly, I worry that you are working on the grand assumption Wooter has a brain to acutely inflame! :)

Thanks for your posts though, still very interesting and highly informative! More Tea to you!

Philip

393. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173613 by Philip1978 on May 1, 2008 at 12:27 am

Clearmind

What happened?

You posted a few reasonably eloquent things recently but have slowly regressed back to "WOOOT, woooot wooot beeep Mona Lisa says there is no LOGIC in your Bertrand! How can your evolins argue with that?"

Come on, lay off the drugs you crazy hermaphrodite!

Philip

394. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172991 by Philip1978 on April 30, 2008 at 8:17 am

Getting confused now...

Seeker, I am baffled, not difficult to accomplish me being the sort that is prone to getting baffled a lot.

I don't understand why it is up to us to go look for these things when you are the one making the assertion that the Earth is around the 4500 year old mark.

If I came on here saying I thought the world was a rather amusing shade of pink, contrary to popular thought that the world perceived through human eyes is full of different colours etc I would have to prove that to you all or get myself down the local opticians or padded cell! :)

I am not saying you are in need of the padded cell, but you have made a comment that is contrary to the evidence available that claims the Earth's age to be vastly greater than the value you have given it.

I think you need to show the evidence, but that is just a humble request as I think people need more convincing of this.

Philip

395. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172813 by Philip1978 on April 30, 2008 at 5:41 am

Cartomancer,

Dont remove the avatar just yet, I think its quite artful! I don't know if I approve of the sunglasses but the rest is fine!

riandouglas

Thats a fine word!

396. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172802 by Philip1978 on April 30, 2008 at 5:32 am

Seeker

I think you could benefit greatly from reading a book on dinosaurs! :)

397. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172794 by Philip1978 on April 30, 2008 at 5:26 am

seeker_of_truth

How do you explain Tiktaalik then? Thats way over 4500 years old!

Philip

398. Fleabytes

Comment #172764 by Philip1978 on April 30, 2008 at 4:27 am

riandouglas

Adam and Eve vs Chimps etc

No contest!

God literally plonked Adam and Eve in the deep end, they had not even had the chance to be children let alone thinking adults.

He had created a paradise from which it posed no danger to Adam & Eve at all - How were they supposed to develop any sense of danger or badness when they had not been taught it? Practically all they had been taught was to name birds, eat fruit from trees and be naked - god has only told them so much but even then they had not had time or the encouragement to be aware of consequences?


Chimps etc developed their morals and learning through their evolution, through generations, through trail and error - the list is endless as to how chimps learned how to be moral and reason. They had to be to survive, if they didn't learn it we wouldnt be here.

Adam and Eve on the other hand were victims of Gods duplicitous nature, he had to get scapegoats in order to get worshiped.

If God did exist, I concede he would have a sense of humour because he helped created atheists!

Philip

399. Fleabytes

Comment #172744 by Philip1978 on April 30, 2008 at 3:13 am

riandouglas

Doesn't that make mankind prior to the fall amoral?

Certainly does hold weight doesn't it!

Also makes God look completely stupid sacrificing his son/himself in human form on the cross later on!

Jesus dies for original sin and original sin is a complete set up - God has a plan for everyone does he? Well this one plan is so sodding devious its unbelievable! People have been begging forgiveness because of a set up, how the religious can justify this without feeling slightly stupid I don't know!

Tis a mad world my masters!

Philip

400. Fleabytes

Comment #172720 by Philip1978 on April 30, 2008 at 1:46 am

godless1

Not that I even dare think that the Adam and Eve story is true, I don't think Adam and Eve were created perfect as you say, I say they were stupid! :)

Were they not completely and utterly devoid of any intelligence and therefore not able to know that scoffing the fruit would be a bad thing to do?

My other theory is that God set them up to fall in the first place - he lets the snake in, plants the tree within easy reach of his credulous creations and then sits back and then pretends to go berserk and punishes them for it.

Now, if you buy into the theory that old Yahweh was omniscient, that makes him look even more like the bastard he really is - he KNEW it was coming but did it anyway! :)

Thank goodness I don't believe a word of this rubbish!

Philip