unwashed dishes and toilet paper tubes

[Garm]

One of them came back today with a pamphlet. I eagerly accepted it and have now prepared a chapter-by-chapter rebuttal for every bullshit argument made within it. I am now prepared. If they come back, I can pretty much read from a script.

I heartily support this idea. Have you considered turning it into a book? I would buy it. There are about a thrillionity churches near my house.

[SlyReaper]

It's kinda tailored for the specific pamphlet they gave me, but if it helps:

Spoiler:

Was Life Created?

Page 4: The living planet. You claim that a remarkable set of coincidences allow us to exist on
Earth.

If the conditions favourable to life were not present on Earth, then we would not be here on Earth to
wonder about it. The very existence of minds capable of debating this necessitates these conditions.
Life appears in a place where life is possible – this is not a coincidence.

Secondly, the universe is unimaginably huge. These conditions were bound to appear somewhere
within it.

Page 11: Who designed it first? You're assuming that complexity implies deliberate design.

Not true. Complex patterns do emerge from simple starting conditions without intelligent
intervention.

Example: The Mandelbrot set
Example: Conway's Game Of Life
Example: Langton's Ant

Look them up on Wikipedia or Google, they're interesting. In all cases, a very simple set of rules
coupled with a simple initial condition results in emergent complexity. No design goes into it other
than programming those rules and initial conditions. As for applying that to evolution, natural
selection already provides a plausible mechanism by which such natural complexity and beauty
may emerge from more humble beginnings.

Page 18:
Myth 1: You claim that disappointing early experiments into mutation breeding disprove the notion
that mutations drive natural selection.

Firstly, Lönnig is a known proponent of Intelligent Design. His papers take the default position of
Intelligent Design being correct, and that evolutionary phenomena need to appear to falsify it. This
is not scientific. No hypothesis should lack a burden of proof.

When these early mutation breeding experiments were done, the field of genetics was still in its
infancy. Since then, many beneficial mutations have been observed, both in the wild and in
captivity. See: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html.

Myth 2: You claim that the beaks of Darwin's finches reverted back to small beak dominance once
the period of drought was over.

This is exactly what natural selection predicts would happen when conditions go back to favouring
small beaks. This helps my argument, not yours.

Myth 3: You claim that the fossil record does not show macroevolutionary changes.

The fossil record gives us snapshots of what animals used to look like. Demanding that it show you
the transition between one form and another is akin to having two photos of a tree, taken decades
apart, and demanding that these photos show you the transition between them. However, the fossil
record is remarkably complete, and intermediate forms for many species have been documented.

Example: Great apes → Australopithecus → Homo Habilis → Homo Rudolfensis → Homo Erectus
→ Homo Heidelbergensis → Homo Sapiens (modern humans). Homo Neanderthalis aren't
included in that list because they actually coexisted and interbred with Homo Sapiens. So, you need
a missing link between man and ape? There's five right there.

As for “sudden” changes and appearances of species, there's nothing in the theory of natural
selection that prevents that. Indeed, if the environment changes suddenly (such as during an
extinction event like that which wiped out the dinosaurs), then you would expect relatively rapid
evolution among the survivors of the catastrophe to adapt to the new environment. This evolution
would still occur on timescales which dwarf a human lifespan, of course.

Page 24: Science and the Genesis account: The Bible's account of creation doesn't actually
contradict a 4.5 billion year old Earth or a 13.7 billion year old universe.

Excellent. We finally have some common ground. However, finding one thing the Bible is not
wrong about does not mean it's correct about everything. And it speaks volumes that that part is
written so vaguely that the fundamentalists with whom you disagree are able to interpret it in such a
way as to conclude the Earth is only a few thousand years old.

As for Moses being right about the universe having a start and animals appearing in stages, lucky
guess. If you state something vaguely enough, then the chances are high that someone in a future
generation will read about it and interpret it is being prescient.

Page 29: Does it matter what you believe?: Wouldn't it just be nice if God existed?

This is wishful thinking. Just because you want a thing to be true, doesn't mean it is. As for our
lives having meaning, I think we make our own meaning. Mine is simply to leave the world a
slightly better place than it would have been had I never existed, and to learn as much as I can about
the world I find myself in in the time that I have. Your examples of past chaos, conflict, and
corruption could be taken more as a sign that God does not exist, or at least that He does not
intervene. If He did, would He not have done something to alleviate it? In the erudite words of
Eddie Izzard, “why didn't He just flick Hitler's head off”?

***

The Abrahamic God described in the Torah, Bible, and Koran strikes me as a tyrant. He's a
telepathic father figure who tells His children that “love” means “kneeling before Him”. That can't
be healthy, for an individual or a species. There might still be a creator of some kind – I can't
disprove it, but the one presented by the world's organised religions is utterly implausible for this
very reason. It would be like me building an ant farm in my bedroom and then demanding that the
ants acknowledge me, fear me, worship me, and love me.

I look into the night sky and I see a galaxy of 200 billion stars, in a universe of 100 billion galaxies.
To think all this was created for humans is implausible and slightly arrogant. And throughout
history, no matter how religious he may have been, no physicist has ever needed God to balance any
equation. There are still things we haven't worked out yet, but that doesn't mean the answer to those
mysteries is a deity holding things together or zapping things into existence.

[Djehutynakht]

I've been considering an idea for some electoral humor. My idea is to get an Obama sign from his office and a Romney sign from his office, and then remove one side of each and switch them, so I end up with two "Obamney" signs, which I can then plant on my house or picket with to confuse people.

I even came up with the idea of holding an "Indecisive voters" rally, where I make 30 or so of these Obamney signs and march through the streets, alternatively switching from one candidate's rhetoric to the others.

I think I may go through with the Obamney sign for my house at least. Not sure if I'd go through the trouble of organizing a rally. Maybe just give them out for free to people.

[bluebambue]

Though if you only start out with one Obama and one Romney, you'll end up with one Obamney and one Roma. Not 2 Obamney.

[Djehutynakht]

Though if you only start out with one Obama and one Romney, you'll end up with one Obamney and one Roma. Not 2 Obamney.

The idea is that each yard sign usually is doublesided-with both sides the same. So if I switched one side from one sign with one side from the other sign, I'd end up with two identical signs.

Unless you're referring to what I call them.

[bluebambue]

Ah, I didn't realize the double sidedness.

[UniqueScreenname]

The Abrahamic God described in the Torah, Bible, and Koran strikes me as a tyrant. He's a
telepathic father figure who tells His children that “love” means “kneeling before Him”. That can't
be healthy, for an individual or a species.There might still be a creator of some kind – I can't
disprove it, but the one presented by the world's organised religions is utterly implausible for this
very reason.

Spoilered for length, and going against the common thinking of these forums.

Spoiler:

People are so willing to blame God for the world's problems, paint Him as evil, but give Him no credit for any good. Imagine a scenario.

Imagine a crazy rich man, say the entire Forbes list combined, was able to take some of his land and basically give his son a country. He stocked it with the best organic fruit trees, best organic vegetables, free of damaging bugs and blights, hormone-free animals, healthy, strong capable animals, created a tributary system that kept any sort of harmful agent out of the water, built him a mansion with the best materials using thoroughly checked and rechecked specifications to ensure the longevity and safety and easiest set-up, and he did it all himself because he didn't want anybody he didn't trust to mess up anything. He builds the cities so that traffic is nonexistent and every route of travel will be as economical and environmentally safe as humanly possible. He gives it to his son on the condition that he keeps it up and he calls him everyday. Maybe a thank you.

Do you really think this father doesn't deserve to expect love and respect? Do you think the son should ignore all the advice the father gave him to sustain that country because he thinks he can do better, despite the fact that he has absolutely no idea what he's looking at? When the trees die and the bugs attack the plants and the animals start dying in droves and robbers steal endlessly and someone tries to usurp the son's position and the waters becomes polluted and the cities fall into disrepair and all the citizens start fighting and killing one another, some worse than others, does that have anything at all to do with the father? If you were that father, would you just sit back and watch all your hard work fall to pieces, or would you reach out and guide anyone willing to listen to fix it, and expect that the people who promised to help you did what they said they would? Would you be angry if they didn't hold up their end? Would you be hurt?

If you are going to come to a conclusion based on certain events, you have to actually look at the events. Every facet of them - beginning, middle, and end. The Bible doesn't teach that God wanted to control every movement humans made. If that were the case, nothing after Genesis 2 would exist. It doesn't teach that God automatically kills any entity that doesn't listen to him. If that were the case, nothing after Genesis 3 would exist. It teaches that He made something ridiculously better than what we have and humans didn't want to listen. So when He allowed them to see what life would be like when they did what they wanted, bad things happened. The Bible teaches that He expected the people that said they would listen to Him to listen to Him. What a crazy idea!

Really, think about it for a second. The Hebrew Scriptures are centered around the Israelites and any surrounding nations that were somewhat related to them. That's because God and Abraham made a promise to each other, and it applied to Abraham's descendants. (Here, you say that's unfair. Think about it. We inherit stuff from our ancestors all the time. Their eye color, their genetic disease, their car payment, their mortgage. It's not as crazy as you would think.) There were plenty of other civilizations at that time though that God had no dealings with. Biblical and non-Biblical examples: the Canaanites, the Phoenicians, the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Sumerians, etc. If God ever threatened them, it's because they were attacking His people. HOW DARE HE! HE MUST BE A TYRANT! Maybe you say Adam and Eve had no choice. They were just plopped into the situation. 1) What a terribly cruddy situation to be dropped into. 2) Really? They had to stay away from a tree! (And there is nothing that would indicate that that tree was different from any of the other trees in the Garden of Eden. It could have been the same kind of fruit on the tree next to it. Nothing indicates unfair restriction from them on God's part.)

None of this has anything to do with proving or disproving whether God exists. However, you say you cannot believe in God based on a conclusion that is not based in reality. I can't speak for the Koran at all. But the Torah, the Pentateuch, the Hebrew Scriptures, and the entire Bible DO NOT support that claim.

[brakos82]

Sometimes I find it funny... people who claim Nascar isn't a sport, but poker is.

[yurell]

Sometimes I find it funny... people who claim Nascar isn't a sport, but poker is.

And that shooting is, but Starcraft isn't.

[SlyReaper]

The Abrahamic God described in the Torah, Bible, and Koran strikes me as a tyrant. He's a
telepathic father figure who tells His children that “love” means “kneeling before Him”. That can't
be healthy, for an individual or a species.There might still be a creator of some kind – I can't
disprove it, but the one presented by the world's organised religions is utterly implausible for this
very reason.

Spoilered for length, and going against the common thinking of these forums.

Spoiler:

People are so willing to blame God for the world's problems, paint Him as evil, but give Him no credit for any good. Imagine a scenario.

Imagine a crazy rich man, say the entire Forbes list combined, was able to take some of his land and basically give his son a country. He stocked it with the best organic fruit trees, best organic vegetables, free of damaging bugs and blights, hormone-free animals, healthy, strong capable animals, created a tributary system that kept any sort of harmful agent out of the water, built him a mansion with the best materials using thoroughly checked and rechecked specifications to ensure the longevity and safety and easiest set-up, and he did it all himself because he didn't want anybody he didn't trust to mess up anything. He builds the cities so that traffic is nonexistent and every route of travel will be as economical and environmentally safe as humanly possible. He gives it to his son on the condition that he keeps it up and he calls him everyday. Maybe a thank you.

Do you really think this father doesn't deserve to expect love and respect? Do you think the son should ignore all the advice the father gave him to sustain that country because he thinks he can do better, despite the fact that he has absolutely no idea what he's looking at? When the trees die and the bugs attack the plants and the animals start dying in droves and robbers steal endlessly and someone tries to usurp the son's position and the waters becomes polluted and the cities fall into disrepair and all the citizens start fighting and killing one another, some worse than others, does that have anything at all to do with the father? If you were that father, would you just sit back and watch all your hard work fall to pieces, or would you reach out and guide anyone willing to listen to fix it, and expect that the people who promised to help you did what they said they would? Would you be angry if they didn't hold up their end? Would you be hurt?

If you are going to come to a conclusion based on certain events, you have to actually look at the events. Every facet of them - beginning, middle, and end. The Bible doesn't teach that God wanted to control every movement humans made. If that were the case, nothing after Genesis 2 would exist. It doesn't teach that God automatically kills any entity that doesn't listen to him. If that were the case, nothing after Genesis 3 would exist. It teaches that He made something ridiculously better than what we have and humans didn't want to listen. So when He allowed them to see what life would be like when they did what they wanted, bad things happened. The Bible teaches that He expected the people that said they would listen to Him to listen to Him. What a crazy idea!

Really, think about it for a second. The Hebrew Scriptures are centered around the Israelites and any surrounding nations that were somewhat related to them. That's because God and Abraham made a promise to each other, and it applied to Abraham's descendants. (Here, you say that's unfair. Think about it. We inherit stuff from our ancestors all the time. Their eye color, their genetic disease, their car payment, their mortgage. It's not as crazy as you would think.) There were plenty of other civilizations at that time though that God had no dealings with. Biblical and non-Biblical examples: the Canaanites, the Phoenicians, the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Sumerians, etc. If God ever threatened them, it's because they were attacking His people. HOW DARE HE! HE MUST BE A TYRANT! Maybe you say Adam and Eve had no choice. They were just plopped into the situation. 1) What a terribly cruddy situation to be dropped into. 2) Really? They had to stay away from a tree! (And there is nothing that would indicate that that tree was different from any of the other trees in the Garden of Eden. It could have been the same kind of fruit on the tree next to it. Nothing indicates unfair restriction from them on God's part.)

None of this has anything to do with proving or disproving whether God exists. However, you say you cannot believe in God based on a conclusion that is not based in reality. I can't speak for the Koran at all. But the Torah, the Pentateuch, the Hebrew Scriptures, and the entire Bible DO NOT support that claim.

Spoilered for religion

Spoiler:

In your analogy, the uber-rich dad never meets his son in person, and does everything in his power to set things up to look like he never existed. Any income the son receives looks like returns from investments. Everything else is set up to look like it came about naturally. The son is deprived of any books or information which would tell him that mansions and well-cultivated orchards don't just sprout out of the ground and maintain themselves, and that someone before him would have had to make those investments in the first place. Under such conditions, it's natural for the boy to assume that's just how the world works. It's contradictory to hide oneself like that, indeed to orchestrate this elaborate con job, and still expect thanks. If the uber-rich dad ever presented himself in front of the boy and revealed the entire scheme, then the boy would at least have to acknowledge his existence. I think the boy would be conflicted between gratitude for having all this stuff, and betrayal for being tricked like that.

[Angua]

The Abrahamic God described in the Torah, Bible, and Koran strikes me as a tyrant. He's a
telepathic father figure who tells His children that “love” means “kneeling before Him”. That can't
be healthy, for an individual or a species.There might still be a creator of some kind – I can't
disprove it, but the one presented by the world's organised religions is utterly implausible for this
very reason.

Spoilered for length, and going against the common thinking of these forums.

Spoiler:

People are so willing to blame God for the world's problems, paint Him as evil, but give Him no credit for any good. Imagine a scenario.

Imagine a crazy rich man, say the entire Forbes list combined, was able to take some of his land and basically give his son a country. He stocked it with the best organic fruit trees, best organic vegetables, free of damaging bugs and blights, hormone-free animals, healthy, strong capable animals, created a tributary system that kept any sort of harmful agent out of the water, built him a mansion with the best materials using thoroughly checked and rechecked specifications to ensure the longevity and safety and easiest set-up, and he did it all himself because he didn't want anybody he didn't trust to mess up anything. He builds the cities so that traffic is nonexistent and every route of travel will be as economical and environmentally safe as humanly possible. He gives it to his son on the condition that he keeps it up and he calls him everyday. Maybe a thank you.

Do you really think this father doesn't deserve to expect love and respect? Do you think the son should ignore all the advice the father gave him to sustain that country because he thinks he can do better, despite the fact that he has absolutely no idea what he's looking at? When the trees die and the bugs attack the plants and the animals start dying in droves and robbers steal endlessly and someone tries to usurp the son's position and the waters becomes polluted and the cities fall into disrepair and all the citizens start fighting and killing one another, some worse than others, does that have anything at all to do with the father? If you were that father, would you just sit back and watch all your hard work fall to pieces, or would you reach out and guide anyone willing to listen to fix it, and expect that the people who promised to help you did what they said they would? Would you be angry if they didn't hold up their end? Would you be hurt?

If you are going to come to a conclusion based on certain events, you have to actually look at the events. Every facet of them - beginning, middle, and end. The Bible doesn't teach that God wanted to control every movement humans made. If that were the case, nothing after Genesis 2 would exist. It doesn't teach that God automatically kills any entity that doesn't listen to him. If that were the case, nothing after Genesis 3 would exist. It teaches that He made something ridiculously better than what we have and humans didn't want to listen. So when He allowed them to see what life would be like when they did what they wanted, bad things happened. The Bible teaches that He expected the people that said they would listen to Him to listen to Him. What a crazy idea!

Really, think about it for a second. The Hebrew Scriptures are centered around the Israelites and any surrounding nations that were somewhat related to them. That's because God and Abraham made a promise to each other, and it applied to Abraham's descendants. (Here, you say that's unfair. Think about it. We inherit stuff from our ancestors all the time. Their eye color, their genetic disease, their car payment, their mortgage. It's not as crazy as you would think.) There were plenty of other civilizations at that time though that God had no dealings with. Biblical and non-Biblical examples: the Canaanites, the Phoenicians, the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Sumerians, etc. If God ever threatened them, it's because they were attacking His people. HOW DARE HE! HE MUST BE A TYRANT! Maybe you say Adam and Eve had no choice. They were just plopped into the situation. 1) What a terribly cruddy situation to be dropped into. 2) Really? They had to stay away from a tree! (And there is nothing that would indicate that that tree was different from any of the other trees in the Garden of Eden. It could have been the same kind of fruit on the tree next to it. Nothing indicates unfair restriction from them on God's part.)

None of this has anything to do with proving or disproving whether God exists. However, you say you cannot believe in God based on a conclusion that is not based in reality. I can't speak for the Koran at all. But the Torah, the Pentateuch, the Hebrew Scriptures, and the entire Bible DO NOT support that claim.

Spoilered for religion

Spoiler:

If we consider Adam and Eve to be like children (after all, wasn't the whole point of the apple that it gave them knowledge of right and wrong), then do you really think it is reasonable for a parent to expect a child to not touch one thing that seems to be like everything else, without giving them more of a reason than 'because I said so'? And then to punish the children, and their children, for multiple generations?

[roband]

One post is a screech, two is a debate, three makes it discussion - there must be a thread somewhere more suitable than this?

[UniqueScreenname]

The Abrahamic God described in the Torah, Bible, and Koran strikes me as a tyrant. He's a
telepathic father figure who tells His children that “love” means “kneeling before Him”. That can't
be healthy, for an individual or a species.There might still be a creator of some kind – I can't
disprove it, but the one presented by the world's organised religions is utterly implausible for this
very reason.

Spoilered for length, and going against the common thinking of these forums.

Spoiler:

People are so willing to blame God for the world's problems, paint Him as evil, but give Him no credit for any good. Imagine a scenario.

Imagine a crazy rich man, say the entire Forbes list combined, was able to take some of his land and basically give his son a country. He stocked it with the best organic fruit trees, best organic vegetables, free of damaging bugs and blights, hormone-free animals, healthy, strong capable animals, created a tributary system that kept any sort of harmful agent out of the water, built him a mansion with the best materials using thoroughly checked and rechecked specifications to ensure the longevity and safety and easiest set-up, and he did it all himself because he didn't want anybody he didn't trust to mess up anything. He builds the cities so that traffic is nonexistent and every route of travel will be as economical and environmentally safe as humanly possible. He gives it to his son on the condition that he keeps it up and he calls him everyday. Maybe a thank you.

Do you really think this father doesn't deserve to expect love and respect? Do you think the son should ignore all the advice the father gave him to sustain that country because he thinks he can do better, despite the fact that he has absolutely no idea what he's looking at? When the trees die and the bugs attack the plants and the animals start dying in droves and robbers steal endlessly and someone tries to usurp the son's position and the waters becomes polluted and the cities fall into disrepair and all the citizens start fighting and killing one another, some worse than others, does that have anything at all to do with the father? If you were that father, would you just sit back and watch all your hard work fall to pieces, or would you reach out and guide anyone willing to listen to fix it, and expect that the people who promised to help you did what they said they would? Would you be angry if they didn't hold up their end? Would you be hurt?

If you are going to come to a conclusion based on certain events, you have to actually look at the events. Every facet of them - beginning, middle, and end. The Bible doesn't teach that God wanted to control every movement humans made. If that were the case, nothing after Genesis 2 would exist. It doesn't teach that God automatically kills any entity that doesn't listen to him. If that were the case, nothing after Genesis 3 would exist. It teaches that He made something ridiculously better than what we have and humans didn't want to listen. So when He allowed them to see what life would be like when they did what they wanted, bad things happened. The Bible teaches that He expected the people that said they would listen to Him to listen to Him. What a crazy idea!

Really, think about it for a second. The Hebrew Scriptures are centered around the Israelites and any surrounding nations that were somewhat related to them. That's because God and Abraham made a promise to each other, and it applied to Abraham's descendants. (Here, you say that's unfair. Think about it. We inherit stuff from our ancestors all the time. Their eye color, their genetic disease, their car payment, their mortgage. It's not as crazy as you would think.) There were plenty of other civilizations at that time though that God had no dealings with. Biblical and non-Biblical examples: the Canaanites, the Phoenicians, the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Sumerians, etc. If God ever threatened them, it's because they were attacking His people. HOW DARE HE! HE MUST BE A TYRANT! Maybe you say Adam and Eve had no choice. They were just plopped into the situation. 1) What a terribly cruddy situation to be dropped into. 2) Really? They had to stay away from a tree! (And there is nothing that would indicate that that tree was different from any of the other trees in the Garden of Eden. It could have been the same kind of fruit on the tree next to it. Nothing indicates unfair restriction from them on God's part.)

None of this has anything to do with proving or disproving whether God exists. However, you say you cannot believe in God based on a conclusion that is not based in reality. I can't speak for the Koran at all. But the Torah, the Pentateuch, the Hebrew Scriptures, and the entire Bible DO NOT support that claim.

Spoilered for religion

Spoiler:

In your analogy, the uber-rich dad never meets his son in person, and does everything in his power to set things up to look like he never existed. Any income the son receives looks like returns from investments. Everything else is set up to look like it came about naturally. The son is deprived of any books or information which would tell him that mansions and well-cultivated orchards don't just sprout out of the ground and maintain themselves, and that someone before him would have had to make those investments in the first place. Under such conditions, it's natural for the boy to assume that's just how the world works. It's contradictory to hide oneself like that, indeed to orchestrate this elaborate con job, and still expect thanks. If the uber-rich dad ever presented himself in front of the boy and revealed the entire scheme, then the boy would at least have to acknowledge his existence. I think the boy would be conflicted between gratitude for having all this stuff, and betrayal for being tricked like that.

Spoiler:

If we consider Adam and Eve to be like children (after all, wasn't the whole point of the apple that it gave them knowledge of right and wrong), then do you really think it is reasonable for a parent to expect a child to not touch one thing that seems to be like everything else, without giving them more of a reason than 'because I said so'? And then to punish the children, and their children, for multiple generations?

Spoiler:

I never said the son didn't know the father did that for him. I said the father told the son what he did for him and what he wanted in return and wanted to help him to sustain it.

Adam and Eve knew right and wrong before. They knew their actions were going against the only thing the person that gave them everything asked of them. The tree just gave them the freedom to ignore God and decide for themselves what what good and what was bad, but not because it was magic or special, but because the special relationship they had was ruined. As for the second part, imperfection is genetic and the Bible mentions a lot of other stuff that made God not just kill Adam and Eve and start over. It would just be a large tangent that I'm sure no one would want to hear.

[a_fuzzyduck]

The Jehovah's Witnesses just won't believe me when I tell them the Bible is bunkum. I think I should go knock on their doors and try to convince them that way.

"Excuse me, have you felt the noodles of the Flying Spaghetti Monster today?"

I've used various arguments. My best for door to door was "See this front door, it only works wan way on missionaries". Works best in a medium Glaswegian accent, in England. Not the most friendly or pleasant of arguments. But it at least gives you a few seconds to shut the door on them.

[Angua]

The Abrahamic God described in the Torah, Bible, and Koran strikes me as a tyrant. He's a
telepathic father figure who tells His children that “love” means “kneeling before Him”. That can't
be healthy, for an individual or a species.There might still be a creator of some kind – I can't
disprove it, but the one presented by the world's organised religions is utterly implausible for this
very reason.

Spoilered for length, and going against the common thinking of these forums.

Spoiler:

People are so willing to blame God for the world's problems, paint Him as evil, but give Him no credit for any good. Imagine a scenario.

Imagine a crazy rich man, say the entire Forbes list combined, was able to take some of his land and basically give his son a country. He stocked it with the best organic fruit trees, best organic vegetables, free of damaging bugs and blights, hormone-free animals, healthy, strong capable animals, created a tributary system that kept any sort of harmful agent out of the water, built him a mansion with the best materials using thoroughly checked and rechecked specifications to ensure the longevity and safety and easiest set-up, and he did it all himself because he didn't want anybody he didn't trust to mess up anything. He builds the cities so that traffic is nonexistent and every route of travel will be as economical and environmentally safe as humanly possible. He gives it to his son on the condition that he keeps it up and he calls him everyday. Maybe a thank you.

Do you really think this father doesn't deserve to expect love and respect? Do you think the son should ignore all the advice the father gave him to sustain that country because he thinks he can do better, despite the fact that he has absolutely no idea what he's looking at? When the trees die and the bugs attack the plants and the animals start dying in droves and robbers steal endlessly and someone tries to usurp the son's position and the waters becomes polluted and the cities fall into disrepair and all the citizens start fighting and killing one another, some worse than others, does that have anything at all to do with the father? If you were that father, would you just sit back and watch all your hard work fall to pieces, or would you reach out and guide anyone willing to listen to fix it, and expect that the people who promised to help you did what they said they would? Would you be angry if they didn't hold up their end? Would you be hurt?

If you are going to come to a conclusion based on certain events, you have to actually look at the events. Every facet of them - beginning, middle, and end. The Bible doesn't teach that God wanted to control every movement humans made. If that were the case, nothing after Genesis 2 would exist. It doesn't teach that God automatically kills any entity that doesn't listen to him. If that were the case, nothing after Genesis 3 would exist. It teaches that He made something ridiculously better than what we have and humans didn't want to listen. So when He allowed them to see what life would be like when they did what they wanted, bad things happened. The Bible teaches that He expected the people that said they would listen to Him to listen to Him. What a crazy idea!

Really, think about it for a second. The Hebrew Scriptures are centered around the Israelites and any surrounding nations that were somewhat related to them. That's because God and Abraham made a promise to each other, and it applied to Abraham's descendants. (Here, you say that's unfair. Think about it. We inherit stuff from our ancestors all the time. Their eye color, their genetic disease, their car payment, their mortgage. It's not as crazy as you would think.) There were plenty of other civilizations at that time though that God had no dealings with. Biblical and non-Biblical examples: the Canaanites, the Phoenicians, the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Sumerians, etc. If God ever threatened them, it's because they were attacking His people. HOW DARE HE! HE MUST BE A TYRANT! Maybe you say Adam and Eve had no choice. They were just plopped into the situation. 1) What a terribly cruddy situation to be dropped into. 2) Really? They had to stay away from a tree! (And there is nothing that would indicate that that tree was different from any of the other trees in the Garden of Eden. It could have been the same kind of fruit on the tree next to it. Nothing indicates unfair restriction from them on God's part.)

None of this has anything to do with proving or disproving whether God exists. However, you say you cannot believe in God based on a conclusion that is not based in reality. I can't speak for the Koran at all. But the Torah, the Pentateuch, the Hebrew Scriptures, and the entire Bible DO NOT support that claim.

Spoilered for religion

Spoiler:

In your analogy, the uber-rich dad never meets his son in person, and does everything in his power to set things up to look like he never existed. Any income the son receives looks like returns from investments. Everything else is set up to look like it came about naturally. The son is deprived of any books or information which would tell him that mansions and well-cultivated orchards don't just sprout out of the ground and maintain themselves, and that someone before him would have had to make those investments in the first place. Under such conditions, it's natural for the boy to assume that's just how the world works. It's contradictory to hide oneself like that, indeed to orchestrate this elaborate con job, and still expect thanks. If the uber-rich dad ever presented himself in front of the boy and revealed the entire scheme, then the boy would at least have to acknowledge his existence. I think the boy would be conflicted between gratitude for having all this stuff, and betrayal for being tricked like that.

Spoiler:

If we consider Adam and Eve to be like children (after all, wasn't the whole point of the apple that it gave them knowledge of right and wrong), then do you really think it is reasonable for a parent to expect a child to not touch one thing that seems to be like everything else, without giving them more of a reason than 'because I said so'? And then to punish the children, and their children, for multiple generations?

Spoiler:

I never said the son didn't know the father did that for him. I said the father told the son what he did for him and what he wanted in return and wanted to help him to sustain it.

Adam and Eve knew right and wrong before. They knew their actions were going against the only thing the person that gave them everything asked of them. The tree just gave them the freedom to ignore God and decide for themselves what what good and what was bad, but not because it was magic or special, but because the special relationship they had was ruined. As for the second part, imperfection is genetic and the Bible mentions a lot of other stuff that made God not just kill Adam and Eve and start over. It would just be a large tangent that I'm sure no one would want to hear.

I'm not going to go any further, Roband

Spoiler:

All I'll says is that I still think it's unreasonable for god to have told them to do something without giving anything more than 'because I said so'. We are going to fundamentally disagree on this point, but I think that's a crucial distinction in why some of us see god as a tyrant, and some of us don't.

[eSOANEM]

Spoiler:

Adam and Eve knew right and wrong before.

Spoiler:

This is not necessarily the case. They knew it was against what they had been told, but that did not mean they knew it was wrong. The tree is usually referred to as the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" which, a quick search tells me, is a fairly accurate translation of the original Hebrew. If this is the case, it is heavily implied that before they ate of its fruit, they did not know good from evil.

There is a counter-argument that "good and evil" is used to mean everything, more in the sense of "the tree of knowledge, both the good and the evil". In this case though it would be best rendered as the "tree of all knowledge" and, as man is clearly not omniscient, this seems an unlikely choice of interpretation.

[broken_escalator]

Should have made the Tree of Knowledge a pine tree. Good luck tempting me to eat a pinecone!

Doesn't work if they're juniper berries, then the temptation is booze.

[UniqueScreenname]

@eSOANEM

Spoiler:

I agree with the first definition, but you could also define knowledge in that case to mean experience. They would now know evil because they would experience our when before they never had to.

[Snark]

I got the job offer!!!!

Edit: The morning after the interview! I think I impressed them.

[roband]

Congrats

[eSOANEM]

@eSOANEM

Spoiler:

I agree with the first definition, but you could also define knowledge in that case to mean experience. They would now know evil because they would experience our when before they never had to.

Spoiler:

This would not account for the sudden realisation of their nakedness reported. Also, a brief search tells me that the Hebrew word דַּעַת which is the word used in Genesis translates as either knowledge or wisdom, no reference to experience anywhere.

Wisdom clearly doesn't fit with the whole good & evil thing so the only way I can see to interpret it is straight up knowledge in which case the tree allowed Adam & Eve to distinguish good and evil. Even if this is not the interpretation intended by whoever wrote it, the fact that it is such a common one means that the statement "Adam and Eve knew right and wrong before" without caveat is not a good one to make.

Also, going back to the post I was originally responding to, the tree cannot have given them the freedom to ignore God because they already ignored him by eating its fruit. Any effect the tree had should have been manifested only after they ate the fruit.

[SurgicalSteel]

I love Google Voice's auto transcribe:
Hi. This is any nothing on the leasing office off my sense give a apartments. I'm calling to follow up. ON your call of dealer July 31st about the friend, bones all band. I wanna make sure it was fixed and also to see if everything if you need anything to be fixed up. My phone number here is (xxx) xxx-xxxx. Again (xxx) xxx-xxxx. Thank You have to pay.

Translation:

Spoiler:

Hi. This is Emmy at the leasing office for Mason's Keepe apartments. I'm calling to follow up on your call on, uh, July 31st about the fan above the oven. I wanted to make sure it was fixed and also see if everything, um, if you need anything else fixed. My phone number here is (xxx) xxx-xxxx. Again (xxx) xxx-xxxx. Thank You, have a nice day.

It's pretty good, but mistranslated phrases like "the friend, bones all band" still make me smile.

[UniqueScreenname]

Spoiler:

Adam and Eve knew right and wrong before.

Spoiler:

This is not necessarily the case. They knew it was against what they had been told, but that did not mean they knew it was wrong. The tree is usually referred to as the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" which, a quick search tells me, is a fairly accurate translation of the original Hebrew. If this is the case, it is heavily implied that before they ate of its fruit, they did not know good from evil.

There is a counter-argument that "good and evil" is used to mean everything, more in the sense of "the tree of knowledge, both the good and the evil". In this case though it would be best rendered as the "tree of all knowledge" and, as man is clearly not omniscient, this seems an unlikely choice of interpretation.

Spoiler:

In doing further research, I agree with you. Knowing it's not what they were supposed to do does not mean they knew it was wrong. And I also agree they always had the option to disobey. And now I'm wondering what we were discussing before or whether it was just about semantics.

[Steax]

Names still seem to be the issue with all voice recognition systems I've tried out. Especially location names, since they can't just steal those from the address book.

[PeteP]

About the religion thing

Spoiler:

I choose the interpretation that god wanted to keep humans as weak pets without knowledge or power and was angry that they gained knowledge because it threatened him. See the Tower of Babel.
But honestly if you don't want them to eat from it, how about just not putting it where they have easy access? It makes sense if you are testing whether they unconditionally follow your whims, but I wouldn't view that very favorably either.

[The Cat]

I don't wanna start with the election until after the Olympics!

_________

So happy for the USA athletes! Really enjoyed watching womens soccer, water polo, beach volleyball, volleyball, and track. I think the Olympics brings out the best spirit in all of us. Go USA! Hats off to the German mens beach V-ball team. Great final! Do they have sailing in the Olympics? Is it televised? Fine fare all around.

Cheers!

[K-R]

Virgin Australia: All men are paedophiles

What the fuck goes through these people's heads?

[Thesh]

Fear.

[yurell]

That's disgusting, but I hate Virgin anyway; I am not a 'guest', I am a paying customer and I expect to be treated as one. They even had the gall to call me a 'guest' on a three-hour flight that they wouldn't even give me water on (I am not paying $5 for anything less than a few kilolitres of water); at least Qantas would give me what I want. And yes, I know, they've started giving refreshments just like Qantas, but the whole 'guest' thing just infuriates me.

[Magnanimous]

Clockwise, if you're the narwhal.

[bluebambue]

Sometimes I find it funny... people who claim Nascar isn't a sport, but poker is.

And that shooting is, but Starcraft isn't.

How much physicality does Starcraft have? Shooting requires engagement with the entire body to do well.

[yurell]

How much physicality does Starcraft have? Shooting requires engagement with the entire body to do well.

Immense amount of hand-eye co-ordination and good fine motor control at the very least to get into the higher ranks, and the ability to maintain these rapid movements for periods ranging from fifteen minutes to an hour for a single game, let alone the number of games in a round.

[Adacore]

Yeah, the concentration and endurance required for major computer game (eSports) competitions is insane, and normally very under-appreciated. I've seen / played in / helped run events where a player/team in the losers bracket of a double-elimination tournament has to play nearly non-stop matches from 9am until 8pm, if they keep winning, and that's after two or three days of less intense playing in earlier stages of the competition.

That's as much mentally taxing as it is physically taxing, obviously, but mental pressure/endurance is an accepted element in lots of sport.

[eSOANEM]

Do they have sailing in the Olympics? Is it televised?

Yes and yes (although, I don't know if there's anyone in your area broadcasting it. Sadly, it's almost all over now though, there's just the women's doublehander medal race and some women's match racing today with the match racing finals tomorrow.

[The Cat]

Thank you. I'll check the highlights online.

[ahammel]

I guess Starcraft feels like it has too much window dressing to fit in the 'sport' box; what with all the efforts to make the various races seem like realized cultures with histories and all the fancy CGI that goes into making the game look pretty. I guess fencing would start to feel less like a sport if they dressed the foils up like legendary weapons and rigged up the suits so that the competitors appear to bleed when their opponent scores a touch.

Of course I realize that Starcrafting (it's a verb now) takes a great deal of skill and strategy at a high level, and that the really serious players probably don't care about all that stuff; so if they're pleased to call it a sport it's no skin off my nose.

[Noc]

I'd even go so far as to say that it's the fact that it's a game with a premise that makes it seem less sport-like to the uninitiated observer. It's like "TAKE CONTROL OF PRETEND SPACE MARINES FIGHTING PRETEND ALIENS* and pretend to command them in battle. See, you can throw down little pretend buildings and then little pretend guys come out and you can send them off to travel over the pretend landscape to fight the other guy's guys, but it's REALLY HARD to keep track of everything at once, trust me!"

Many conventional sports don't necessarily seem less arbitrary ("okay you've got a ball, you need to try and put it over there, and you can't step across these lines"), but they lack that layer of 'make-believe' thrown up in front of the skill challenges. The fencing example is actually a pretty good one -- fencing is obviously a sport, but it'd be hard to find a consensus that competitive LARPing is, because while fencing is a hundreds-years old contest of skill, LARPing is a bunch of people running around dressed up as elves swinging foam sticks at each other. There's nothing stopping a competitive LARP rules set from being at least as physically demanding and skill requiring as fencing (with an additional teamplay element, no less), but that additional layer of "pretending" makes it seem significantly less sportly.


*Or pretend aliens fighting pretend space marines or other pretend aliens.

[You, sir, name?]

I've, so far, poured $1,400 into Steam. Surely that's enough to appease the GabeN, and usher forth the third coming of Gordon Freeman.

[bigglesworth]

What if I told you that Valve was not a vending machine where you put money in Steam and Half-Life 3 comes out? [/morpheus]

[/appropriating awfully]

[Jumble]

So, I'm in Greenwich about to got to the Olympic park for the modern pentathlon. I'm really enjoying this!

However, right now I'm in the garden of the Gypsey Moth with a pint of Doom Bar. Damn sight better than over-priced coca cola in the park. I feel very Olympian.