Mr.Samsa

If so, what is the definition you ultimately came to?

St. Augustine, a venerated Christian theologian, pointed out that once you begin to read the Bible literally, then you open it up to ridicule, and ultimately that's the path to the downfall of religion. This is coming from someone who is revered as a Catholic saint and considered by many Protestants to be one of the theological fathers of the Reformation.

Fundamentalism, which began in the United States in the early 20th century, can be argued to be a theological movement which emphasizes a literal interpretation of the Bible rather than a more liberal interpretation as allegory or metaphor. Aside from the myriad other factors that surely play a part, can the modern trend of a rise in atheism (or, at the very least, a non-religious outlook) be attributed as a reaction to the growing popularity of fundamentalism and extremist religious fervor? If so, how much of a factor do you believe it contributes? How does the relatively larger percentage of atheists in Europe factor into that analysis?

If so, what did you think about the movie's religious commentary?

History tells us that this was a rule created a couple thousand years ago by a culture where men commonly sold their daughters into arranged marriages in return for land and/or goods. Since a virgin was considered more valuable than a non-virgin, fathers forbade their daughters from having sex until marriage. Obviously, attributing this rule to a vindictive God, subject to punishment of eternal torture after you die, was much more effective than to say that this was just a rule created by the man of the house, where the only punishment would be not getting sold off into a forced marriage.

But since I'm a dude, this rule wouldn't even apply to me anyway. So why should I bother to wait?

(Atheists: I am assuming for the sake of this intellectual exercise that a god exists.)

Imagine that you are sinking in a pool of quicksand, and that I am standing nearby on solid ground, holding a long and sturdy rope. But instead of tossing the rope to you and saving you from imminent death, I stand idly by and watch you sink as I tell you how much I love you. It would be easy to blame your death on me, even though you may have walked into the quicksand on your own, since I could have easily saved you at no risk of danger to myself.

If God is omnipotent, God could prevent all death and suffering in the world without lifting a finger. And yet, God allows it to occur (not to mention the fact that God affirmatively condemns people to eternal torture just for not believing that God exists). How come God doesn't share the blame for any of this?

Scientists claim to have discovered the common ancestor of humans, monkeys, and apes.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/05/19/human.a...

Can we finally put this evolution debate to bed?

A) The primary reason for the loss

B) A contributing factor

C) No net effect

D) She won more votes than she lost.

The exact origin of April Fool's Day, (sometimes called "All Fools Day") is not known. But the most prevalent explanation is that when the Gregorian calendar was instituted by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582, to replace the old Julian calendar, New Year's Day was moved up from its traditional time around April 1 to January 1. Those who refused to accept the new date or did not learn about it continued to celebrate New Year's Day on or around April 1, becoming the source of jokes and pranks.

It would seem that the trolls on R&S who have appointed this as an "atheist holiday" (unimaginatively based on an obscure passage in their book of myths) don't seem to understand that it's really about making fun of foolish people who can't keep up with or don't understand their own religious dogma.

Viewed in this light, isn't this a holiday we atheists can get behind?

Assuming that God created life on our planet, is it impossible for God to have intended to cause diversity in living organisms through the process of evolution?

If so, wouldn't that mean that God is not omnipotent?

After all, as many creationists are so eager to point out, nobody was around in the early stages of Earth's history to witness how life developed, so we don't actually know first-hand what happened. So why would anyone flatly reject a theory as to how God went about how He conducts His own business?

As an atheist, maybe I'm too out of touch with modern religious ideology, but isn't there a rule or something against making bold assertions about what God isn't capable of?

I figured it out last night. As it turns out, Superman must be the second coming of Christ, and I can prove it:

Superman and Jesus share a number of similarities: Superman looks like a human, but is actually from a completely different race of beings and was sent down to Earth from above, there are numerous stories about his birth and life as an adult but not so much information about his experiences growing up, he has superhuman abilities that he uses to save people, he has a moral compass that always points due north, many people would describe him as "perfect," and he died at the hands of a supervillain named "Doomsday," only later to be re-born. Even Superman's real last name, "El," means "God" in Hebrew.

That being said, should we start writing letters to the D.C. Comics editors, asking them to clarify Superman's opinions on inter-planetary marriage, for the sake of the Kentians 2,000 years from now?

**Special note: as the founder of Kentism, I can no longer claim there is no God if I want to make any money on this religion before I die, so I felt obligated to pay lip-service to Pascal's Wager in the question heading. I apologize for any confusion this has caused, but it also gets your attention and garners more answers than a straightforward question would otherwise get. I know most of you have a sense of humor, so you won't take it too personally.

***Also, evolution is a lie conceived by the Adversary, Lex Luthifor. Have I covered all the bases?

Theists are welcome to share their thoughts, too.

"When the Almighty himself condescends to address mankind in their own language, his meaning, luminous as it must be, is rendered dim and doubtful by the cloudy medium through which it is communicated." - James Madison, The Federalist No. 37, at 243.

Do you agree with his statement? Why or why not?

Isn't one enough? What's the point of creating two birds that are exactly alike, but one has a tuft of blue feathers instead of white? If God created every animal with a specific purpose in mind, why couldn't God create one species of finch to do the same job? And why 128 specifically? Why not 7 or 700?

And why would God feel the need to create over 30,000 species of beetles? Seems like designing each one by hand would be a tedious and unnecessary job. Did God just need to fill some overtime hours or what?

Evolution provides an answer to these issues, but Creationism lacks some critical explanations which would need to be resolved before if could be considered a viable "alternative". Why should Creationism or "Intelligent Design" be taught in schools if there's nothing more to it besides "God created everything, but we don't know why because He's mysterious."?

A delusion is something that is falsely believed or propagated.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/delusion...

Since atheists do not believe there is any god, doesn't it follow that you think that their opinion is false, and they are therefore delusional? For that matter, wouldn't anyone who believes in a god other than the Christian God (or Abrahamic God, for you nit-pickers) also be delusional?

Bonus question: If everyone who believes something different than you is delusional, why then would you be surprised or offended when those people also think that you are delusional?

Special note: I don't mean to single out Christians. Anyone can answer this question. Just replace the word "Christians" with whatever religion or non-belief you happen to identify with. It just appears to me as though Christians are most often the ones on R&S complaining about atheists accusing them of all being delusional.

... or just a tool?

I understand all of the arguments that the universe is too complex to have come from nothing and all of that. Though I disagree with those arguments, we'll just assume for the sake of this question that they are correct.

But how do you get from the conclusion that the universe must have a creator to the conclusion that the creator must be the Christian God? There seems to be missing a critical piece of information in that leap in logic. I understand that the Bible says that the Christian God is the only real god, but all religions say that. So why couldn't the creator be Allah, or Ouranos, or Odin, or Shiva, or some other being that humans haven't even encountered or considered yet? What makes Christianity more legitimate than any other religion that other people believe in?

I realize that not all Creationists are necessarily Christian, but the Christian Creationists certainly seem to be most vocal about it, particularly in America. However, this would also apply to any other religious belief - if the universe is too complex not to have a creator, how can you be sure that it was the particular creator you believe in?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090107/ap_on_he_me/me...

Michigan?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell,_Michigan

The unofficial population is only 266, so I figure there must be two dozen or so.