luizsiqueiraneto:

Intelligent Design is Stupid: Neil deGrasse Tyson (by ricoatheist)

I love this guy, he are absolutely right.

(via oh-your-god)

Tags: atheism

Vote Obama!

Tags: Obama

Pristine article.

God Having a Penis or Emotions

I read some interesting responses to my recent post about God not having emotions since emotions have physical causes and reasons in biological organisms (as do penises and noses). Yes, God “having” emotions explains OT inconsistencies. Yes, emotions are crucial to existence. Which is precisely why God “having” emotions shows that it’s merely the projection of humanity on what God would be like. But God in his omniscience shouldn’t need emotion!—chemical responses to changing stimulus in the environment. This is why the argument is so strong: man made God. I encourage reading the whole chapter in “The End of Christianity.”

Tags: atheism

"If I asked you whether God has a nose or a penis, what would you say? Most Christians would say probably not. A nose is for breathing and smelling. A penis is for sex and for peeing. God has no need of either. In the same way, I would argue that God has no need for emotions—intricate chemical reactions designed to activate and direct bodily responses to the external environment. As wonderful as emotions are, they are made of and for the fabric of this natural world."

— Dr. Valerie Tarico—“God’s Emotions: Why the Biblical God is Hopelessly Human” inThe End of Christianity

Tags: atheism

"David was punished by the death of Bathsheba’s child….David prayed for God to spare the child, fasted, and spent the night on the ground, for seven days. Then the child died. This kind of “punishment” that David suffered should call into question the adequacy of the classical understanding of suffering: yes, David spent days in agony, and the outcome was not good for him. He suffered. But he didn’t die. The CHILD died. And the child hadn’t done anything wrong. Killing one person to teach someone else a lesson—is that really how God acts? If we are to be godly people, does that mean we should act that way too? Kill someone’s child to teach the parent a lesson?"

God’s Problem, Bart Ehrman

Tags: atheism ehrman

sorry for blowing up your feed. i’m done now. ^_^

"God himself has caused the misery, pain, agony and loss that Job experienced. You can’t just blame the Adversary. And it is important to remember what this loss entailed: not just loss of property, which is bad enough, but a ravaging of the body and the savage murder of Job’s ten children. And to what end? For “no reason” (Job 2:3)—other than to prove to the Satan that Job wouldn’t curse God even if he had every right to do so. Did he have the right to do so? Remember, he didn’t do anything to deserve this treatment. He actually was innocent, as God himself acknowledges. God did this to him in order to win a bet with the Satan. This is obviously a God above, beyond, and not subject to human standards. Anyone else who destroyed all your property, physically mauled you, and murdered your children—simply on a whim or a bet—would be liable to the most severe punishment that justice could mete out. But God is evidently above justice and can do whatever he pleases if he wants to prove a point."

God’s Problem, Bart Ehrman

"

Are we to imagine a divine being who wants to torment his creatures just to see if he can force them to abandon their trust in him? What exactly are they trusting him to do? Certainly not to do what is best for them: it is hard to believe that God inflicts people with cancer, flu, or AIDS in order to make sure they praise him to the end. Praise him for what? Mutilation and torture? For his great power to inflict pain and misery on innocent people?

It is important to remember that God himself acknowledged that Job was innocent—that is, that Job had done nothing to deserve his torment. And God did not simply torment him by taking away his hard-earned possessions and physical health. He killed Job’s children. And why? To prove his point; to win his bet. What kind of God is this?

"

God’s Problem, Bart Ehrman

Tags: atheism ehrman

"The reality is that most suffering is not positive, does not have a silver lining, is not good for the body or soul, and leads to wretched and miserable, not positive outcomes….A lot of times, what does not kill you completely incapacitates you, mars you for life, ruins your mental or physical well-being—permanently. We should never, in my view, take a glib view of suffering—our own or that of others. I especially, and most vehemently, reject the idea that someone else’s suffering is designed to help US. I know there are people who argue that recognizing the pain in the world can make us nobler human beings but, frankly, I find this view offensive and repulsive. Sure, our own suffering may, on occasion, make us better people, stronger, or more considerate and caring, or more humane. But other people do not—decidedly do not—suffer in order to make us happier or nobler."

God’s Problem, Bart Ehrman