News:

Departing the Vacuousness

Main Menu

Re: Why I believe in ID.

Started by Squid, June 21, 2009, 04:57:53 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

bowmore

Quote from: "kubedwheel"The following are reasons why I believe in ID over evolution:

1. First Cause Argument-
2. Moral Argument-
3. Irreducible Complexity-
4. Origin of Consciousness-
5. Pre-Cambrian explosion-
6. Argument from Design-

So basically your belief in ID is based on six arguments that are each themselves flawed.

Thanks for clearing that up.
"Rational arguments don’t usually work on religious people. Otherwise there would be no religious people."

House M.D.

karadan

Quote from: "kubedwheel"
QuotePretty much gibberish. You really need to have a much better understanding of our (humankinds) understanding of space and time before you argue on these things.
1) It is quite possible that our universe exists withing a large universe that may or may not have a beginning.
2) Outside our universe (or before the big bang) the very concept of time may become meaningless.

Your trying to refute my argument with speculation.  You have zero evidence.  A divine creator is a plausible explanation for the origin of the universe based on what I know.  Instead of flamming my post you should post a more plausible explanation of how our universe came into existence.


Someone on this board once said (I apologise, I cannot remember whom) trying to describe what existed before the big bang is like trying to describe what is north of the north pole. I like that example because it puts into perspective the infinitum of the universe. I personally like to analogise the universe as a mobius loop or Klein bottle. Both these three-dimensional objects have no beginning or end. They just are. I'm quite happy and comfortable with the idea that there doesn't necessarily need to be a grand beginning or end. Even though I can't fully visualise such a concept (my brain is not wired to understand it, just as it isn't wired to completely visualise the 7th dimension or oblivion) I'm happy to accept it because I know there are things the human race will never truly understand. However, just because there are blanks in the collective human knowledge, doesn't then give me the right to fill that blank with god. That is an easy way out.

I take issue with a grand creator because that trivialises our existence. It means I'm born into bondage and I'm eternally judged by something which has proved itself very jealous and petty and at the same time (according to some christians) far too complex to comprehend. Too many things in the bible point to primitive human emotion fuelled laws and parables. I cannot give credence to the paradigm of godly and eternally wise traits juxtaposed with basic human emotions like greed, malice and spite - all of which yahweh has displayed in abundance.
QuoteI find it mistifying that in this age of information, some people still deny the scientific history of our existence.

parrotpirate

"Everyone is ignorant of how complex biological systems are brought about by evolution." Wrong. So wrong, in fact that I'm not even going to bother explaining why and how it's wrong.
The one thing everybody needs to remember is that I never claimed to be sane!

KebertX

1) The universe had to have a beginning. This has nothing to do with Evolution, btw, but here's the deal: Before the big bang, time as we know it did not exist. Time is the fourth dimension, just another axis of direction that we do not percieve correctly because humans are imperfect in their design (hint hint).

[youtube:2vdvm0ak]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9KT4M7kiSw[/youtube:2vdvm0ak]

The Big Bang is basically the origin on the coordinate plane that is the universe. There was no Up/Down, Left/Right, Back/Forth, Before/After, or any of the other seven dimensions of reality.  Furthermore, (even if the Big Bang worked in terms of time, the way you are imagining it, and therefore required a cause) we don't know what caused it. It's sort of cheating humanity to pretend that we do know how it began when we really don't.  I can't be more clear about this: THE IDEA OF THE BIG BANG HAVING A CAUSE IS IMPOSSIBLE!!! The concept of "Cause" requires time which was utterly nonexistent before the beginning of the universe.

2) Moral Laws prove there is a God.  I don't think it's cocky of me when I say I am too smart to think that's true, and here's why. Morality is how we know what is and is not acceptable in society.  This is no evidence for a supreme creator, simply evidence that we are social animals who evolved a complex that gives us a mutual agreement not to harm other members of our society.  All morality is societal based, not God based. Furthermore, we have every reason to be moral, even if there is no Sky Daddy to pass judgments on our actions. There are 3 levels of Morality.

There is Preconventional Morality, which we are supposed to outgrow between the ages of 7 and 12. This basically tells us that whatever makes our parents give us a cookie is right, and what makes them give us a spanking is wrong.  Biblical morality is preconventional, it only provides the motive of Want of Heaven and Fear of Hell. Nothing abstract, and the laws are concrete and inflexible. I can find more morality watching Nickelodian!

There is Conventional Morality, which most of us live out all our lives in, Which just tell us to do whatever makes everyone else around us think better of us. The motivation is purely just to be accepted.

And there is Post Conventional Morality, think Gandhi, and MLK. Here, the motive is to genuinely do what is best for humanity as a whole.  You can sacrifice your own life for the greater good.  There have been dogs and chimpanzees become capable of this (it's incredibly rare), and only some humans are truly motivated by Post Conventional Morality.

So Morality is not a matter of a commander laying down rules, it is our motivation to do what we percieve as good, and we can accomplish this without a really tall invisible man telling us what to do.

3) Irreducible Complexity.  Someone else embedded a video on the evolution of Flagellum, the Eyes have a similar explanation.  I'm not going to bother putting this to death, others have debunked it thoroughly right here in this thread.  Instead I will point out that this is an Argument from Ignorance.  "There may be holes in evolution, therefore the designer did it!!!" WTF???That makes no sense.  Just because evolution is wrong, doesn't make your position at all correct.  You need evidence bub, and you ain't got it!  Evolution, on the other hand, has got a literal mountain of evidence that does nothing but confirm it.  Most of the 'holes in the theory' are either misinformations based on a limited understanding of the theory, or flat out lies.

[youtube:2vdvm0ak]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nj587d5ies[/youtube:2vdvm0ak]
[youtube:2vdvm0ak]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg[/youtube:2vdvm0ak]

4) The Origin of Consciousness. Epiphenomenom of a highly complex brain that we developed because our intelligence was our greatest tool for survival several thousand years ago.  What's not to understand.  Don't get me wrong, consciousness is the single greatest thing about human existence.  Our ability to think freely is what makes everything else that we value possible.  But it's explainable by science.

Evolution FTW!

PipeBox answered your fifth reason perfectly, I'm not going to mess with that at all.
Quote from: "PipeBox"
Quote from: "kubedwheel"Pre-Cambrian explosion- We know that the Cambrian explosion was an explosion of information. Fossilized organisms found in Cambrian sediment support this. Sponges that existed before the Cambrian explosion needed 5 types of cells. Organisms that emerge during the Cambrian Explosion require at least 50 cell types. In addition, many new specialized proteins would be required for these multiple cell types, which in turn would require new genetic information. Evolution cannot account for this eruption of new information.


I'm going to keep this simple. Information can be increased through natural selection and mutation, and no one holds the expectation that the cell types differentiated literally over night, but they could be expected to evolve rapidly. Have a video that will show you the applicable model about 7 minutes in, though I recommend you watch the whole thing:

[youtube:2vdvm0ak]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0[/youtube:2vdvm0ak]

I think if you given an in-depth look at the ID claims, you will find they come up short. There is plenty we do not know, but what we do not know is not justification for specific assumption. ID, rather than giving us a model of the biological world we can utilize, spends most of its time shooting at the rapidly-disappearing gaps in evolutionary theory, as though disproving evolutionary theory would vindicate creationism, as though there were only two possibilities. Don't be fooled.

It's just a matter of education.  ID isn't real.  Sorry  :( .
"Reality is that which when you close your eyes it does not go away.  Ignorance is that which allows you to close your eyes, and not see reality."

"It can't be seen, smelled, felt, measured, or understood, therefore let's worship it!" ~ Anon.

NothingSacred

Quote from: "kubedwheel"
QuoteWhy is it that I have never ever heard a Christian hold up story of Lott offering his daughters to the crowd come to rape the angels as an example of goodness in the bible? Gen 19:5

3 factors to outrageous proposal: 1. Hospitality considered one of highest measures of man.  2. Wives / daughters typically viewed as property in his culture.  3. Living in degenerate society distorted his views.  Christians don’t hold up the story of Lot offering his daughters to the crowd as an example of goodness because it isn’t an example of goodness.  It’s an example of sin.
If it is an example of sin then why was lot saved when god destroyed the cities?
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices -William James
Anything worth knowing is difficult to learn- Greek Proverb
what if god ain't looking down what if he's looking up instead-Ani difranco "what if no one's watching

NothingSacred

Quote from: "kubedwheel"
QuoteYou are asserting that it must have a creator. pffft. You know no such thing.

No, I said its possible a creator is responsible for the origin of our universe.
How do you go from something could have possibly created us to what created us was a god,that god cares about us,he had a son named Jesus who died etc etc.  I'll say it's possible anythings possible but not everything is probable.
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices -William James
Anything worth knowing is difficult to learn- Greek Proverb
what if god ain't looking down what if he's looking up instead-Ani difranco "what if no one's watching

RosaRubicondior

#36
You believe in ID because it fits yor requirements and enables you to force-fit reality into your preferred world view.  My guess is that you avoid reading any arguments against the idea because they would make you feel uncomfortable.   Were you to have done so you would have found some of the many refutations of ID itself and all the reasons you give for believeing in it.  So much information is available in books and on-line sources that your ignorance can only be feigned or willful.

The psychological process going on here is cognitive dissonance.  Creationists and their more recent manifestation, ID believers, try to avoid it at all costs in order to maintain their comforting delusion that they have a protective magic friend watching over them and that they know all the answers without having to bother learning anything.

I hope that helps.

_7654_

Quote from: "kubedwheel"
QuoteBy goin this way with your debate, you ignore any possibility that matter can be spontaneously created (which has been done in the lab)

Could you or someone else please link or inform me of where I can find info on spontaneously created matter in labs? thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam
http://srikant.org/core/node12.html

i guess that should put that question to rest :-)

Thumpalumpacus

#38
Quote from: "kubedwheel"The following are reasons why I believe in ID over evolution:

1. First Cause Argument- We know our universe had a beginning.  If you try to count from negative infinity to zero (zero representing the present) you would never reach it.

The kalam argument is easy to refute; here's how to do it:  once you specify an actual number, you can count to it.  Once you start moving, you have a starting-point of time, which is merely a dimension of the Universe.

Also, even if your fallacy weren't fallacious, why should that imply a god with moral qualities?
   
Quote2. Moral Argument-  If someone morally ought to do something, then this over-rules any other consideration that might come into play.  Morality has the ultimate authority.  A command can only carry as much authority as the person who commands it, and since morality has more authority then any human or institution, God must be the commander.

Unsupported assertion.  Chimpanzees and other animals practice both moral and immoral behavior, without televangelists or forum preachers.  Also, given the balance between good and evil in this world, I'm left to assume that your god is either not omnipotent, not omnibeneficent, or not really concerned ... or not extant.  I'll go with D for $500, Alex.

Quote3. Irreducible Complexity- Lehigh biochemist, Michael Behe ... <snip> ..The bacterial flagellum is not the work of an unguided natural process, but rather a creator.

Did you read any of the 56 peer-reviewed articles showing this to be false?  You know, the same ones that Behe, under oath, was forced to admit he hadn't read? Or, as the judge in that trial put it, "Professor Behe's concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur."  

Quote4. Origin of Consciousness- Evolution can only explain the origin of traits that have survival value, so where did our consciousness come from?

I'd suggest you read some Nicholas Humphrey and Daniel Dennett.

Also, this is a god-of-the-gaps fallacy.
   
Quote5. Pre-Cambrian explosion- We know that the Cambrian explosion was an explosion of information.  Fossilized organisms found in Cambrian sediment support this.  Sponges that existed before the Cambrian explosion needed 5 types of cells.  Organisms that emerge during the Cambrian Explosion require at least 50 cell types.  In addition, many new specialized proteins would be required for these multiple cell types, which in turn would require new genetic information.  Evolution cannot account for this eruption of new information.

DNA isn't information.  It's molecules.  Also, it's quite likely that those cell types were living in loose conjunction with other cells already -- or in symbiosis, as is the case with our absorbing primitive bacteria and harnessing them to process every bit of energy we use.

Quote6. Argument from Design- Our universe is shockingly fine-tuned to support human life.

Strong anthropic fallacy.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

notself


Whitney

hey all...um...kubedwheel hasn't logged in since Mon 22 Jun, 2009...so don't expect a response any time soon.

KebertX

Quote from: "Whitney"hey all...um...kubedwheel hasn't logged in since Mon 22 Jun, 2009...so don't expect a response any time soon.
I just looked at the time stamps: This is an old thread, I wonder why it resurrected itself so suddenly...

Oh well, I just wanted to say I'm really proud of this Forum: It makes me confident to know how easily rational people can put Intelligent Design arguments to a quick death.
"Reality is that which when you close your eyes it does not go away.  Ignorance is that which allows you to close your eyes, and not see reality."

"It can't be seen, smelled, felt, measured, or understood, therefore let's worship it!" ~ Anon.

Reasonable

Actually here's what I think.  I think that we don't have any definite proof that the universe was created by a supreme being or by a big bang theory.  We don't have the science to know that yet.

In time, we'd all learn for sure how the universe started.  In time, we'd have irrevocable proof to support the theories that we have right now or debunk them.

Until such time, there is no sure answer.

But even so, do I believe that a god that created man from dust (an impossibility as you and I know) also created the universe?  No.

hackenslash

Hi, guys. Thought i'd give you a few posts in other sections before diving into the bearpit, as it were. Let's see what the credulous have brought us here, shall we?

Quote from: "kubedwheel"The following are reasons why I believe in ID over evolution:

Two things wrong with this, and that's even before we get into the meat of the argument. Firstly, reality doesn't actually care what you believe, and neither do those who actually pay attention to reality. Your belief is entirely without consequence, and utterly irrelevant to those who are concerned with what is actually true about the real world. Secondly, evolution is a fact, and therefore not something to be believed in. Where we have hard evidence from reality, belief is superfluous and irrelevant. Where we don't have hard evidence from reality, belief is ridiculous. Either way, belief is without utility. As it happens, we actually do have hard evidence from reality that evolution is a fact, rendering your belief not just worthless, but absurd.

Now, on to your guff. Excuse me if I'm less than completely rigorous, I'm delivering from the hip here.

Quote1. First Cause Argument- We know our universe had a beginning.

That's not an argument, it's a rectally extracted blind assertion. Interestingly, and for the first time in ages, you have actually dived straight into my specific area of interest. Cosmology is something I know a good deal about. More interestingly still, nobody I am aware of that actually understands the material in this area would agree with you. If you actually have evidence that the universe had a beginning, I'd love to see it. I also know of a group of very serious men in Stockholm who would be greatly interested in said evidence, and they have a nice shiny medal prepared, ready to engrave your name on it alongside a picture of the man who invented dynamite. I can call them now, if you wish, but perhaps it were better if we actually had a look at your evidence, since it's actually about 2 am in Stockholm as I type this. They'd be extremely disgruntled if I woke them up now, only to find that it's the usual credulous guff representing a serious misunderstanding of what the valid science actually tells us.

QuoteIf you try to count from negative infinity to zero (zero representing the present) you would never reach it.

Ah, Xeno's paradox (which is only a paradox if you're a moron). This particular bit of drivel is trivial to refute. Have you ever been from one place to another?

 
QuoteScience backs this up with the big bang theory.

Actually, no. The big bang theory (an incomplete model that is currently undergoing some quite serious revision) tells us only what happened after the Planck time, which was not the beginning. Indeed, being a finite time after the beginning of cosmic expansion, it isn't even the beginning of our cosmic expansion, only a description of what comes after.

QuoteSince our universe exists we know that something that already exists had to bring it into existence.

Well, that's a non-sequitur. The existence of something doesn't actually preclude the existence of something before it. You might want to introduce a little rigour into this rectal vindaloo, if you ever want anybody to take it seriously. Even granting this, though, you still have all your work ahead of you to demonstrate any act of will in cosmic instantiation.

QuoteThe universe has a creator.

I would normally have included this in the last section I quoted, but I thought this little gem worthy of specific attention. Since the universe is, by definition, all that exists, any deity could only ever be a subset of the universe, and therefore a product of it. Tell us, oh wise one, how can a product of something also be the producer? That's completely apart from the fact that you have absolutely no evidence to present. If I am wrong on that latter point, pleas refer to my first paragraph in this post.

QuoteIf this creator were a being like the universe, a being that exists in time, then this creator would have to be created by something else.

And if this enchilada were a pepper like a jalapeno, an enchilada that exists in chilli, then this enchilada would be hot. All of this is utterly irrelevant until you address the definitional points above.

QuoteThis tells us that the creator must be an eternal being that exists outside of time.

And now you will need to demonstrate that 'outside of time' is a viable concept. Good luck with that. You can start by telling us all what time is (note: There are people here who actually have some idea of what time is, so it'd better be good).

QuoteI believe in the big bang theory, I just think there has to be a banger.

Again, belief is irrelevant. The evidence says that the big bang happened (although that conclusion is always subject to revision, pending further evidence). What you believe is entirely without relevance or merit in this regard. In other words, nobody cares what you believe, least of all the universe.
   
Quote2. Moral Argument- This argument states that moral laws are evidence for God’s existence.

Man, this shit is straight out of the Kalamity Craig playbook. Do you actually have any arguments of your own, or is it just the usual apologetic excrement stolen from your favourite apologist? As it happens, Craig is a fuckwit, and that is trivial to demonstrate.

Let's pretend for a moment, though, that you're actually being original, just for fun.

Firstly, Craig's argument is actually that there exists some kind of objective morality (he actually states 'objective moral values', a concept self-refuted by inclusion of the word 'values', which are and can only ever be subjective). He then goes on to cite what can only be regarded as social mores. These again can only ever be subjective.

QuoteThe fact that we shouldn’t murder isn’t a fact about the world, it is a fact about how the world should be.

Should be? Is that the limit of your scope? Really, you haven't spent much time out in the world, have you?

QuoteNothing in our physical world makes moral facts true.

Errr, fail. Facts are true by definition. That's what a fact is. It is something that is true. As it happens, though, I will require evidence that there is any such ting as a 'moral fact'.

QuoteMoral facts are not descriptive, moral facts have the form of commands.

Do they indeed? Well, you can stick your commands into an orifice more readily associated with a more solid form of waste. I recognise nobody's authority to command me.

QuoteCommands can only exist when there is a commander.

And of course you have evidence in support of this commander? Only, those gentlemen in Stockholm are waiting with bated breath.

QuoteMoral laws override everything else.

And yet you can't demonstrate the existence of these moral laws, can you? All you need to do is to demonstrate that objective morality exists, and we're with you. Any sign of that evidence?

QuoteIf someone morally ought to do something, then this over-rules any other consideration that might come into play.  Morality has the ultimate authority.  A command can only carry as much authority as the person who commands it, and since morality has more authority then any human or institution, God must be the commander.

Excepty, of course, that you have no evidence to support this preposterous entity.

Quote3. Irreducible Complexity- Lehigh biochemist, Michael Behe introduced the concept of irreducible complexity. He defines it as “a single system that is necessarily composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.”

 A great example of irreducible complexity is the bacterial flagellum.  The flagellum is similar to an outboard motor.  The machinery of the flagellum includes a rotor, a stator, O-rings, bushings, mounting disks, a drive shaft, a propeller, a hook joint for the propeller, and an acid-powered motor.  In addition, the flagellum requires coordinated interaction of roughly 30 proteins, which requires about 20 proteins to direct their assembly.  

Oh dear, you had to go and do it, didn't you? Let's give this fuckwittery the full treatment, shall we?

Firstly, irreducible complexity is not a problem for evolution (which is a demonstrable fact, regardless of what you believe), it's actually a natural outcome of it. This was first elucidated by Hermann Joseph Müller in a process that now bears his name, the Müllerian two-step. This process consists of two stages:

1. Add a part.
2. Make it necessary.

This is, of course, apart from the fact that lying fuckwit Behe's pet example, the bacterial flagellum, has been demonstrated to be anything but irreducibly complex, which brings us nicely to the second point.

The bacterial flagellum has been demonstrated to be built upon a co-opted previous mechanism, namely the type III secretory system (which I note has been cited earlier in the thread). More importantly, work was done on the bacterial flagellum specifically to address this horseshit, and some interesting results turned up. First, the gene coding for the FliI protein was knocked out, resulting in the cessation of flagellar biosynthesist. Then, the gene coding for FliH was knocked out, and flagellar synthesis returned! That buggers IC up the arse with a cheese-covered stick, for sure.

A wonderful post by the Blue Flutterby on this topic here.

QuoteThe bacterial flagellum is not the work of an unguided natural process, but rather a creator.

Ah, more arse-gravy. And of course, you have evidence to support this guff? You can begin by providing that evidence for your magic man that those Swedish gentlemen are awaiting.

Quote4. Origin of Consciousness- Evolution can only explain the origin of traits that have survival value, so where did our consciousness come from?

Oh, dear. Are you suggesting that being able to recognise patterns in our surroundings and being able to think abstractly, thereby being able to plan ahead, didn't have survival value? Seriously?!!

Quote5. Pre-Cambrian explosion-

Ooops! A confusion of terms here. There was no 'pre-Cambrian explosion'. Indeed, there wasn't even an explosion in the Cambrian. There was a proliferation of a range of body plans but, given that it actually lasted somewhere between 10- and 80 million years, it's hardly an explosion, except on geological timescales. Interestingly, the existence of Cambrian time rains a coprolitic barrage from an elevated position all over your stance.

QuoteWe know that the Cambrian explosion was an explosion of information.

Define information.

QuoteFossilized organisms found in Cambrian sediment support this.  Sponges that existed before the Cambrian explosion needed 5 types of cells.  Organisms that emerge during the Cambrian Explosion require at least 50 cell types.  In addition, many new specialized proteins would be required for these multiple cell types, which in turn would require new genetic information.  Evolution cannot account for this eruption of new information.

While we're awaiting your rigorous definition of information (another of my specific areas of interest, and something I know a little about), you can explain how 80 million years constitutes an eruption. Then you can explain what you understand of the processes involved in fossilisation of organism, and the barriers thereto. Please demonstrate that you actually understand any of the gudd you are spouting, and that you aren't just given us copypasta from arsebiscuitsingenesis.

Quote6. Argument from Design- Our universe is shockingly fine-tuned to support human life.  A few examples of this are the force of gravity, and the fundamental constants of nature, and the initial expansion of the big bang.  Had the rate of expansion been even slightly slowerâ€"one part in a million millionâ€"gravity would quickly force it to collapse on itself.  Had the rate of expansion been slightly fasterâ€"one part in a millionâ€"then stars and planets could not have formed.  I find it highly unlikely that the rate of the big bang expansion and other fine-tuned examples just happened by chance.  I believe that these perfect conditions can only be explained by a divine creator.

Again, we don't actually care what you believe, not least because you believe in a magic man that is wholly unsupported by anything resembling critically robust evidence. As for fine-tuning, perhaps you could cite some rigorous sources on this. You should note that when physicists are talking about fine-tuning, they are actually talking about the fact that certain parameters have to fit within certain narrow values if our models are correct.They are not suggesting that there is any kind of fine-tuner. More importantly, it has not been established that the physical constants we observe could actually be any different.

As for your erection of the 'chance' canard, sceince doesn't postulate chance. It postulates well-defined and testable natural mechanisms. I hope you note the distinction. Not noting the distinction will only confirm my worst fears.
There is no more formidable or insuperable barrier to knowledge than the certainty you already possess it.

GAYtheist

Quote from: "kubedwheel"
QuoteWhy is it that I have never ever heard a Christian hold up story of Lott offering his daughters to the crowd come to rape the angels as an example of goodness in the bible? Gen 19:5

3 factors to outrageous proposal: 1. Hospitality considered one of highest measures of man.  2. Wives / daughters typically viewed as property in his culture.  3. Living in degenerate society distorted his views.  Christians don’t hold up the story of Lot offering his daughters to the crowd as an example of goodness because it isn’t an example of goodness.  It’s an example of sin.

Quote from: "Genesis 19:6-8"
QuoteLot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, "No, my
friends. Don't do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.

Seems to me that the bible is saying that Lot's daughters are worth less than the men in Lot's house. You know, the innocent girls minding their own business are worthy of getting raped, but not the other people...actually, no, I'll give lot something, he is protecting someone from getting raped, but not everyone. Here's an idea, go out with a sword or something and kill the fucking assholes trying to rape people. You know, I'm a survivor of rape, and the bible is the most triggering book I've ever read. I can watch the "Crow" Movie three times a day and no be triggered when they depict Shelly being raped and murdered, but the bible? Fuck that shit.
"It is my view that the atomic bomb is only slightly less dangerous than religion." John Paschal, myself.

"The problem with humanity is not that we are all born inherently stupid, that's just common knowledge. No, the problem with humanity is that 95% of us never grow out of it." John Paschal, myself