ob/gyn and intelligent design

[Jax Agnesson]

Bible fundies have no possibility of fudging over this question. God says it straight out, (Genesis 3:16 ), 'I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;'
That's straight, uncomplicated, uncontrovertible, and also (IMO) malicious, nasty and spiteful. But there we go.
Bible-God hates all women. An innocent little girl took a talking snake at his word, and from then on she, and all her daughters for thousands of years to come, have had to cope with a reproductive process that is agonising, dangerous, even very frequently lethal; as well as a monthly reminder involving cramps, mess, blood, discomfort, and sometimes very severe pain and depression.
So. Setting aside the Bible literalists, how do other theists support the idea that this means of reproducing God's children was intelligently designed?

[connermt]

[Replying to post 29 by Jax Agnesson]

...it is apparent the the God of the Christians is at least indifferent to the suffering of all women.

It would make no sense to think a deity the created both genders and is perfect and loving have nothing against one gender or another - or one race or another.
So either this god make no sense or it was the male writers of the bible that had issues with women.

[Elijah John]

Wow you stumped me man...should have been a LAB RAT and biologically argued you under the dirt...and got my LAB RAT degree which would be from a higher school than yours. Then everyone would agree I am the top LAB RAT among rats.

Higher degree, more smarts. More smarts, superior. Now my squeek shall be heard around the world.

What kinda evidence do you think? Song and dance. I'll SING for you bro, the wonders of the Living God. I'll DANCE for you, bro the Ballet of the Believer.

I'll speak in unintelligible TONGUES for you brah, that you might know the thoughts of the angels, I'll SQUIRM for you brother, make a movie and charge you less, although the popcorn is still 20...

What, exactly, are all those foolish statements intended to convey?

Em you got yo' mod cap on or not? I see trouble ahead. Why again should I now answer the man

1) who just said I am full of foolish statements? I PLANNED for you to convert to Christianity on the spot. Why did you not? NOW I'm trouble coming to town in a nutshell. Like banned, slammed and no thank you mammed.

I asked what sort of non-empirical evidence SHOULD be accepted. Can you answer the question (or would you prefer to continue to dance)?

You know there ain't any. Um the opposable thumb argument? That's as close to an EMPIRICAL argument nothead can give.

Can I stay on? Huh, sir? Forgive me sir? Ooooo. Sorry, wrong mod. You don't believe in forgiveness? Sorry sir.

What else? Oh the testimony of every individual in your life,

Some individuals with whom I associate are Christians, others are not. Regardless of their theological position on matters of significance I verify what I am told before concluding it is true and accurate. People have been known to be wrong – inadvertently or otherwise.

Very true. I once followed a guru who insisted upon total celibacy. Turns out he was screwing more than several secretaries, plus on the rare occasion his wife. The former clause being hypocritical.

that of Jesus in the Bible too. NO MAN comes to the Father except by (through) me.

There are stories that Jesus said certain things. I ask 1) are those the exact words of Jesus, since they were written by unidentified people long after he died, and 2) if they were his words, or close, was he telling the truth?

Well, these are all good questions, sir, for 101 students of Christianity. Take the class. Make your determination. I won't grade you, but the Teacher in the Sky might.

Wow the one verse that GOT ME thinking way back when.

It made me think too. It seemed like a rather grandiose claim. I wondered, even as a child, if it was true.

Yeah I think it is. But don't mind me, I'm not even here. If you got your mod cap on, that is.

]Are unverifiable stories adequate indication of truth? Are unverifiable testimonials sufficient? Opinions? Legends? Are unsupported claims of knowledge by others "proof?"

No it ain't proof.

Agreed

Oh YOU the one who keep insisting on empirical data/i.e. proof of the verifiable kine. Why looky here, Commernent. He the one keeps bugging me with this one.

What you think, God gives you TRUTH on a platter?

No, I have seen no indication that any of the proposed invisible, undetectable, supernatural entities have provided any evidence, answers or anything else in my life.

See the spiritual seeing of the seer who sees...the nirvanaad enlightened one...that will be nothead to you, sir.

Om mani padme hum. Yeah that's it, sing it. Oh what forum are we on?

Thus, I conclude that there is NO proof (and no platter – just a lot of unverifiable stories) – nothing but stories and opinions.

What an optimist. Hey if the glass is half full you would say there's no evidence it got nothing inside at all. Not even air. Not even a vacuum. Not even nothing which is a thought at least.

Would that sort of "evidence" would it take to convince you (or believers in general) that Quetzalcoatl is "the one true god?"

He stink. I smelled that one. Hey try out 2 or 3 major religions first. I did. I went through the hoops. You and yours don't have to? Yeth you do, yeth you do.

Do you assume that non-religious people ("you and yours") have not investigated religions? Are you aware that some who debate here as Non-Theists are FORMER Theists – people who in some cases spent decades as true believers before concluding that it was false?

You ain't stomped the swamps nothead stomped, or gone down the sultry alleyways of the damned like he did, or experimented with mantras and yogas and sherpas and photos starin' back at you from guru eyeballs and such...

...I have my experiences you have yours. But one of us is more right on than the other. I say my heepy deepy shenanigans go for more. I been to the ends of the universe, partied with imaginary girls you would not believe...kicked the soccerball of life until it was flat, been a drug addick and mental case before you...oh right.

You got your mod cap on. Sorry I digressed.

The answer to that question will shed light on what can be expected to convince "Atheists here" that you speak truth about a favorite god.

If I tried to convince you isn't this JUST WHAT a dimwit fundie will naturally do? And then aren't they given the BOOT after being enticed into breaking on of the laws on this forum. Ain't you goading me sir? I convince you NOT. I am a whatchamacallit, a POG, a FROG I mean a FROD, or a guy PRETENDING to be a fundie so you all can laugh at us, I mean them.

My God ain't the fav God of the masses. Don't put me in that hole. Thank you.

Do you have a favorite god? If so, that is the one to which the question refers.

There is One God, YHWH Elohim is His name. Don't ask me to pronounce His name. But that is what it is, forever and a memorial to all generations.

The best evidence for Christianity is that the historical record en total given by the Bible shows Jesus to be a great liar or a great saint, the IKON for our salvation.

Agreed, the best evidence for Christianity is a collection of stories and opinions written by unidentified religion promoters who cannot be shown to have witnessed any of the events or conversations they describe – and who wrote decades or generations after the storied events.

You call them stories.

Yes, I call them stories because that is what they are. Do you disagree? If so, on what grounds?

Jesus himself said "the scripture cannot be broken." True I believe. Again, he is a liar or a saint, no in between, hardly not, probably not and I think not.

I call Atheist stories stories. Fictional too.

To what "Atheist stories" do you refer?

Um the one which ends as such: They is no God. Meaning in less redneck lingo:"There is no God." Actually that was the beginning too.

Like I said we all have our druthers. Who is to say who is right or wrong?

Many religionists posting here claim that they know TRUTH and everyone else is ignorant.

Mahatma Ghandi? He dead, sorry.

Jesus? He dead, sorry.

Moses? He's dead too.

Me dead too, soon enough. You dead too, sooner than you want, maybe not.

Bugs dead too, must we go on? I am bored.

Some stories by religion promoters claim otherwise for one or both; however the stories cannot be shown to be true.

That is the best evidence offered.

Some guy told me he was enlightened. So how do I know he right or wrong? Well, I looked at how he dressed and combed his hair.

Since he plucks his eyebrows I knew he a liar.

It does not surprise me that you would make a decision on that basis.

Oh you make jokes too? Does this mean you took your mod cap off?

How do YOU determine testimonies of humans, sir?

I do not place much stock in testimonials. I ask for a way to check for myself regarding anything of significance. If claims cannot be verified as true, I do not accept them.

Never met a holy man have you? Good going...19 out of 20 are full of it. What I cannot say. Might get the final boot and these normally don't feel too good.

But once in a blue moon some guy will say something quite striking. God only says to knock, not how hard and which door to start. Like you can make a lot of mistakes and STILL end up getting your answer. Word to the wise. Ching, the sound of spiritual money in your bean. Pearl of Great Price, yeah.

Many who would not believe a a car salesman without checking WILL believe a religion salesman without checking. Perhaps a vehicle is more important than religion?

Positive attitude, don't give up. I encourage you.[/quote]
--------------------------------------------------------


Moderator Comment

Colorful is one thing, condescending and confusing is quite another. Please strive for clarity and a more civil tone.

Please review the Rules


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Why isn't child-creation graceful, calm and beautiful?

'Cause if you're staying all calm and all, well it ain't child-creation you're a-doin', but maybe petting a dog or something

...
Setting aside the Bible literalists, how do other theists support the idea that this means of reproducing God's children was intelligently designed?

'Cause look at all this incredulity.

I'm for the not punishing women for what they do naked, long as they was pretty when they did it. Maybe it is, that Eve was ugly, and God was just trying to help a brother out, only she did get naked, but well there she was, and there Adam was, and you just can't leave humans alone, without they do something that'll upset some god in some far corner of someone's mind, and then, well, dancing gets outlawed and they bust up the stills.