1. Why did god make the world such that animals kill and eat each other in order to survive? He could have designed it any other way, to where creatures were not a viable food supply. But "He" (of course it's a man) didn't. When one backs off the world and looks at it, why does it look way more natural and Darwinian than theologically designed?

There was recently a child eaten by an alligator in Florida. Why did god design it so this can happen? If the answer is, "You know, god works in mysterious ways, and I just believe that alligators eating children is part of the grand secret plan that he has, because somebody wrote that in a book two thousand years ago" ... well, I'm tempted to say get serious or get lost. But I'm willing to listen.

If when deciding to be religious or not, one backs off the question and looks at the world, instead of reading a bunch of different religious doctrines deciding which one to adopt ... the result seems inevitably to be ... religion doesn't explain this, so I'm not adopting any of them.

2. Why are so many awful crimes committed by religious people? Recently I saw a documentary with a bunch of still photos of horrible lynchings in American slavery times (and after), and they showed the admiring crowds at the event. "Every one of them (almost) is a Christian," I say to myself, appalled. The vast majority of murderers, rapists, armed robbers, white collar criminals, con men, etc. etc. etc. ... are religious.

It isn't as easy as saying, "Well, they aren't really religious, they aren't true Christians, etc." Because my question isn't even about that. It becomes necessary, with all that going on, to question what role "being religious" plays in the consciousness of human beings.

And I say it's this: being religious is an attempt to purchase being good with supernatural means, for god's sake. Some Christian posters the other day railed against some atheist commercial on TV. When reminded that the USA was founded on freedom of religion grounds, in part, they quickly shut the hell up. What they revealed by demeaning atheists is their real attitude: "We are better than atheists." It's a devious self-con when used in this way, and that is the norm, not the exception. Which is not to say that most religious people commit horrendous crimes, but the fact that most people who commit horrendous crimes are religious, calls into question the role of religion in human consciousness. It sure does.

3. Anyone who believes the dominant religion of their culture is pretty much tantamount to just going along with the masses. This means that wherever they were living is where the "one true religion" would be. Hello. I'm born in India, I'm Hindu. I'm born in Israel, China, ancient Greece ... we believe the religion/gods we are sold. With thousands of religions and sects out there, to just default to the one surrounding you is either just that, a default, or some kind of 10,000-to-1 shot.

This isn't a novel argument at all, of course. But it couldn't be clearer that for the history of religion, it is a matter of custom, not truth. 99% of Christians right now if raised in ancient Greece would believe in Poseidon, Zeus, Thor, etc. whoever they all were. And what that means is, of course, it's just sort of a cultural hobby or superstition.

4. "We've discovered the one true monotheistic god, and guess who "His" chosen people are? It's us! Can you believe it?" Now is there any chance that the people who made this "discovery" in the ancient Middle East, would have said, "And his chosen people are in the Amazon Rain Forest, or they're down in New Guinea. Does this sound reasonable or kind of primitively egocentric? You know, just kind of made up. Because meanwhile, all those other cultures were making up stories of their gods.

It can be a beautiful thing, religion. It can also be an appalling and corrupt evil thing.

5. Why was an omniscient savior illiterate? Isn't that kind of a non sequitur? I mean creating the Andromeda Galaxy, not to mention the other hundreds of millions of them, not to mention the whole quantum field apparatus, is a pretty good trick for an illiterate man, wouldn't you say?

6. Why has the god of love killed more human beings than all other entities that ever existed put together, according to his own book? Is that a problem, like is that maybe a function of the Bible being written by primitive, brutal man rather than an enlightened, loving god? How many killings did god commit or order? Why the blood lust of killing, sacrificing, feeding on each other? Is this really god behind all this? Is that what god is like or what primitive man was like?

Strange thing to ask, given that Jesus was literate.

In Luke 4:16-20, Jesus reads from the book of Isaiah to Jews gathered in the synagogue.

I suspect for the same reasons that they're committed by non-religious people.

Because one of the things that God loves is justice:

The wages of sin is death...-Romans 6:23

But, God also loves mercy:

...but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.-Romans 6:23.

Pretty much. Hard to disagree with what seems tautological. "If you believe what the masses believe, then you are going along with what the masses believe" . No argument from me on that one. 😁

The belief that the earth is round is a product of the culture we live in. Therefore, it's probably wrong.

The fact that ideas exist with higher or lower frequencies in different cultural/religious contexts does not imply that those ideas are necessarily false. It's still possible for one set of beliefs to be right and another set of beliefs to be wrong, where right/wrong has some sort of reflection of reality.

I think it's fine to be skeptical of religion. But you should also be skeptical in general. Your disagreements with religion don't appear to be built on solid argumentation. If your reasons for not believing are of questionable intellectual quality, why should anyone take your skepticism seriously?

Plus the fact that he caricatures what thoughtful Christians actually believe. Then he calls me out (in the other thread)for being "judgemental".

Yeah, my skepticism is all off base. It's the talking snake story that makes human beings, and children, evil today. Sure is. That's pure magic believing 50 IQ shyt that people are indoctrinated so much into they aren't allowed to think about that like they would anything else. The evil is in that doctrine and its propagation. It totally sacrifices reason and consciousness to authoritarian faith.

Ironically, these types of responses only further demonstrate the failure of your argumentation.

There was a talking bunny rabbit that talked a woman into eating a carot. The carot was poisonous to the morality of whoever ate it. Now the offspring of the woman who ate the carot are born evil. This tale was written in a book thousands of years ago among ignorant and superstitious people.

Do you believe it? Why or why not?

"The way to belief is short and easy and the road to knowledge is long and hard." -- Ernst Stuhlinger

You mean if I just say I believe something I get eternal life where streets, oddly, are paved of gold? Wow. Sounds like a great deal, an easy deal, a magic deal, a superstitious deal.

Actually satire is one of the great convincers. BUT, I didn't mean people who believe it today are 50 IQ. That was a reference to the intelligence during the age when it was originally propagated.

As a man of science and reason, what is your SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that people who lived 3500 years ago had an average IQ of 50?

All four of your latest posts LITERALLY PROVED Aaron's point.

Effective satire usually requires one to have knowledge (often deep knowledge) of the thing that they are attempting to satirize. The reason this is often necessary is because satire needs to mimic the core constructs of the idea. You clearly have at best a cursory understanding of the things you're criticizing.

Which then leads me to wonder what it is that you're actually satirizing. Your arguments *do* in fact mimic the ill-informed arguments of people on the internet who think they are leveling meaningful criticisms of "religion" while failing to score any points of intellectual merit. And now that you've declared what you're doing to be satire, all I have to say is...

Bravo. *clap* *clap* *clap*

You don't have a problem with the talking snake story (FABLE) being literally true ... it establishes the fallen nature of man and original sin ... so they could SELL salvation???? I don't expect an answer. I expect ad hominem which is all you are doing.

There you go again, taking everything literally. Intentional misdirection from the main point on your part. Very dishonest.

Amusingly, you apparently don't even know what ad hominem is, as the previous post was an analysis of your claim of this being a "satire."

I believe Aaron DOES NOT believe that the talking serpent story is literally true.