Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Banana: Proof of God's Creation

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

What about those plants that look tasty but are poisonous? Sure, they scare away animals..but does God not mind that stupid people eat them too? Well I am thinking not.

Of course not! He's way to sadistic to bother with that! After all we are talking about the guy that lies to us in order to test our faith.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Also from Family Guy:

Hey
Yeah?
[Pointing to Baby Elephenguin (half elephant, half penguin)] What the hell is this?
Oh. You didn't really give any specific guidelines about mating
Did you name it?
What?
Did you name it?!
Uh, yeah. He's Paul.
Yeah, well it's going to be a hell of a lot harder for you now 'cause he's going the fuck overboard!
Perhaps the kiwis are the freakish hybrids of mismatched animal couples on the Ark. 40 days and nights and nothing to do...

-Q

Link to post
Share on other sites
We don't have FedEx in New Zealand, so FedEx can't of brought them. Who did?

What? You don't think god can transport FedEx to New Zeland back in time for two lousy kiwis?

On the other hand, He may have used DHL. He does, after all, move in mysterious ways. Or haven't you ever wondered why an omnipotent being needs to have billions of insignificant entities praise Him and thank Him all day long?

Link to post
Share on other sites
What? You don't think god can transport FedEx to New Zeland back in time for two lousy kiwis?

On the other hand, He may have used DHL. He does, after all, move in mysterious ways. Or haven't you ever wondered why an omnipotent being needs to have billions of insignificant entities praise Him and thank Him all day long?

And the moas.

OK, and what about the plants? The Bible says nothing about Noah getting two of every plant so how did they survive? And insects? The Bible doesn't mention them.

And, no, I don't think he could of done that, as he didn't exist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And the moas.

The moa the better (oh! that did hurt!)

OK, and what about the plants? The Bible says nothing about Noah getting two of every plant so how did they survive? And insects? The Bible doesn't mention them.

I suppose the water was good for the plants. The insects flew (riiiight) or burrowed. Then of course God sent them all to their places of origin (which begs the question: why involve Noah at all?) UPS this time, i suppose, since there was no longer any rush.

And, no, I don't think he could of done that, as he didn't exist.

But not existing shouldn't present a problem for an omnipotent being! It makes as much sense as sacrificing Your only son for some pretext or another.

Link to post
Share on other sites
# TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT, a.k.a. PRESUPPOSITIONALIST (I)

(1) If reason exists then God exists.

(2) Reason exists.

(3) Therefore, God exists.

Actually this thing reminds me of something else...

This seems to involve some sort of "Reason all the way down" argument. If reason is so necessary as this argument implies, then there must have been reason for God to have arisen, but that would mean another god must have existed.ick.

Anyway: This women (a Hindu women I beleive) was once challenged on the belief that world is on the back of elephants standing on the of a turtle. She was asked what held the turtle up. Her answer? Turtles all the way down!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was it a page about the Bible describing just how insane God is? Oh wait you dont beleive in him.

On another note, this site tries to use science to prove life could not have arisen without God. Apparently the odds of life arising without God are 1 chance out of 10 to the power of 92!

While the chances of God having done so are?....ZERO that's right!

Link to post
Share on other sites
... proving "the genius of God's creation" via the analysis of a banana was posted to the comments by "rootie."

This is actually the argument that Intelligent Design proponents make at major debates with secularists. I know this because someone who helped to arrange a national atheist conference included such a debate as part of the program. I am not making this up! They actually agreed to have these same two debaters conduct the same debate at a religious conference also.

Worse, campus religious groups distribute this argument in booklet form with the title "The Atheist Test." For giggles, I had a photograph taken of myself eating a banana while reading the booklet at a campus Objectivist booth. You can see that here:

http://aynrand.meetup.com/12/photos/4549/88449/

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll have to say, this banana thread has given me a load of belly-laughs. Religion really is damn funny, if these crazies weren't also trying to use the power of government to impose their irrationality on us.

After reading several passages from the conservapedia.com, I have become a complete advocate of it. Let it help peel away the questioners and the still-not-completely-gone from religion by revealing its utter, patent absurdity. It will also keep the religious zanies busy on that source of divine truth and away from wikipedia, which I enjoy as a valuable resource (yes, with all the usual provisos).

Link to post
Share on other sites

He has a divine plan? I could have sworn he was making it up as he went along...

Go to this page and read the "Christians" section. What really gets me, if Eve was not made by god to be a sexual companion for Eve but a companion, why would he both give them sexual organ, especially since it seems unlikely God would have wanted those two to have sex for pleasure. So what purpose did sexual organs serve? This proves God is a rather silly designer if you ask me...

Edited by Prometheus98876
Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume the sexual organs were so that they could produce kids.

But, the next question is: why were they designed to give pleasure in the process?

The answer to that without a pleasure/pain mechanism there would be little reason to have sex.

So, the next question is: why was man given reason and designed to be volitional?

This is where the religious guys have a tough time explaining things. They usually come up with something like: "God wanted to test man", even though they know that God ought to have known how things were going to turn out (if he's all that omniscient), so what kind of sham test was that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I assume the sexual organs were so that they could produce kids.

But, the next question is: why were they designed to give pleasure in the process?

The answer to that without a pleasure/pain mechanism there would be little reason to have sex.

So, the next question is: why was man given reason and designed to be volitional?

This is where the religious guys have a tough time explaining things. They usually come up with something like: "God wanted to test man", even though they know that God ought to have known how things were going to turn out (if he's all that omniscient), so what kind of sham test was that?

But God apparently had no intention of Adam and Eve reproducing, I am sure that Bible says as much in the Old Testament ( I used to have to go to Chrisitian camps, so I can be pretty sure I got this basic claim right).

I am also fairly sure that the Bible condemns sex for pleasure at various points (though more modern priests tell you God doesnt really mind if you do so in wedlock).

Man was apparently given free wil and such...er...to *uck up Gods plan? I have never been given any real answer to this one...

Link to post
Share on other sites
He has a divine plan? I could have sworn he was making it up as he went along...

I recall seeing a comedy act with the idea that God was at a drunken party with the angels when he amde up all His rules. Something like:

God ".. And no meat on Friday! And you'll take a piece of bread and pretend your'e eating My Son! No, wait, wait! I got one! Hey you! Children of Israel! Cut off a piece of your thing for Me! Yeah, you heard Me!"

Angels "Oh, stop it, God! You're too much!"

It's as good an explanation as any...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah maybe he was drunk when he was trying to create multi-celluar life...it only took him billions of years after life first arose on Earth! I guess all those babies that die to birth defects were due to him being drunk at the time (as according to some Christians God personaly makes each baby).

But everything attests to Gods desigrn apparently..so God meant for all those babies to die then? I guess he decided those babies would be guilty of something later on. Talk about the ultimate case of "guilty without a trail"

And God is aware that the fact we eat and breathe out of the same hole (the mouth), meaning he intended for some humans to be able to choke due to this..

Edited by Prometheus98876
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...