[Gofre]

(Original post by CosmicVengeance)
Yeah "Such a vile creator" gave you the ability to see,walk,talk,hear and another million things which you would never even think about apart from when you actually need them, [heres a funny joke "There are no atheists in foxholes." describes you im pretty sure

Everything points to us being "given" those things as a result of natural phenomena, you can't just start calling us ungrateful for gifts we've received until you can prove we were actually given them.

[CosmicVengeance]

So you just admited "gifts we've received" and gifts as far as i know are always given, you dont gift yourself.

[R.P.Everything.]

(Original post by CosmicVengeance)
Yeah "Such a vile creator" gave you the ability to see,walk,talk,hear and another million things which you would never even think about apart from when you actually need them, heres a funny joke "There are no atheists in foxholes." describes you im pretty sure

That doesn't answer my question - how can we be blamed for the creation of such a vile creature?

Clichéd aphorisms don't really distract me from the point.

[Gofre]

(Original post by CosmicVengeance)
So you just admited "gifts we've received" and gifts as far as i know are always given, you dont gift yourself.

I also used the phrase "Given to us by natural phenomena". I had assumed it would be obvious that I was just using the term by way of analogy. If you like I will rephrase to something that doesn't let you jump to such a conclusion:

Everything points to us being "given" those things as a result of natural phenomena, you can't just start calling us ungrateful for gifts various organs we've received until you can prove we were actually given them.

Now that's cleared up, what evidence do you have to support your claim that these various organs are gifts from god?

[Id and Ego seek]

(Original post by Gofre)
Now that's cleared up, what evidence do you have to support your claim that these various organs are gifts from god?

In addition to this, why aren't animal organs, fats, glands, etc. regarded as gifts from God which should be respected and shouldn't be consumed?

[KingMessi]

(Original post by CosmicVengeance)
Its our fault for letting it happen, you should of gone to africa and gave them whatever they need for that not to happen (Im not an expert on worms)

Then why didn't you?

[KingMessi]

(Original post by CosmicVengeance)
Its humanity's fault for not trying hard enough to resolve the issue

But if one views 'God' as the primum mobile of all events, the distal cause is still his capriciousness, even if you wish to suggest the proximal cause is humanity's failings. Furthermore, you seem to forget that, if one does momentarily accept the existence of God, it created humans - ergo, the distal cause is still God.

[Xotol]

(Original post by Id and Ego seek)
In addition to this, why aren't animal organs, fats, glands, etc. regarded as gifts from God which should be respected and shouldn't be consumed?

Because God said you can eat animals...

[Id and Ego seek]

(Original post by Xotol)
Because God said you can eat animals...

Yeah but God is as inconsistent as a teenage girl when it comes to what we should and shouldn't eat. In Genesis 1:29 it says we were meant to eat plants and seeds, and in Leviticus 3:17, God specifically commanded the Israelites not to eat the fat of any animal. When performing a sacrifice, the Levitical priests removed the fat, kidneys, and “caul above the liver” and burned them on the altar (Lev. 9:10). Interpreting this, I think it's safe to say that God does not want us to eat these animal parts. Then after the flood God just gave up and condoned the eating of anything; despite it being made very clear in so many passages that killing animals for food and for ritualistic means is wrong: such as Isaiah 66:3, Amos 6:4-7, Romans 14:21, and a few others I can't remember off the top of my head.
I'm more interested about the part where God condoned animal captivity for human entertainment, animal torture, abuse and slaughter, use of animal organs for research. Because in Psalms 104, God was pretty clear about how well we should treat animals. I'm pretty much trying to say the Bible, and many other doctrines, are human-centric because they were construed by humans. A benevolent God wouldn't allow animal sacrifice; these are clearly reflections of the practices and ritual of the culture. That is why Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, etc. actually have animal ethics because their culture and religion isn't human-centric, and 2 out of 3 are Atheistic.

[TheRustaman]

Thank GOD, I'm an atheist!

[Michael Hedaux]

Yes, Morgan Freeman

[Dandaman1]

(Original post by Id and Ego seek)
Yeah but God is as inconsistent as a teenage girl when it comes to what we should and shouldn't eat. In Genesis 1:29 it says we were meant to eat plants and seeds, and in Leviticus 3:17, God specifically commanded the Israelites not to eat the fat of any animal. When performing a sacrifice, the Levitical priests removed the fat, kidneys, and “caul above the liver” and burned them on the altar (Lev. 9:10). Interpreting this, I think it's safe to say that God does not want us to eat these animal parts. Then after the flood God just gave up and condoned the eating of anything; despite it being made very clear in so many passages that killing animals for food and for ritualistic means is wrong: such as Isaiah 66:3, Amos 6:4-7, Romans 14:21, and a few others I can't remember off the top of my head.
I'm more interested about the part where God condoned animal captivity for human entertainment, animal torture, abuse and slaughter, use of animal organs for research. Because in Psalms 104, God was pretty clear about how well we should treat animals. I'm pretty much trying to say the Bible, and many other doctrines, are human-centric because they were construed by humans. A benevolent God wouldn't allow animal sacrifice; these are clearly reflections of the practices and ritual of the culture. That is why Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, etc. actually have animal ethics because their culture and religion isn't human-centric, and 2 out of 3 are Atheistic.

The God of the Bible originates from a mish-mash of older deities and religions. It's no wonder that he shows little to no consistency in each book - it's not the same deity.

[mmmpie]

(Original post by CosmicVengeance)
Yeah "Such a vile creator" gave you the ability to see,walk,talk,hear and another million things which you would never even think about apart from when you actually need them, heres a funny joke "There are no atheists in foxholes." describes you im pretty sure

Hi! I'm human. I have bones made of polycrystaline calcium, if they crystallised in just a slightly different way they'd be almost unbreakable, but as it is they're relatively brittle. A significant part of the centre of my eye has no receptors in it because the wiring's dodgy. Unlike most other living things, my body is incapable of synthesising vitamin C, even though it's one of the most simple and essential requirements for life.

I happen to be afflicted by chronic pain. Really, this is better than some of the things which afflict other people - neurodegenerative diseases, cancers, autoimmune diseases, parasites, terminal infections... I could go on.

Really funny. That creator of yours has one helluva sense of humour.

Oh, and there's no shortage of atheists in foxholes.

[CosmicVengeance]

(Original post by mmmpie)
Hi! I'm human. I have bones made of polycrystaline calcium, if they crystallised in just a slightly different way they'd be almost unbreakable, but as it is they're relatively brittle. A significant part of the centre of my eye has no receptors in it because the wiring's dodgy. Unlike most other living things, my body is incapable of synthesising vitamin C, even though it's one of the most simple and essential requirements for life.

I happen to be afflicted by chronic pain. Really, this is better than some of the things which afflict other people - neurodegenerative diseases, cancers, autoimmune diseases, parasites, terminal infections... I could go on.

Really funny. That creator of yours has one helluva sense of humour.

Oh, and there's no shortage of atheists in foxholes.

You want science huh, tell me why then if you think theres no God the scientific facts is the Quran were revealed by God 1400 years ago and science has just came to know of it a few hundred years ago ?

[CosmicVengeance]

I could go on and on with the proofs from the Quran which science has recently just came to know off.

[R.P.Everything.]

(Original post by CosmicVengeance)
I could go on and on with the proofs from the Quran which science has recently just came to know off.

'Proofs' seems to imply that the Qu'ran provides evidence for these theories. As far as I am aware, none of these scientific theories were 'proven' by looking at the Qu'ran - all were done so independently, by scientists using scientific method.

Just a small analysis of a specific scientific claim from the Qu'ran:

'the sky expanding 'was actually a fact discovered by Edwin Hubble, however some thirteen centuries before it was clearly mentioned in the Qur'an in Chapter 51, verse 48. Secondly this is not the only reference to the big bang that the Qur'an has made, in chapter 21; verse 30 it says 'Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed-up mass, then We clove them asunder?..' This quite accuratly describes the big bang, unless I am mistaken.

It may be accurate, but is far too imprecise to be considered a prediction. 'the sky expanding' doesn't really make clear reference to the Big Bang or an expanding Universe at all, and actually, with the number of vague mentions of science in the Qu'ran, it is inevitable that some can be made sense of, in the light of modern science.This is perhaps best explained by the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy:

The Texan shoots a lot of bullets, randomly onto a piece of wood, with no intention or aim, or method. However, he then draws a target around 3 of his gunshots, cuts them out, and proclaims 'I have shot 3 accurate bull's eyes'. Of course, he hasn't, he has simply removed his blank shots, and the targets were only drawn on after the shots were made.

This seems to be the same with the Qu'ran when it comes to scientific claims. A lot of vague claims are made. To list a few: "And the earth We have spread out (like a carpet); set thereon Mountains firm and immovable - Quran 15: 19" - that could be interpreted as a flat Earth, "Created man, out of a mere clot of congealed blood - Quran 96: 2" - a claim for creationism, and "The sun runneth on unto a resting place for him. That is the measuring of the Mighty, the Wise. - Quran 36: 38" could imply the Sun orbiting the Earth. All of these scientific claims are imprecise, but all of them are false too. Obviously, with so many vague claims made, some are bound to make some poetic sense. In the instance of 'the sky expanding', I think some people have metaphorically drawn a target on that claim, using the modern big bang theory, but only after removing the missed scientific shots. It's hardly a precise explanation of the Big Bang.

[PandyAndy]

(Original post by CosmicVengeance)
I could go on and on with the proofs from the Quran which science has recently just came to know off.

Of course you could.

You'd be wrong,but you could do it.

[mmmpie]

(Original post by CosmicVengeance)
You want science huh, tell me why then if you think theres no God the scientific facts is the Quran were revealed by God 1400 years ago and science has just came to know of it a few hundred years ago ?

You mean like the shape of the earth?

[PandyAndy]

(Original post by mmmpie)
You mean like the shape of the earth?

I hope this doesn't start a debate. I've spent far too many hours of my life proving that the Earth is not the same shape as a bloody ostrich egg

[mmmpie]

(Original post by PandyAndy)
I hope this doesn't start a debate. I've spent far too many hours of my life proving that the Earth is not the same shape as a bloody ostrich egg

Haven't we all. But the difference between a prolate and an oblate spheroid is much quicker and easier to explain than the three germ layers in embryology.