Some of the biblical God's greatest bloopers

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Fuck mosquitoes and fuck their obligate predators. Let 'em learn to eat something else. Adapt or die, motherfuckers, the universe don't give a shit.

In Soviet Russia, mosquito fucks you!

[Hermit]

Actually, mosquitos are an essential part of many food-chains, their larvae, nymphs and adults provide an abundant food-source for an amazing number of amphibians, fish, birds, rodents and other insects.

Without mosquitoes the amazing number of amphibians, fish, birds, rodents and other insects would simply turn to other sources for food, wouldn't they?

Some of them, perhaps. But removing any species from an ecological system usually has unpredictable consequences. Others are obligate predators on mosquitos - often on a single species of mosquito - they would be fucked.

It's not a matter of removing mosquitoes from the ecosystem. God should not have created them in the fist place. And if he created other animals that had to rely on them for survival, well more bloopers then, right? God really is an incompetent fool. In Soviet Russia he would have been made #1 Kommissar. If he existed, of course.

[pErvinalia]

Mosquitos have plenty of redeeming attributes. Bet there's at least 10 good reasons to be glad we have them.

List them. My bet is that you'll mention that one of the good reasons is that we can't appreciate not feeling itchy unless we experience itch. I also bet that any others you list are just as shitty.

Actually, mosquitos are an essential part of many food-chains, their larvae, nymphs and adults provide an abundant food-source for an amazing number of amphibians, fish, birds, rodents and other insects.

Ecology... pfft! What's it ever done for us?!!

[L'Emmerdeur]

Created an immense universe for us to live in (it seems clear from the Bible that that was his reason for creating the universe, right?), most of which is not just uninhabitable, but downright lethal.

[klr]

Mosquitos have plenty of redeeming attributes. Bet there's at least 10 good reasons to be glad we have them.

List them. My bet is that you'll mention that one of the good reasons is that we can't appreciate not feeling itchy unless we experience itch. I also bet that any others you list are just as shitty.

Bats eat them and bats are cute. Bats also spread disease but those are just the bad bats. You can't judge all bats on the basis of a small subset of ill-behaved members of the bat community. The important thing to remember is that bats are cute.

Except when they get tangled in your hair. More "Where God Went Wrong".

As for biblical bloopers, just open a page, any page ...

[Seth]

So what if you can't prove a negative? It's such a stupid fucking argument. "Oh, you can't prove Obama isn't a reptilian overlord." "Oh, you can't prove aliens didn't build the pyramids."

So fucking what? Its a retarded argument for drooling morons. Or used by dipshits to wind people up.

Um, if it's used by dipshits to wind people up, what does that make people who get wound up by it? What's more dipshitty than a dipshit? A dipshit's trollbait.

By the way, my whole point is exactly that: you can't prove a negative so stop being a fucking dipshit by saying that God doesn't exist. You don't know that, I don't know that, and nobody else knows that, so the only non-dipshit thing you can say about God is "I don't know."

[Seth]

Maybe I should have not metioned difficulties about proving a negative. To begin with, it may be difficult to prove that no god exists, but this issue does not even apply here. We are talking about a very particular and minutely described and identified god - the Abrahamic, interfering busybody of the Bible.

Shall we accept his existence for the sake of the argument and focus on his fuckups please?

There's quite a simple answer for these allegations: The authors of the Bible got it wrong.

[piscator]

Maybe I should have not metioned difficulties about proving a negative. To begin with, it may be difficult to prove that no god exists, but this issue does not even apply here. We are talking about a very particular and minutely described and identified god - the Abrahamic, interfering busybody of the Bible.

Shall we accept his existence for the sake of the argument and focus on his fuckups please?

There's quite a simple answer for these allegations: The authors of the Bible got it wrong.

And God knew they would.

[Seth]

Maybe I should have not metioned difficulties about proving a negative. To begin with, it may be difficult to prove that no god exists, but this issue does not even apply here. We are talking about a very particular and minutely described and identified god - the Abrahamic, interfering busybody of the Bible.

Shall we accept his existence for the sake of the argument and focus on his fuckups please?

But why when evolution provides a much more robust explanation?


Ok, for the sake of it. Relgious people are God's biggest fuck up. God shouldn't of invented a system by which people worship him if people were only going to fight over who worships him the most. Seriously, they're like guys clamouring and fighting over each other trying to impress a beautiful woman.

Maybe it's God's version of MMA cage fights...and he just likes to swig beer and watch.

[Seth]

Maybe I should have not metioned difficulties about proving a negative. To begin with, it may be difficult to prove that no god exists, but this issue does not even apply here. We are talking about a very particular and minutely described and identified god - the Abrahamic, interfering busybody of the Bible.

Shall we accept his existence for the sake of the argument and focus on his fuckups please?

There's quite a simple answer for these allegations: The authors of the Bible got it wrong.

And God knew they would.

Of course. So what?

[Seth]

It is true that religious people all agree that God is beautiful and worthy of their desire to please.

Not if God happens to be Loki or Zeus.

[Seth]

So just to be clear with what Hermit is babbling on about in the OP... Seth often asks us atheists to prove that god doesn't exist. He thinks he's having a win, even though no atheist on this site that I know of asserts that god doesn't exist. Instead of playing his idiotic game, I like to point out to him that you can't prove such a negative (that a deistic god doesn't or didn't once exist), so it's a retarded question. And that of course says absolutely nothing about the likelihood of such a god existing.

Except of course you all know perfectly well none of you believe that God exists, and many, if not all Atheists will at one time or another make the pronouncement that God does not exist...even you rEv. Though you deny it now, were I interested in combing through the old RD archive I'd find you saying exactly that.

For you to maintain that a positive disbelief in God is not a tenet of the Atheist religion is ridiculous.

To wit...

[Seth]

And named her Cristina. But no, if there were a Christian god, given his series of fuckups, Cristina Rad is yet more proof that he cannot be responsible for her existence. I mean, he did invent light before he invented the sun, for example. If he can't get the simple things right, how could he ever manage to create a Cristina Rad?

It's an anthropocentric conceit to claim that God cannot create light without creating the sun first. Perhaps he decided to create the sun and the stars as a work of art for man to wonder at. Creating photons is trivial. We do it with semiconductors and electricity.

Turning to the creation of Adam and Eve (how do we even know their names before god invented the birth certificate?), they had several children. Yeah. That's only natural. People fuck. But god also said that incest is a big nono. So, who did their children fuck in order to procreate?

Did God say that? Where?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

For you to maintain that a positive disbelief in God is not a tenet of the Atheist religion is ridiculous.

There's no chestnut like an old chestnut...

[Seth]

Well now I'm totally confused. Alls I'm saying is that with a set of something that has infinite things in it it's impossible to prove that a particular thing isn't in there.

Well....yeah....by definition.