Wyman has challenged me to a formal debate in the Coach's Quarters around the problem of evil. He's even used his fancy, logic lingo, and formatting, to get the girls to swoon in his general direction. (attracting a mate tends to be more difficult for geeky logicians...)

Instead, I've decided to post my reply to him here, and open the floor to anyone interested in commenting on his resolution, or my reply.

Here it is.

Originally posted by Wyman

Hi LGM,

Resolution: Epicurus' statement entails the nonexistence of God.

Epicurus’ statement simply points out the incoherence in the superstitious beliefs held by many people, that various invisible gods, spirits, angels or fairy godmothers, care about their well being, and are protecting them from “evil”.

The clear evidence shows that bad things(a.k.a evil) happen to good, god-fearing people all the time. The evidence shows, that theists of all kinds pray for their gods to intervene and save sick, injured and dying loved ones, and these prayers are unanswered.

'God' is defined as a 3-O being; that is, 'God' is an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being.

S is omnipotent =_df. S can perform any metaphysically possible action.

S is omniscient =_df. for any true proposition p, S knows p.

S is omnibenevolent =_df. S does not perform any morally wrong actions.

While I appreciate your talent in formatting pretentious logic statements complete with inane ‘df’ subscripts, they don’t really impress me all that much. I prefer to speak in plain English, that can be understood by people who haven’t had the luxury of wasting their time in some "Intro to Abstruse Logic Nomenclature" class.

Now then, I could just as easily make the same above "3-O" statements about Zeus, an Invisible Pink Unicorn, a powerful alien being, or my omnipotent, all knowing, perfectly moral, toaster, which created, and rules the universe, all from the comfort of my kitchen counter.

So what? It seems this is just an exercise in hypothetical, theistic, philosophical, semantic masturbation to me. A pastime I prefer to ridicule, rather then participate in.

Claiming that "S can perform any metaphysically possible action", is rather meaningless, until you can offer evidence that S exists, and is able to perform ANY action.

Claiming that "for any true proposition p, S knows p", is rather meaningless, until you can offer evidence that S exists, and knows how many hairs are on my head.

Claiming that “S does not perform any morally wrong actions” is completely moot, if S doesn’t exist, and doesn’t perform any actions. It is also rather nebulous, until you define what all “morally wrong actions” are. It is also in conflict with the first premise. If this thing called god, “can’t” perform certain actions nebulously labeled “morally wrong” by Wyman, then she is certainly not able to “perform any action”...is she?

One need look no further than the fact that most modern Christians generally agree, that infanticide and genocide, are “morally wrong actions” for human beings. Unfortunately, modern, comfy, suburban Christians didn’t write the OT. So, in an insane twist of desperate rationalizing, they claim that the infanticide and genocide they read about in that collection of sacred folklore, are perfectly moral and justified, when their mythological god does these same actions, or commands it of his mythical “chosen people”, in this ancient collection of fiction they idolatrize.

Epicurus statement simply points out the incoherence of the general superstitious belief, that a “good” and “caring” supernatural being, is watching over specific religious subscribers, and protecting them from all evil.
It also points out the incoherence that a “good, caring and loving” being would invent a universe where biological organisms are constantly suffering at the teeth and claws of each other, and the ravages of their ever changing environment filled with every kind of catastrophe.

The ancient, superstitious peoples of biblical times certainly didn’t believe in an omnibenevolent god, who was watching over all people. Their gods were their own tribal gods, who just watched over them, when they were “good” or fulfilled some rituals and followed their religious leaders advice. These gods would help them to destroy and kill their tribal enemies, just like the gods of their enemies did for them. These ancient, superstitious people thought angry gods were responsible for everything from bad weather, to birth defects, to mental illness, to infertility, and really, to any coincidental bad luck experienced by someone.

And so they sacrificed children, captives, and animals to their gods, in pretentious displays, to appease the anger of the invisible gods. And if the crops were good at harvest time, they chalked it up to a god who was appeased properly. They were ignorant about their cosmology, the natural laws of their world, their species history, and their own biology. Thus, various forms of superstition and animism filled the gap of their ignorance, and gave them simple answers to complex phenomenon they didn’t understand.

Now one might wonder why some smart, young, 21st century philosophy major, with access to incredible amounts of scientific information about the world, still chooses to be enthralled by superstition and animism. And why he would believe in the mythical stories of magical intervening spirits and gods, of just one, unremarkable Semite tribe, of all his ancient superstitious ancestors.

All I can chalk it up to, is the intoxicating desire for it to be “true”. The need certain people have that something, some being, some god, really does love them, and care about what happens to them, and is looking out for their well being, and will grant them a pleasant eternal life after they die.

I fortunately do not need such comfort, and prefer to understand the world as it is, not how I would like it to be.

If you want to discuss this, I will start a new thread in the Aplogetics Forum with this post.

I know you are dying to debate some non believer, so you can show off your pretentious philosophical lexicon, and prove how smart you are, and how all evil in the world can be easily justified by some cognitive sleight of hand. And that your own personal version of the "Christian" god(s) cannot be disproven, by Epicurus, or anyone else. But I already conceed the point. Imaginary gods can be semantically twisted into any form required by their creators, to rationalize any incoherence, in their alleged attributes.

And I'm certain yours is no exception.

So, if you have any evidence that your god is actually performing "any metaphysically possible actions", or actually knows that biological life has slowly evolved on this planet over the last 3 billion years, please present your evidence, and I'll be happy to examine it.

Originally posted by LGM

Epicurus’ statement simply points out the incoherence in the superstitious beliefs held by many people, that various invisible gods, spirits, angels or fairy godmothers, care about their well being, and are protecting them from “evil”.

Point of Clarification:
The G_d portrayed by the Bible is one that provides rain for the "just and the unjust". The Bible also claims that He will "have mercy on whom he'll have mercy" and that He does chastize His children.

I say all of that to say that the G_d as defined by the Bible is one that allows blessing and evil upon all of mankind - the G_d of the Bible isn't the health, wealth and prosperity G_d of the cults.

Now of course I'll agree with you that for one in your position that doesn't provide anything in regard to evidence since it seems to be merely saying 'stuff happens and it is all from above' - I'm not refuting that part of your post. I'm only interested in driving a wedge between how I view G_d and how the wealth/prosperity cultists portray G_d.

Originally posted by LGM

Now then, I could just as easily make the same above "3-O" statements about Zeus, an Invisible Pink Unicorn, a powerful alien being, or my omnipotent, all knowing, perfectly moral, toaster, which created, and rules the universe, all from the comfort of my kitchen counter.

True.
But you don't believe in any of those things either.
There is something weak in this attitude - but I'm having problems putting my finger on it.

This approach can be used to invalidate any claim - because the technique seems to be if I can make a competing claim then nothing is true. Coming up with examples of goofy things you don't believe in doesn't invalidate the claims of those that do have a faith.

For example, you claim to be male, married, and the father of healthy children. Well I see no proof of that so I'm gonna say that you could just as well be a pink Unicorn. Do you cease to exist because of this statement? Do your claims appear weaker because I'm now claiming you are a pink unicorn?

Originally posted by LGM

One need look no further than the fact that most modern Christians generally agree, that infanticide and genocide, are “morally wrong actions” for human beings. Unfortunately, modern, comfy, suburban Christians didn’t write the OT. So, in an insane twist of desperate rationalizing, they claim that the infanticide and genocide they read about their, are perfectly moral and justified, when their mythological god does these same actions, or commands it of his mythical “chosen people”, in this ancient collection of folklore they idolatrize.

That paragraph makes sense if you completely leave out the concept of 'position'. It would be the Christian claim that G_d's role in the universe is different than ours - and with His office comes certain responsibilities that we do not have.

For example: Is it wrong to spray paint a car with pink paint?
Well if you own the car and you are doing the painting that would be different that someone who doesn't own the car doing the painting wouldn't it? The position as 'owner' changes things - in the case of painting a car it changes what could be a crime into merely bad taste.

I know you aren't enough of a simpleton to discard the incredible difference there would be between a creator god taking an action and a created man taking an action. Applying the same moral constraints to both is ignorant - we don't do that in the rather minor differences between a man and child so doing that with the considerable differences between a god and a man is ridiculous.

Anyways, thanks for opening this up to comment.

Originally posted by LGM

Wyman has challenged me to a formal debate in the Coach's Quarters around the problem of evil. He's even used his fancy, logic lingo, and formatting, to get the girls to swoon in his general direction. (attracting a mate tends to be more difficult for geeky logicians...)

Instead, I've decided to post my reply to him here, and open the floor to anyone interested in commenting on his resolution, or my reply.

Here it is.


Epicurus’ statement simply points out the incoherence in the superstitious beliefs held by many people, that various invisible gods, spirits, angels or fairy godmothers, care about their well being, and are protecting them from “evil”.

The clear evidence shows that bad things(a.k.a evil) happen to good, god-fearing people all the time. The evidence shows, that theists of all kinds pray for their gods to intervene and save sick, injured and dying loved ones, and these prayers are unanswered.



While I appreciate your talent in formatting pretentious logic statements complete with inane ‘df’ subscripts, they don’t really impress me all that much. I prefer to speak in plain English, that can be understood by people who haven’t had the luxury of wasting their time in some "Intro to Abstruse Logic Nomenclature" class.

Now then, I could just as easily make the same above "3-O" statements about Zeus, an Invisible Pink Unicorn, a powerful alien being, or my omnipotent, all knowing, perfectly moral, toaster, which created, and rules the universe, all from the comfort of my kitchen counter.

So what? It seems this is just an exercise in hypothetical, theistic, philosophical, semantic masturbation to me. A pastime I prefer to ridicule, rather then participate in.

Claiming that "S can perform any metaphysically possible action", is rather meaningless, until you can offer evidence that S exists, and is able to perform ANY action.

Claiming that "for any true proposition p, S knows p", is rather meaningless, until you can offer evidence that S exists, and knows how many hairs are on my head.

Claiming that “S does not perform any morally wrong actions” is completely moot, if S doesn’t exist, and doesn’t perform any actions. It is also rather nebulous, until you define what all “morally wrong actions” are. It is also in conflict with the first premise. If this thing called god, “can’t” perform certain actions nebulously labeled “morally wrong” by Wyman, then she is certainly not able to “perform any action”...is she?

One need look no further than the fact that most modern Christians generally agree, that infanticide and genocide, are “morally wrong actions” for human beings. Unfortunately, modern, comfy, suburban Christians didn’t write the OT. So, in an insane twist of desperate rationalizing, they claim that the infanticide and genocide they read about in that collection of sacred folklore, are perfectly moral and justified, when their mythological god does these same actions, or commands it of his mythical “chosen people”, in this ancient collection of folklore they idolatrize.

Epicurus statement simply points out the incoherence of the general superstitious belief, that a “good” and “caring” supernatural being, is watching over specific religious subscribers, and protecting them from all evil.
It also points out the incoherence that a “good, caring and loving” being would invent a universe where biological organisms are constantly suffering at the teeth and claws of each other, and the ravages of their ever changing environment filled with every kind of catastrophe.

The ancient, superstitious peoples of biblical times certainly didn’t believe in an omnibenevolent god, who was watching over all people. Their gods were their own tribal gods, who just watched over them, when they were “good” or fulfilled some rituals and followed their religious leaders advice. These gods would help them to destroy and kill their tribal enemies, just like the gods of their enemies did for them. These ancient, superstitious people thought angry gods were responsible for everything from bad weather, to birth defects, to mental illness, to infertility, and really, to any coincidental bad luck experienced by someone.

And so they sacrificed children, captives, and animals to their gods, in pretentious displays, to appease the anger of the invisible gods. And if the crops were good at harvest time, they chalked it up to a god who was appeased properly. They were ignorant about their cosmology, the natural laws of their world, their species history, and their own biology. Thus, various forms of superstition and animism filled the gap of their ignorance, and gave them simple answers to complex phenomenon they didn’t understand.

Now one might wonder why some smart, young, 21st century philosophy major, with access to incredible amounts of scientific information about the world, still chooses to be enthralled by superstition and animism. And why he would believe in the mythical stories of magical intervening spirits and gods, of just one, unremarkable Semite tribe, of all his ancient superstitious ancestors.

All I can chalk it up to, is the intoxicating desire for it to be “true”. The need certain people have that something, some being, some god, really does love them, and care about what happens to them, and is looking out for their well being, and will grant them a pleasant eternal life after they die.

I fortunately do not need such comfort, and prefer to understand the world as it is, not how I would like it to be.

If you want to discuss this, I will start a new thread in the Aplogetics Forum with this post.

I know you are dying to debate some non believer, so you can show off your pretentious philosophical lexicon, and prove how smart you are, and how all evil in the world can be asily justified by some cognitive sleight of hand. And that your own personal version of the "Christian" god(s) cannot be disproven, by Epicurus, or anyone else. But I already conceed the point. Imaginary gods can be semantically twisted into any form required by their creators, to rationalize any incoherence, in their alleged attributes.

And I'm certain yours is no exception.

So, if you have any evidence that your god is actually performing "any metaphysically possible actions", or actually knows that biological life has slowly evolved on this planet over the last 3 billion years, please present your evidence, and I'll be happy to examine it.

That's all well and good, but I think Wyman is looking for something a little more substantial. Let me give it a shot:

The 3-0 (or Triune Hypostasis) argument can be re-trivialized as follows:

3-0_BS cannot be said to exist within the framework of the 9X|₀ hyperbeing. Rearranging and solving for X, which represents the amount of pretense in a given Wyman post, and substituting HM* for the 3-0 God concept we can derive the following:

Pr(HM|T) > L is higher than first presumed. (Sorry, I don't really know what L is.) However, it follows from the definition of conditional stupidity that if 0 < Pr(BS) < 1, then Pr(Z) = Pr(D)Pr(O|N) + Pr(~D)Pr(O|~N). (Recall Whipple's Blanket Acceptance of Drivel principle (BAD).) Where Tn is an O-entailing proposition, BAD gives us Pr(D|N) = (Pr(Tn|T)Pr(O|Tn&T)) + (Pr(~Tn|T)Pr(N|~Tn&T)). Now, suppose Tn is a sniveling troglodyte, and Pr(Tn|T) = .8. It of course follows that 3-0 = HM!

HA!

So, we can see clearly from the above that God does NOT exist, and Jessica Simpson is really OJ Simpson in a very clever disguise.










*Horse Manure

T-Web theater demonstrates the popular and powerful argument:

A cafe in post-imperial France. Two students sit, tear apart a baguette and drink wine. Nearby, a washerwoman in the throes of consumption coughs up a lung.

Atheist: The Christian definition of God is contradictory because of necessary X. Thus the Christian God doesn't exist.

Christian: X isn't necessary because of Y and Z, therefore the contradiction is false.

Atheist: Look! It's the flying spaghetti monster on a pink unicorn.

Christian: I see. You're right. I'll be an atheist now.

exeunt

Originally posted by guacamole

T-Web theater demonstrates the popular and powerful argument:

A cafe in post-imperial France. Two students sit, tear apart a baguette and drink wine. Nearby, a washerwoman in the throes of consumption coughs up a lung.

Atheist: The Christian definition of God is contradictory because of necessary X. Thus the Christian God doesn't exist.

Christian: X isn't necessary because of Y and Z, therefore the contradiction is false.

Atheist: Look! It's the flying spaghetti monster on a pink unicorn.

Christian: I see. You're right. I'll be an atheist now.

exeunt

That's just beautiful, man.

Originally posted by Meh_Gerbil

Point of Clarification:
The G_d portrayed by the Bible is one that provides rain for the "just and the unjust".

Yes…I heard about the rain, if only he would provide an "ark" for the just and the unjust.

I seem to remember the movie “Oh God”, when George Burn’s god character only makes it rain on John Denver.

Of course that kind of thing, “personalized rainfall”, would be some pretty good evidence of your invisible god’s existence. But alas, all he looks like, is nature.

The Bible also claims that He will "have mercy on whom he'll have mercy" and that He does chastize His children.

I say all of that to say that the G_d as defined by the Bible is one that allows blessing and evil upon all of mankind - the G_d of the Bible isn't the health, wealth and prosperity G_d of the cults.

So when a little girl dies a slow painful death of cancer, and her faithful Christian parents and classmates and church all pray for her recovery, but she still dies…

…that’s because your god just decided he wanted to “chastise” her and her parents and loved ones, for whatever reason.

That’s kewl. That’s basically what your superstitious ancestors believed as well. They would say it was probably something the parents did or possibly the grandparents. The OT god is famous for holding grudges for several generations, and for killing the innocent, to punish the guilty.

Just ask Bathsheba's bastard infant.

Now of course I'll agree with you that for one in your position that doesn't provide anything in regard to evidence since it seems to be merely saying 'stuff happens and it is all from above' - I'm not refuting that part of your post. I'm only interested in driving a wedge between how I view G_d and how the wealth/prosperity cultists portray G_d.

I don’t understand.

Are you saying that your god just arbitrarily and randomly chastises and shows mercy to people?

As opposed to the “prosperity cultists” who believe if they submit, and worship and pray, and offer sacrifices to some god, that this will appease and influence this god to show them mercy instead of chastising them?

I wonder Gerbz…do you pray for “anything”? Why? Do you imagine you’re influencing who your god will have mercy on?

True.
But you don't believe in any of those things either.
There is something weak in this attitude - but I'm having problems putting my finger on it.

This approach can be used to invalidate any claim

Hardly.

The current President of the United States is my toaster.

The square root of 25 is an Invisible Pink Unicorn.

…are quite a different type of claim then…

The invisible pink unicorn will have mercy on whom she'll have mercy.

And she makes it rain when she wants to.

- because the technique seems to be if I can make a competing claim then nothing is true. Coming up with examples of goofy things you don't believe in doesn't invalidate the claims of those that do have a faith.

For example, you claim to be male, married, and the father of healthy children. Well I see no proof of that so I'm gonna say that you could just as well be a pink Unicorn. Do you cease to exist because of this statement? Do your claims appear weaker because I'm now claiming you are a pink unicorn?

Do you doubt my ability to offer you convincing evidence of these claims?

Would you like to arrange a visit? PM me to coordinate schedules. You may want to consider Memorial day weekend, when the boats will be in the water again. I have plenty of room for overnight guests, so bring the little gerbils as well.

That paragraph makes sense if you completely leave out the concept of 'position'. It would be the Christian claim that G_d's role in the universe is different than ours - and with His office comes certain responsibilities that we do not have.

Killing people is not a “responsibility”…sorry.

Any moral system based on free moral agents, can’t have different rules for different classes of people, and be what we in the Western world now consider "fair and just". Sorry. We are just now coming to grips with that in our own species. Poor minorities and women are supposed to have the same rights as well connected, rich, white men. And when the President commits a crime, he is supposed to be judged by the same standard as the janitor at the Whitehouse.

I know...I know...we ain't quite there yet.

For example: Is it wrong to spray paint a car with pink paint?

Is it wrong to make hilariously wretched analogies on T-web?

Apparently not, according to your moral system.
Which just further proves the fact that morality, and the skill to make intelligent analogies, is relative to the individual.

Well if you own the car and you are doing the painting that would be different that someone who doesn't own the car doing the painting wouldn't it? The position as 'owner' changes things - in the case of painting a car it changes what could be a crime into merely bad taste.

So killing every living thing ‘cept what’s on one guy’s ark isn’t really immoral, it’s simply “bad taste”.

Gotcha!

I know you aren't enough of a simpleton to discard the incredible difference there would be between a creator god taking an action and a created man taking an action.

I am enough of a simpleton to think that no gods are taking ANY actions. But plenty of MEN are taking actions, including genocide, in the name of some god.

Applying the same moral constraints to both is ignorant - we don't do that in the rather minor differences between a man and child so doing that with the considerable differences between a god and a man is ridiculous.

Children are held accountable for their moral behavior, or at least mine are.

I'm not familiar with many cases of young children comitting genocide, perhaps things are different in Michigan?

Our justice system may treat children's crimes and punishments slightly differently then adults, based on ever evolving conventions, but I assure you, if your child committed genocide, she would be held accountable and punished in some fashion.

Originally posted by Soundsurfr

That's just beautiful, man.

Yes, the toaster-riding pink unicorn irreference has pretty much crashed and burned.

Originally posted by s1mpleton

Yes, the toaster-riding pink unicorn irreference has pretty much crashed and burned.

Yes. Right into the same crater that the tribal gods of ancient Canaanite goat herders crashed and burned.

Originally posted by guacamole

T-Web theater demonstrates the popular and powerful argument:

A cafe in post-imperial France. Two students sit, tear apart a baguette and drink wine. Nearby, a washerwoman in the throes of consumption coughs up a lung.

Atheist: The Christian definition of God is contradictory because of necessary X. Thus the Christian God doesn't exist.

Christian: X isn't necessary because of Y and Z, therefore the contradiction is false.

Atheist: Look! It's the flying spaghetti monster on a pink unicorn.

Christian: Had you said it was Jesus flying out of the clouds, dressed in all white, on a gleaming golden chariot, with winged cherubim by his side, and he was coming to judge the quick and the dead...

...I might have looked.

Originally posted by LGM

Yes. Right into the same crater that the tribal gods of ancient Canaanite goat herders crashed and burned.

Just to reference a few not-so-helpful insights of yours; and for fun

Yes…I heard about the rain, if only he would provide an "ark" for the just and the unjust.
He did. Salvation. A gift. Take it or leave it.

Something about... I think I understand prayer.
Nope. You don't.

Yes. Right into the same crater that the tribal gods of ancient Canaanite goat herders crashed and burned.
Hmmm...parallels... 'crashed' and 'burned' are the same words I used...

Originally posted by LGM

Christian: Had you said it was Jesus flying out of the clouds, dressed in all white, on a gleaming golden chariot, with winged cherubim by his side, and he was coming to judge the quick and the dead...

...I might have looked.

Having more fun, LGM

Christian: ...I would have taken a second look because that is what I believe. So spaghetti monsters, eh? Is this a childhood belief or a recent conversion. Funny, I've never heard of them before. Interesting.

Originally posted by s1mpleton

Just to reference a few not-so-helpful insights of yours; and for fun

Yes…I heard about the rain, if only he would provide an "ark" for the just and the unjust.
He did. Salvation. A gift. Take it or leave it.

Oh, I'm sorry, you seem to have your timeline confused. Your messianic savior cult's "salvation" theology wasn't invented when the Isrealite shaman was writing down his version of the big flood myth.

Something about... I think I understand prayer.
Nope. You don't.

I notice you don't seem able to explain it either.

I think I understand prayer perfectly...it's what I call hoping and wishing.

Yes. Right into the same crater that the tribal gods of ancient Canaanite goat herders crashed and burned.
Hmmm...parallels... 'crashed' and 'burned' are the same words I used...

I realize my parody of your quip might have been too subtle for others to grasp...thanks for helping to clarify it, Captain Obvious!

Originally posted by s1mpleton

Having more fun, LGM

As much as I can with a s1mpleton.

Christian: ...I would have taken a second look because that is what I believe. So spaghetti monsters, eh? Is this a childhood belief or a recent conversion. Funny, I've never heard of them before. Interesting.

You've never heard the "good news"?!? Well you're in luck, I just happen to be a missionary sent here by god to save you from myself!

So let me tell you the whole story....

...In the beginning The Invisible Pink Unicorn created the heavens and the earth. Then she created the flying spaghetti monster, which was really just another version of herself, only with sauce. Thus they are the di-une gods of the universe.
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and there were no gullible people, to listen to, and believe in, the most inane, unbelievable stories. So something had to be done, so the Invisible Pink Unicorn created the theist. But she could see the theist was going to be lonely and unchallenged, so she put him into a deep sleep, and from his rib, she made the first atheist, who was skeptical, and didn't believe all these inane, unbelievable stories.

The rest is really just details...

Originally posted by LGM

Oh, I'm sorry, you seem to have your timeline confused. Your messianic savior cult's "salvation" theology wasn't invented when the Isrealite shaman was writing down his version of the big flood myth.

No apologies necessary, you misunderstanding of my saviour's theology is understood. Rain still falls on everyone. OT or NT.

I notice you don't seem able to explain it either.

I think I understand prayer perfectly...it's what I call hoping and wishing.

Ahh... you don't know so I don't know. All you need to do is ask. Generally speaking, when I don't understand something, I don't portend that no one else does.

I realize my parody of your quip might have been too subtle for others to grasp...thanks for helping to clarify it, Captain Obvious!

Hey, no prob. Sometimes, I find it helpful to state the only parts of a parody that correlate, leaving the rest to subjective incantations.


LGM, I'm not sure that last one even made sense to me. Thanks for the swordplay, though. It's fun!

Originally posted by LGM

As much as I can with a s1mpleton.

Is it the simplicy that trips you up?

You've never heard the "good news"?!? Well you're in luck, I just happen to be a missionary sent here by god to save you from myself!

So let me tell you the whole story....

...In the beginning The Invisible Pink Unicorn created the heavens and the earth. Then she created the flying spaghetti monster.
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and there were no gullible people, to listen to, and believe in, the most inane, unbelievable stories. So something had to be done, so the Invisible Pink Unicorn created the theist. But she could see the theist was going to be lonely and unchallenged, so she put him into a deep sleep, and from his rib, she made the first atheist, who was skeptical, and didn't believe all these inane, unbelievable stories.

The rest is really just details...

You had me at gullible.

Those details! They always get in the way.

Originally posted by LGM

Christian: Had you said it was Jesus flying out of the clouds, dressed in all white, on a gleaming golden chariot, with winged cherubim by his side, and he was coming to judge the quick and the dead...

...I might have looked.

Imagery is not a concept you understand eh? Ever read The Scarlet Letter? Perhaps Romeo and Juliet than??? I guess you think Romeo really thinks Juliet is the sun, right???

Crystal