a perfect god is disproved with...
Posted on: May 20, 2007 - 7:42pm
Offline
a perfect god is disproved with...
downs syndrome. any other physical or mental imperfection for that matter.
how can something that is perfect create something imperfect?
think of it like a basketball team, an incredibly skilled point guard makes 90% of his shots. wouldn't a perfect point guard make 100% of his shots? wouldn't a perfect god create people with perfect health?
- Login to post comments
That's a fallacy of equivocation, because it presupposes that disease is imperfect. It begs the question, what is perfection?
"The map appears more real to us than the land." - Lawrence
Not really. I don't know anyone who would rather have disease that not. Especially the very debilitating kind.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
The flaw is it supposes the religious concept of "perfection" is a coherent term. Any problem can be shambled over with ad hoc rationalizations. It's not what something is for the religious, it's what one can, in a given argument, speculate that it might possibly be.
Technically a perfect being would be incapable of making an imperfect creation unless it was their intention to create an imperfect creation. In other words, perfection couldn't make a mistake by accident.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I have to go with him on this one. If god existed(Which all evidence points to him not existing) we would have no way of knowing what he meant by perfection. Perfection could be eqaulity of all living organisms, maybe it was it's intention to make a perfect disease etc.
"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken
Thank god i'm a atheist!
Well, it would certainly disprove a perfect benevolent god.
I think this is the implication the OP had in mind. I refute the notion that pain must necessarily be antithetical to benevolence. At least in my life's experience, comfort and betterment are rarely connected.
"The map appears more real to us than the land." - Lawrence
alright, i see how it is then. the pain of huntington's syndrome is the result of a perfect creation. maybe you have a point with the "perfect" part, but then you don't have a point with the "loving" part.
We can certainly agree to disagree. My original statement stands though: comfort and betterment are rarely if ever intertwined. I don't belittle the torturous experience something like Huntington's disease surely causes. It would be impossible to get an unbiased opinion on the total effect it has on a person's life, though. There are enough survivors of other traumatic disease that claim it was the most profound experience of their lives.
"The map appears more real to us than the land." - Lawrence
When God created Adam and Eve, they were perfect. They were not to die. They had no disease or imperfection or handicapp. God told Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil or they would surely die.
They disobeyed and ate it. Sin and death came into the world.
At that moment, all that God created lost it's perfection and with that comes physical and mental imperfections.
Isaiah 1:18 " Come now, let us REASON together,"
says the LORD.
"Though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red as crimson,
they shall be like wool.
Member of WELS
When God created Adam and Eve, they were perfect. They were not to die. They had no disease or imperfection or handicapp. God told Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil or they would surely die.
They disobeyed and ate it. Sin and death came into the world.
At that moment, all that God created lost it's perfection and with that comes physical and mental imperfections.
Isaiah 1:18 " Come now, let us REASON together,"
says the LORD.
"Though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red as crimson,
they shall be like wool.
Member of WELS
The author of this thread fails to understand that God created everything good. Read Genesis 1. When sin entered the world, the gene pool became damaged. We live in a broken and fallen world because of sin. Sin also darkens the mind and expells the grace of God from the heart. An impure heart will bring forth impure reasoning, like atheism.
Banned for lying - was warned twice.
So who created sin?
According to the latest cosomological theories, the universe exists because we observe it. So maybe sin exists because we are here to commit it.
(Being a little facetious here, but it is an interesting idea. I may have to play with it.)
My Artwork
guys....QUIT MISUSING "begs the question". OK? Stop it. Just....stop it.
There is something that down's syndrome disproves. There is a way it disproves a perfect god, at least the christian god's perfection. God made humans in his image. His image would not include imperfect beings. It would only include people without deformities in any way, unless he was not perfect. So, we win.
Look at my blog! It's awesome!
I'm also on this Twitter thing
There's no misuse of the phrase "begs the question." The assertion is grounded on an undefined term - "perfection." The assertion therefore begs the question: what is perfection? If taken from an atheist standpoint, I see no viable gauge since perfection implies an absolute. From a theological standpoint, the answer is necessarily based off of God's perfection and/or the perfection of his creation. Out of that we can say that because God is a perfect creator, the creation is perfect. It's an a priori statement.
Humans created sin, although a person would not be amiss to say that God created sin by proxy through creating humans. Part of God's creation of humans was to permit them free will, which he necessarily knew would lead to the fall from grace. A common argument is that this undermines the position that God is all-loving and/or all-just. However, God had set up the means by which humanity could be saved long before creating it, presumably out of his omniscience and benevolence.
Could he have "cut out the middle man," so to speak? The only presumption one can make is that the fall and salvation are necessary steps in God's plan. Of that a person cannot speak further, because it is impossible to know the mind of God. I hope what can be known is at least informative.
"The map appears more real to us than the land." - Lawrence
Echo, if our imperfection is the result of original sin then why is it that only some people are born with extreme abnormalities, downs syndrome, cystic fibrosis. Many humans are extremely healthy, never get ill, live perfectly healthy lives and happy lives. Are you going to argue that these are Gods chosen people? Ok, so I myself am not perfect, I have dyspraxia, dyslexia, had some quite unhealthy years in my teens. But I've met religious people with Downs. Why do these people get it worse for the sins of someone you believe is the ancestor of everyone? In fact since we are all individuals, how can we have sinned before we were born? Surely babies are born sinless? Sin can't be carried in genes can it? If my dad was say a gangster who shot people, who mutilated babies, why should I be punished for it if he died. I didn't eat the apple from the tree of knowledge, our great great great... grandmother and father did (in your belief).
Atheist Books
Over 99 % of all species that have lived on earth at one time are now extinct, proving that "good" is a very subjective term for success, indeed.
Who here hasn't ? As one of thousands of creation mythologies, it's just as silly as all the rest.
"The conception of Sin which is bound up with Christian ethics is one that does an extraordinary amount of harm, since it affords people an outlet for their sadism which they believe to be legitimate, and even noble." - Bertrand Russell
Pure is subjective, as is impure. Your heart is an organ that pumps blood throughout your body.
For the sake of argument, and to find examples of what might be "impure", take a look at what history has shown "religious belief" has done to our societies.
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason" - Benjamin Franklin"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell
God did make humans in his image and they were perfect. That image is lost because of the fall into sin.
After the fall, man was then made in man's image and not God's.
Genesis 5:3 "When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth."
Isaiah 1:18 " Come now, let us REASON together,"
says the LORD.
"Though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red as crimson,
they shall be like wool.
Member of WELS
Correction, it should read: Take a look at what FALSE religious belief has done to our society.
Isaiah 1:18 " Come now, let us REASON together,"
says the LORD.
"Though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red as crimson,
they shall be like wool.
Member of WELS
Did I lose a "No True Scotsman" around here ? I know he's wandering thru this thread somewhere and he's not wearing a damn thing under that kilt !
The narcissist finds every religious belief FALSE, but his own... Nice couple of fallacies there !
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell
Defending any religion is ludicrous. Especially when the historical Christ bashed religious leaders.
A person who believes in something can in no way defend the actions of people who believe the same thing.
It is certainly not a belief in God or Christ that necessitates violence or any other act which debilitates mankind.
That said back to the original thought of the post.
If God wanted a being that would love Him, that would choose Him, wouldn’t he give that being a choice?
If God created a being and did not give that being a choice, then would he really have chosen God, or loved him.
He, God, had to create an alternative to himself, he had to give them a choice.
I am not perfect. I am selfish, just ask my wife. We all do things we know we shouldn’t. We aren’t perfect.
If any one of us were that first being, we would have chosen wrongly as well.
// Break
Good people and bad people, religious and non-religious, are all racked by the same diseases and tragedies.
To say that New Orleans and AIDS are God’s judgments is ridiculous as well. AIDS let’s face it, is passed through people having sex with obviously more than one person. This isn’t a judgment merely a consequence of actions. On the other hand you have storms and diseases, and non sexually transmitted AIDS which are of no one’s direct consequence.
The prevailing idea is because Adam sinned he f*cked it up for the rest of us. Adam is a real jerk. I believe as stated before every one of us would have made the same bad choice.
In turning from perfection to the imperfect, when Adam chose other than perfect, he threw us into a downward spiral.
Once the imperfect (sin) entered a perfect state, all hell broke loose.
This is why there is a need for a perfect Adam. We need the one who chose perfect instead of imperfect. He has come to right the wrong. By being a descendent of this new Adam (Christ) we may inherit not a sin nature but a second chance at the choosing of the tree.
The other tree mentioned in the garden of eden, it was the tree of life. That’s the tree we can chose. By choosing that tree we aren’t defended against diseases and death on this temporal plane but we can have life after death. This means that we get the consequences of a life lived as if Adam had chosen perfection not imperfection.
Also, by saying God who is perfect couldn't have made a world that is imperfect is using a ruler or measuring stick that you don't think is accurate or even exists. Your idea of perfect, your ability to see right from wrong is in and of itself built from the idea that there even is perfection. This ruler which you use to measure your idea of God is right and just but the idea of God you hold up to it is flawed. Until you read about that God and attribute to that God his true meaning then and only then can you use that moral yardstick to measure God up to.
Crockaduc lol I like your avatar. You actually found a TRANSITIONAL FORM!
Any modern text book on astrophysics proves what Christian theists have always known. The universe had a beginning. The atheist arguments are so rediculous and antiquated that it literally amazes me that people who claim to live in an age of reason, even hold to atheism.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=William+Lane+Craig&search=Search
Banned for lying - was warned twice.
Atheists want us to believe only in that which can be scientifically proven. Yet that statement itself is not scientifically proven.
Banned for lying - was warned twice.
Fallacy: Begging the Question
Also Known as: Circular Reasoning, Reasoning in a Circle, Petitio Principii.
Description of Begging the Question
Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."
Some cases of question begging are fairly blatant, while others can be extremely subtle.
Examples of Begging the Question
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."
Bill: "Jill can give me a good reference."
Interviewer: "Good. But how do I know that Jill is trustworthy?"
Bill: "Certainly. I can vouch for her."
Look at my blog! It's awesome!
I'm also on this Twitter thing
Ahhh, the fall. Tell me Echo, did Adam magically look completely different than god after the "fall"? Was there a mutation? Tell me this also...how does Seth being made in Adam's image, after Adam was made in God's image, make Seth NOT made in God's image?
Look at my blog! It's awesome!
I'm also on this Twitter thing
Where are we pulling the definition of 'god's image' and why is perfection and love determined by us when refering to its use by someone else?
It seems silly to pretend to be someone else, express dissatisfaction, and then trash that individual's personal choices on your own preferences. Especially when the situation is, perhaps, best equated to a kid criticizing his parents' judgement calls.
If the atheist in the discussion gets to pick and choose what to use out of the bible and how, why is the theist attacked for doing the same? Seems like something everyone should stop.
Mike Gravel for president!
Ridiculous. Show one example of a mutation arising in a human resulting from a lie or theft. Just one.
Adam was made after god. So seth would be as well, by proxy.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
You're right. While the statement certainly begs a question, it is not the begging the question fallacy. And I still haven't seen a definition of perfect.
"The map appears more real to us than the land." - Lawrence
Since atheists admit the machine of the body is imperfect, then their logic and reasoning must by necessity also be imperfect because it comes from a broken machine/body. Therefore, atheism is the product of imperfection and must be false. And the atheist cannot even argue against this statement without first assuming the perfection of the body machine and the logic that flows from it. If they attempt to do this, they are not being consistent with their own argument, that the body is imperfect. Theism is not a production of the body machine, but a revelation into it. Therefore, the presence of an imperfect body machine presents no problem for the theist, because theism is not a production of the body machine.
Banned for lying - was warned twice.
Since theists admit they are imperfect and sinners, their logic and reasoning must by necessity also be imperfect and sinful, because it comes from an imperfect and sinful body.
Therefore theism is the product of lies and imperfection and must be false.
The theist cannot argue against this statement without first assuming they are perfect and sinless, which is against their beliefs and so impossible.
If they attempt to do this, they are not being consistant with their own argument and belief system, that they are sinners and imperfect.
Atheism is not the production of the body or mind, but the rejection of theism, which is obviously tainted and false.
Therefore the presence of an imperfect body creates no problem for the atheist, as it is what an atheist would expect in a universe without a creator.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Note the generalization.
Define perfect. What would a perfect creature be? Would it be perfectly adapted to a single environment? Would it be generally adaptive to all environments? I don't consider perfection a coherent term in reference to organisms.
Secondly, that logic (which I attribute to you, since it I don't know what imperfect suggests in reference to a healthy individual, versus what a perfect individual is supposed to be), undermines the foundations of all knowledge, not just a single position. It also undermines theism, since any perception of "god" would also be by the same "imperfect" being.
An unfounded distinction. There is more in favor of calling theism a delusion than calling it any transcendentally-inspired truth. The position held by mutually exclusive belief systems in the world is such that some people are wrong and deluded in their faith -- the position of atheism implies that all are.
[...]
How apt that you have a zero in your logic.
Since christians admit that they eat the body of Jesus every sunday, they're all cannibals. See how generalizations go? Regardless, your argument is imperfect in more ways than I can list. I'll let others get to it, though.
Look at my blog! It's awesome!
I'm also on this Twitter thing
That's a negative definition, defining something by what it is not. What is perfection?
"The map appears more real to us than the land." - Lawrence
Since atheists will admit that we live in an imperfect and broken universe, world and body. Please tell me where the idea of perfection is derived from? How can an imperfect brain/mind produce such a concept of perfection? I submit that the idea of perfection did not originate from the human mind, but came through the vehicle of divine revelation. It was revealed to man by God. Also, tell me who has the authority to decide that which constitutes perfection? Only a perfect being would be qualified to know what is perfect. The fact that theists claim God to be perfect, is proof that theisitc belief in a perfect God, did not originate from imperfect man. Imperfection cannot produce perfection. Perfection cannot produce imperfection. Finitude cannot produce infinity. God created the universe perfect. Man was forced out of paradise because of his sin. This is the root cause of imperfection in the universe, world and body.
Banned for lying - was warned twice.
Vastet, you just proved my every point by what you said. How can you know that theism is false? To claim something to be false, you must first assume beforehand the existence of truth. Since you are an imperfect being, how can you know the difference? Second, if your body/mind is imperfect, then so also must be the logic that it produces. Therefore, you have no way of ascertaining the validity of anything you say, think or believe. What you are doing is secretly relying on the metaphysical principles of the theistic worldview in in order to make sense of your own. You have to, because atheism cannot possibly stand on its own. It is a philosophical absurdity.
Banned for lying - was warned twice.
Yes, just because "A" comes before "B", it does not logically prove that "A" produced "B". This assumption is known in logic as the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Also knows as , false cause. Christ came before the evils that have been done by His alleged followers. This does not prove that He is the cause of those. Remember, there is no proof that "A" caused "B". Nothing He ever taught supports violence in anyway.
Banned for lying - was warned twice.
Those 'evils' were done not only in his name, but as he requested as noted in the same documentation that you base his existance on. The same type of evils that he himself did in the old testament.
If you're talking about christianity catholicism and believe the scriptures / bible / etc then you should also believe that he committed and sponsors the evils done under his name.
If you want to present your bible as 'proof' of god, then you must accept the same documents as 'proof' that he is responsible for the acts and for encouraging the acts of evil.
People are just, to quote Rage Against the Machine, "Killing in the name of".
Tarapon, I like your signature: "All religions were made by man." Thank you for admitting to the historical Christ. He was a man. Second, how do you know all religions were made by man, or are you merely assuming this to be the case? You can't possibly know this. Atheists are supposed to rely on empiracle data. Wher'e your data supporting your statement?
Lastly, we're talking about Christianity. Jesus never once authorized His followers to kill peopel You will not find that in the New Testament. A exists before B, but there is no proof A caused B. And in an atheist universe, might makes right. Culture decides morals and ethics. You can't make an argument against killers if we live in a universe with no absolute moral standard. You would only be reflecting your own conventional opinion of what morality should be. Remember, in an atheist universe, might makes right. Therefore, you also have no absolute moral foundation to condemn Hitler, Stalin or even Bin Laden.
Banned for lying - was warned twice.
I believe Rook had a thread on this one... Does it really bother you to read?
No, he didn't. He only threatened with senseless destruction of entire cities and eternal torture of the vast majority. He also instructed one to pluck out his eye(s) or cut off his hand(s) if they "cause him to sin", apparently not aware that those poor body parts have nothing to do with his will. It's also interesting that he constantly repeats that he will check our hearts and our reins (???). It's also interesting that he curses a fig tree for not having figs out of season. Also, Jesus didn't instruct people to kill, in a direct manner, but he did instruct to hate, and made it clear in a direct manner. Also he didn't seem to be interested in Amerindians, Indians, Chinese or Japanese, Mongols, etc. to go to Heaven, since he not only doesn't preach or speak to them, he never even mentions them. Quite lousy of the son of an omniscient god.
Correct.
And in a theist universe, it's different? For some reason the biblical words "hail the might of God" come to mind...
Well, strangely, that doesn't seem to bother theists that dictate some very strict laws, regardless of no objective, universal and absolute moral standard...
I see no difference between atheists and theists here. Adolf Hitler was a Christian, to the extent of my knowledge, so was Pope Urban II, so was Pope Urban VII, and also Torquemada. I have serious reasons to doubt the "divine inspiration" of the morality of these people.
And you do?
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
Did zero logic reply to me? I can't even tell. It all sounds the same.
Very well, I will assume that there is truth. We have religions R1, R2, R3, ..., Rn as a complete set of all religions that have ever existed or continue to exist. Out of these religions, we mark Rk, Rk+1, ..., Rk+j as a complete set of all religions that have ever existed or continue to exist that are exclusive of all other religions. I will also mark the first set as R and the second set as E. Naturally, E is included within R. The difference between R and BE we will mark as N.
We shall first assume that truth dictates that at least one religion from R, specifically from E, is true. Due to the nature of exclusiveness, if one religion from E is true, no other religion can be true. So truth therefore, in this case, dictates that one specific religion from E is true.
Next, we shall assume that truth dictates that at least one religion from N is true. N-religions aren't exclusive, so at least another religion might be true. Since we have just demonstrated above that if a religion from E is true, then no other religion is true, it therefore means that this second religion that might be true in this case comes from N as well.
Obviously, there's the case in which no religion, regardless of it being in R or N, is true.
So, until now we have 3 cases:
- one exclusive religion is true, nothing else is true
- at least one non-exclusive religion is true, no exclusive religion is true, atheist position is not true
- atheism is true, no religion is true
How did I do until now? I believe that you will agree with me up to this point.
What identification elements do we have for each religion?
- "divine inspiration" - all, or most, have it
- "chosen people" - all, or most, have it
- "man-god hero that supposedly saves the world in a way nobody actually understands" - all, or most, have it
- "creation story" - all, or most, have it
- "supposedly absolute moral code" - all, or most, have it
- "a threatening punishment/reward system for doing things, but especially for worshipping" - all, or most, have it
- "spiritual leaders and forms of organized worship" - all, or most, have it
- "presumptions on time, phases and cyclicality" - all, or most, have it
- "prophecies" - all, or most, have it
- "stories that aren't meant for anyone to understand" - all, or most, have it
- "an idea of holy conflict in its name" - all, or most, have it
- "holy book" - all, or most, have it
- "the idea that all others don't quite have something right" - most have it
Did I forget anything? Hope not. How are we supposed to tell religions apart? Which one is "the righteous" ? What is the truth?
Actually, it's the opposite way around.
And this one comes from someone whose posts are about 25% original, and the others based on someone who only SEEMS to make sense ? Hah.
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
Where is the idea of cuantics, minimal Planck timespan, etc. ?
OK, you're a theist, so I suppose you have been "revealed to". Explain us, those that didn't have this gift of divine revelation, in your own words, what is perfection? No, I don't want to read the Bible, YOU explain it to me.
God is omniscient, so he knew sin will have entered the world. He did not stop it, therefore, he is either uncapable of stopping it, or unwilling to stop it. Since God is omnipotent, it means that he is capable of stopping it, thus, the only conclusion is that he is unwilling to. Theoretically, he's supposed to be all-loving as well, and no at least loving person that I know would willingly allow his child to make a mistake that would condemn him to suffering forever.
So... still claim that theism is the only logical position?
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
I could chase my 5 year old around all day. I could put her in a box so that she doesn't hurt herself or make bad descicions. I could tell her scary stories to keep her in line. I could mercilessly beat her into submission. HOWEVER, I don't and wouldn't do any of those. I teach her right from wrong. And sometimes i let her hurt herself so she learns a lesson.
I was teaching her to ride a bike the other day. She constantly would look at other people and not where she was going. She would veer into the grass or off the sidewalk and I would catch her before she fell. I did this 20 times and every time I told her "Watch where you are going or you will get hurt." I finally i realized she wasn't going to listen to me, she had to experience what i said. I finally let her go. I let her veer into the grass (not the street) and let her fall.
She looked at me with this confused look like "why did you let me fall?"
I could have caught her every time that ride, but i knew she needing to experience the fall to really get good at riding. This is super simplistically how God deals with humanity.
Before we could ride the bike of life we have to make a lot of dumb mistakes and if we don't learn from them we'll do it over and over again.
I repeat: If God wanted a being that would love Him, that would choose Him, wouldn’t he give that being a choice?
If God created a being and did not give that being a choice, then would he really have chosen God, or loved him.
He, God, had to create an alternative to himself, he had to give them a choice.
I am not perfect. I am selfish, just ask my wife. We all do things we know we shouldn’t. We aren’t perfect.
If any one of us were that first being, we would have chosen wrongly as well.
// Break
Good people and bad people, religious and non-religious, are all racked by the same diseases and tragedies.
To say that New Orleans and AIDS are God’s judgments is ridiculous as well. AIDS let’s face it, is passed through people having sex with obviously more than one person. This isn’t a judgment merely a consequence of actions. On the other hand you have storms and diseases, and non sexually transmitted AIDS which are of no one’s direct consequence.
The prevailing idea is because Adam sinned he f*cked it up for the rest of us. Adam is a real jerk. I believe as stated before every one of us would have made the same bad choice.
In turning from perfection to the imperfect, when Adam chose other than perfect, he threw us into a downward spiral.
Once the imperfect (sin) entered a perfect state, all hell broke loose.
This is why there is a need for a perfect Adam. We need the one who chose perfect instead of imperfect. He has come to right the wrong. By being a descendent of this new Adam (Christ) we may inherit not a sin nature but a second chance at the choosing of the tree.
The other tree mentioned in the garden of eden, it was the tree of life. That’s the tree we can chose. By choosing that tree we aren’t defended against diseases and death on this temporal plane but we can have life after death. This means that we get the consequences of a life lived as if Adam had chosen perfection not imperfection.
I don't see the difference.
Atheist Books
Just becuase you dont see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Be careful with short vague statements, which most responders of this thread are guilty of.
If you want to know the truth, preconcieved notions have no place and are not them selves evidences of the truth. This goes for theists as well as atheists who want to know the truth.
I am still waiting on replies from my earlier comments.
"Health" is a human concept, I would think.
I think this will be last "rational response."
Thanks. But no thanks.
To theists on this thread:
look into hermaphodites/intersexed issues. same sort of thing.
You lose, sorry.
EDUCATION! EDUCATION! EDUCATION!