Why is it atheists always ignore or hate the evidence of the Bible rely on parroting and insults?
The evidence of the Bible is frustrating because as soon as you point out something false / wrong / unbelievable, you're told that you're taking it literally in the wrong places, or that you're not reading it right, or that only Christians can understand the Bible. It's an unwinnable game.
Why is it illegal for people to walk around naked?
I am one of those annoying people who believe western society especially is totally warped and backwards. Having to wear clothes is one of them and then dictating to people how they wear the clothes in the sense of burkas being banned in some countries. So not allowed to be naked, but also not allowed to fully cover. Now dont get me wrong, when I was younger I saw a man naked on the beach enjoying drying himself with his towel a little to much and although we shouldn't really be bothered by this, i can understand why some people might be, especially those with young children. And dont say because bodies are disgusting, bodies are bodies and your body is the only one you really should be concerned about from a vanity point of view if you wish. So why I mean what are the scientific or reasons for this being illegal with a proper meaning behind them, or is it just that a group of people with body issues or low immunities that couldn't handle the weather decided that everybody should be like them. Some people say that everybody would be sexual all the time, if we look at WILD animals(totally excluding domestic animals as these have been warped also) and our apparently closest relatives they do not spend all day being involved in a sexual manner. To me personally I would be attracted to the same people clothes on or clothes off, would make little difference. I realize this will be to long for some people to read but I had to get my full points across or would of just been another dumb question.
Many believe that the essential tenets of right and wrong [morality] are written into the hearts of human beings. Do you agree or disagree? And, why?
Written in is a bit metaphorical unless one looks to DNA and what DNA produces over a period of time we call growth of a living being with self awareness and cognitive abilities.The heart, as a biological pump, and even as the metaphorical seat of emotions, would not be where this writing happens. Moral understanding would be realized in the brain and not in the heart.This would be the understanding of axioms and and the empathic ability to consider other people as caring feeling people in their own right, not tenets.All the flowery metaphorical language would also get in the way of understanding human construction and cognition of morals.For social animals that live together what works is what becomes most moral. Humans are also able to construct arbitrary morals as well, like pork on a bill.As far as a writer/author goes, no. Genes are not aware. Genes pass on their instructions/writing based upon survival and continued replication. Only humans write with pens, pencils, and keyboards.There is no genetic author and humans are the result of the genetic writing. Our physical bodies and all that they can do are the message, not the messenger.Um, do I agree or disagree? I disagree with flowery language that obfuscates and misdirects. I agree that DNA could be viewed as writing or ordered information. I agree that best behaviors for social organisms is a thing you could call morals. I even agree that metaphor can be useful and illustrative.Why? Because this isn’t the first time I have thought this through.