Talk:List of mistakes made by God

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Do we need this article?[edit]

Do we need this article? This kind of thing is covered pretty thoroughly elsewhere.— Unsigned, by: 93.93.93.93 / talk / contribs 12:15, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

No, it'd definitely not needed - all the more reason to keep it! Marghanita Laski 12:27, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Does not compute. I vote we move this to fun.— Unsigned, by: 93.93.93.93 / talk / contribs 13:05, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Looks cool to me. The arguments against ID are especially worth making. Are these arguments for unintelligent design explicitly made elsewhere on the site? If so where?--Bobbing up 13:09, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Some of them are probably in our Intelligent Design article, and if they aren't then they probably should be -- they'll make more sense there. I know we have a more detailed examination of biblical inaccuracies (and other things that generally don't make sense in the Bible) elsewhere.— Unsigned, by: 93.93.93.93 / talk / contribs 13:13, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
I can't see them in that article. This one fits rather well with the snarky point of view.  :-) --Bobbing up 13:14, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
That would be a better place for them.— Unsigned, by: 93.93.93.93 / talk / contribs 13:15, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Re, Appendix [1]--Marghanita Laski 13:20, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Body Hair...[edit]

I thought to play an important role in keeping pheromones around the body so that we smell sexy to potential mates.PFoster 13:36, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Pheromones haven't even been completely proven in humans, and they certainly have nothing to do with hair. Maybe you ought to research such things rather than simply thinking something is true.TheDestitutionOfOrganizedReligion 14:13, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
I think this may be a "Jury Still Out" one. Is the human Vomeronasal organ simply a left-over like the appendix, or does it do something? Does it detect pheromones? Does hair exist to trap pheromones? It's still all rather controversial. For a similar reason I was a bit unsure about male nipples. --Bobbing up 14:27, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Male nipples are there because they feel good. No other reason. And hey, Destitution. Don't be a fuckin' ass, okay? PFoster 15:29, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Miscl[edit]

I am tempted to add A Schafley in a miscellaneous category - but would that be a cheap shot?--Bobbing up 14:59, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

You mean like classifying someone's death as "Hollywood Values"?— Unsigned, by: 93.93.93.93 / talk / contribs 15:03, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Don't hesitate. I didn't. :) --Edgerunner76Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter 15:17, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Easy to Refute[edit]

I feel people are getting Carried Away here. Many of these are quite easy to refute. Tolerance 15:16, 14 May 2008 (EDT) (Back on Firefox)

Please, do so. --Edgerunner76Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter 15:19, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

For example suggesting that God could arrange the miraculous conception and then be unable to arrange a miraculous birth. If you accept one, why not accept the other?Tolerance 15:17, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Personally, I don't except one or the other. But, I see where you're coming from. --Edgerunner76Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter 15:20, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Right. Maybe it'll be moved to the FUN namespace to eliminate conflusion. It's not a serious attempt at casting aspersions on the Christian deity but just some odd little nit-picky items that don't seem to jive with YECism.
I find it interesting though, that you find the need to defend God. That's cute. CЯacke® 15:26, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Is that what I'm doing? I thought I was simply pointing out a lock of logic in the argument.Tolerance 15:43, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
With regard to the design ones, many of them flow from the Fact that Man was Created Perfect, but after the Fall began to degenerate. Many people in the Old testament lived for hundreds of years - now we can barely manage 70. So we see that many of these supposed design flaws are really the result of our Degeneration after the Fall.Tolerance 15:47, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Is there any non-Biblical evidence (archaeological, birht and death notices, photos of birthday cakes with hundreds of candles) for homo sapiens living hundreds of years?PFoster 15:50, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
I honestly don't know. I find the biblical evidence to be sufficiently convincing. I understand that others do not.Tolerance 15:56, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Do you eat shellfish? Do you find the Biblical statements on how to treat your women and slaves "sufficiently convincing?" 'Cause you can't cherry-pick the parts you like, you know. PFoster 15:57, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Of course you can. Any beliefs that are not accompanied by due analysis are meaningless.— Unsigned, by: 93.93.93.93 / talk / contribs 15:59, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
I'm not sure I follow you - dumb it down a bit? PFoster 16:02, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
OK :) I'm not sure Tolerance will agree with me on this, but I don't think that the Bible can be seen as one indisputable whole. Despite its subject matter, it was written by human beings, and should be analysed accordingly. I don't know that Revelations, for example, should be seen as the word of God.— Unsigned, by: 93.93.93.93 / talk / contribs 16:11, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

(Undent) But a true believer would argue that the Bible as a whole is the indisputable Word of God, and not the work of men, no? And that being the case, one cannot decide which parts are applicable and which can be done away with. Of course, if, as T. points out belos, God decides to change the rules in the middle of the game and give Himself a cosmic do-over, then all bets are off, I suppose. PFoster 16:14, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Why should a true believer take the Bible as a whole? Apart from anything else, the Bible's depiction of God is incomplete -- it provides up more with questions than answers. Taking the Bible's word as immutable truth is only the easy way of studying its wisdom and the ispiration of its writers IMNSHO.— Unsigned, by: 93.93.93.93 / talk / contribs 16:19, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Why should a true believer take the Bible as a whole? 'Cause it's the WORD OF GOD. PFoster 16:22, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
They are still words, nonetheless. If I were to translate the Bible into another language, would the fact that it is the word of God keep me from making any mistakes? If so, this could be a very valuable property.— Unsigned, by: 93.93.93.93 / talk / contribs 16:26, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
I dunno -ask one of the godbotherers about that. I just get a little riled up when I see people accept some of the most ridiculous claims made in the Bible (like Methuselah) and then discard the ones that are inconvenient (like bacon). PFoster 16:29, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
I can't tell what's happening now :S. It sort of looks like we're sort of in agreement. But, yes, I agree that no one should take any claim in the Bible to heart without considering it rationally. I think that riles most people.— Unsigned, by: 93.93.93.93 / talk / contribs 16:34, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Right - but what Tolerance wants is to, with no evidence, accept humans living for centuries and then use rationality to argue that it's because of the Fall. Does not follow. PFoster 16:38, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Actually it rather depends on whether you regard The Bible as being evidence in its own right. If you do then you've got no problem.Tolerance 12:59, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
Probably not, but I suppose he can believe that on his own if he wants to. More importantly, we've made the chronology of this talk page dangerously obtuse! Can anyone save us now?!?— Unsigned, by: 93.93.93.93 / talk / contribs 16:42, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Thank you very much for asking. In point of fact I don't eat shellfish. Although the New Testament would seem to free us from that restriction. I take the words of Jesus to mean that we should not hold slaves and we should treat women with Respect. Tolerance 16:03, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

But that's exactly the problem. It is not clear which parts Jesus did away with and which ones are still in effect. For example, the stricture against homosexuality in the Old Testament that gets conservatives so worked up would seem to have been superceded by everything that Jesus taught about loving one's neighbor, turning the other cheek and following the golden Rule. Rational Edthink!

Actually, Jesus doesn't explicitly condone homosexuality.Tolerance 13:01, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
Or condemn it? PFoster 13:18, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
No, he does not. But are you arguing that only things explicitly condemned by Jesus are wrong? He would have had to make a rather long list I fear.Tolerance 13:22, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

(UNDENT) - No, Im trying to figure out how to rationalise not hating on women and shellfish and slaves as the Old Testament requires because the New Testament says we don't have to anymore because of Jesus's message of love and respect, but continuing to hate on fags as the Old Testament says we should even though the New Testament doesn't say anything about them but does say something about love and respect. PFoster 13:32, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

In fact, Acts 10:11-14 removes the "unclean meats" one - though I personally still avoid them. So that one IS specifically covered. Tolerance 13:38, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
I'm really more interested in Christianity's institutionalised homophobia than I am in shrimp. Don't avoid the argument. PFoster 13:40, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
Personally I don't hate anybody - why should I. If you wish to pick a fight with institutionalized Religion please do so. I'm not it. My views are my own. :-) Tolerance 13:44, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
I'll "turn the other cheek." But you'll have to buy me a couple of drinks first, Ed. PFoster 16:38, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Some time ago, there used to be a place called "the newsgroups" wherein people yelled at one another daily and no minds changed much at all. Whilst debating with a 1611 KJV ONLY fundy he axed me what my preference for a Bible was. I responded that I use "the same one that Abraham used." He pointed out that the bible didn't exist at that time. I said, "Exactly!" CЯacke® 16:44, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

I wonder if you can nelp me understand, Tolerance, what Jesus said that would lead you to believe he did not remove the Old Testament prohibition against masturbation and homosexuality, but did remove the OT acceptance of slavery? Rational Edthink! 13:48, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
I guess: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." It would be difficult to love your neighbor while holding him as a slave. Tolerance 13:56, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
But those two commandments come directly from the OT? --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 13:58, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
Doesn't explain the masturbation thing - or why Steve and Bruce can't get it on...and we've already ascertained that the NT allows us to avoid those parts of the OT we don't likePFoster 13:59, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
(edit conflict) In a society where slavery was accepted there was no contradiction between loving your slave and being his or her master, just as there was no contradiction between loving one's wife and being her supreme lord and master. Rational Edthink! 14:03, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

I agree with Tolerance's original comment. Some of these can be refuted. Many are (apparently) intentional parodies. Is this page meant to be serious or funny? --BenjaminS (talk) 22:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

should we remove the Lucifer link?[edit]

I noticed you guys did this hilarious thing where you redirected Lucifer to AShalfly. But by linking to the lucifer page, i don't know... seems like we're indirectly victimizing shalfly?Sanity 16:39, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

You're new here, aren't you? PFoster 16:42, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
yeah. But if we're ACTUALLY talking about lucifer, and how he was indirectly cursed, wouldn't linking to Shalfly be a bit odd?Sanity 16:44, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Or it might be hilarious. You never know.— Unsigned, by: 93.93.93.93 / talk / contribs 16:45, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Write something lulzy about Lucifer and the redirect can go. 209.59.59.112 16:50, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Dave Matthews is one of the 'good guys'? Ha![edit]

Dave Matthews is a talentless oaf. I strenuously object to the removal of this ass from the list. It was my finest contribution in a week. DogP 13:59, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

I was going to change it to Madonna, but thought better of it. There's no accounting for taste in popular music Rational Edthink! 14:05, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
I don't mind Matthews as much as I mind the violin player in his band. why, Dave, why?PFoster 14:07, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

Different interpretation[edit]

I've always thought that God has all-encompassing power on the normal Earth, not everywhere. He could only selectively choose how to perform the miracle of creation ("...and on the seventh day, God rested..."), that His almighty power was somehow more "mortal" when performing miraculous things. It also states that God created Man "in his own image." Lyra Belaqua Alethiometer 14:08, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

I've always wondered about that "in his own image" thing. I mean, did he look like Charleton Heston or more like James Earl Jones? Rational Edthink! 14:19, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
Like Santa Claus, probably... interestingly... but I think that there actually is no contradiction between being omnipotent and omniscient, as I believe that the terms when applied to God mean just on Earth, not to God himself. Lyra Belaqua Alethiometer 14:22, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
I must say that I have little idea of what you are actually talking about. Perhaps you and Tolerance could get together on this one?--Bobbing up 15:45, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

My dog and I[edit]

I was looking at my dog the other day - she's an Alsation, or German Shepherd if you prefer. Looking at her from from front to back, she's got a set of pretty fearsome teeth at the front end which she can move around to protect her throat of necessary. Her chest is wide and protected with ribs. Her stomach and all the delicate stuff is all in the back half - out of the line of direct attack.

Then I considered myself. I've got things in more or less the same order (except that I'm male), but because I stand upright everything that she has protected, or placed out of harm's way, is a lot more exposed on me. My throat is easier to get at, but the big difference is my stomach and (err) reproductive stuff. OK, my chest is sort of protected by my ribs, but that's about it. She's a hell of a lot more intelligently designed than I am at any rate.--Bobbing up 11:30, 8 February 2009 (EST)


Literal[edit]

I must say that this article is Confusing. I thought that the People here didn't like Literal Interpretations, but everything here is Literal. I think that RW should decide if the Bible is Lieteral, Symbolic or Something Else. WE need a Consistent Position if we Wish to talk about such things. this is a Serious comment, Please don't Respond with references to what you believe my Faith to be, but with reference to the POV of the Site. --Tolerance 17:24, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

First, there is no "point of view of the Site". There are points of views of authors. Second, articles like this are generally reflections upon the more fanatical (and therefore, literal) fundamentalist interpretations. What fun would an article be if we said "All mythology is relative to teh culture and tells stories for each person to interpret - oh, wait, that *is* what I said in that article.--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Oh, my Lolita, I have only words to play with! V.Nabokov» 17:38, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
RationalWiki Doesn't have a POV? Are you Sure of that?--Tolerance 17:42, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
Quite. There is a mission. But there is not a "point of view". there are pointS of View.--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Oh, my Lolita, I have only words to play with! V.Nabokov» 17:46, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
I Thought I Read somewhere there was a Scientific Method POV, or Something like that. Or did I Imagine that?--Tolerance 17:56, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
Raises eyebrow. a "scientific method" about writing articles? About what we think? About which articles matter, or what tone of voice we should use, or which parts of the woo-ish world we should address, or how each user should write about religion? you really are going to assert this? This isn't CP where you have to ascribe to particular points of view to have a say on each and every article. If there were, i suspect you'd have been banhammed long ago.--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Oh, my Lolita, I have only words to play with! V.Nabokov» 18:04, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
Having Spent quite Some Time I find This: RationalWiki:Project_Whitewash/What_is_a_RationalWiki_article#RationalWiki_is_not_neutral_point_of_view. Would Miss Waiting like to Comment?--Tolerance 19:28, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
Good grief. and that applies, how? This is an article about the perfection of god. It is goat, it is criticism. the idea that we have a "point of view" that is "scientific method" is drivel. you cannot have a scientific method for writing articles. what was meant, clearly, is that we favor science over fairy tales; facts over fiction. But beyond that, if anyone is truly going to claim that we have a "point of view" that is "scientific method", they would have a seriously hard time showing one place where we tested our writing against a theory and proved that our writing was right or wrong. Or where we established that our humor must fall within set parameters and we have laboratory tests to measure it. You do know what "scientific method" is, don't you? 'Cause sorry, you can't be "scientific" about writing, it is inherently humanistic, subjective, and error-ridden. This is a serious Red herring, I have to say.--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Oh, my Lolita, I have only words to play with! V.Nabokov» 19:37, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
Well Said Waiting! While I don't Agree with all the Points you make I Invite you to Join with RA and I in changing the Explicit point on View on this Talk page: RationalWiki talk:Project Whitewash/What is a RationalWiki article. This is the area to change the RW PoV. Thank you so much for Responding.--Tolerance 19:42, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
And by the way, in case you missed the context of that peice "our point of view" it's specifically about Psuedo-science. Not religion, not conservapedia, not fun:chocolate, not tons of things that are on this wiki, but psuedoscience, bullshit, woo. --Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Oh, my Lolita, I have only words to play with! V.Nabokov» 19:44, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
Frankly, Tolerant, I don't need to change the so-called RW Point of View. those are "guidlines' at best, not rules. no committee wrote them up, no one agreed to tehm when we signed on. I"m fine if that's what RA wants to post, and if he or anyone dislikes what I write, they will say so. Rules are confining, cause the second you have rules, or even guidelines, someone like you comes along and says "that's not right, according to Paragraph 2, sub paragraph 1, line 13 - use of the word "god" in reference to cussing. but really, do enjoy fighting it out with RA.--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Oh, my Lolita, I have only words to play with! V.Nabokov» 19:47, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

By Definition Rules are confining. that is what Rules do. I Agree with both you and RA that the RW PoV needs to be Changed as it is too Restrictive.--Tolerance 20:00, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Tolerance, you've got some strange filter between your eyes & your brain. WfG has said NOTHING about our POV needing changing, neither IMHO has RA.   .  So, that's the tune they play on their fascist banjos 20:06, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
There's nothing wrong with the RW POV, except in that Tolly disagrees with it. Always has, always will. That's his/her/its problem, not ours. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:11, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
He or she also thinks we (RW in general, I suppose) "decided" to use "NOMA" as a guideline. I'd never even heard of noma before this week, but i sure as heck didn't see a mob consensus or even mob-ring=around-the-rosie, regarding NOMA, so i remain dubious that Tollerant knows how to read.--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Oh, my Lolita, I have only words to play with! V.Nabokov» 00:07, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

Kosher wine under plants?[edit]

Wouldn't it be in recipe category unless the same recipe gives you something better with non-kosher ingredients? K61824Ask me for relationship advice 01:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's about the grapes not the recipe, but I don't know. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Amazing - I just noticed this headline out of the corner of my eye and thought it said Kosher wire underpants before I took a second look. Silly twit (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

God doesn't make mistakes[edit]

These are pre-designed failures. You know how certain products are made with a built-in failure features for safety? This is like that. SoldierInGodsArmy (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

God puts fuses and shear pins? Got more particular details? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
[citation needed]Scarlet A.pngnarchist 16:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Naw, it's planned obsolescence. God was bribed by the medical lobby to downgrade product reliability in order to keep business brisk. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

God and fossils[edit]

The mistake of 'putting fossils in the theatrical design of geological structures' in a manner that causes people to create the profession of paleaontology and order the fossils and geological constructs in a manner that suggests an Earth created billions of years ago in which evolution occurred.

Or - God created 'a law-abiding and evolving universe' whose intelligent inhabitants (when they evolve) create theories based on the existing evidence, which get revised in due course (as with epicentres, philostogen (sp?), spontaneous generation, the Greek writer who disbelieved the sailor's comment that the sun had been seen in the north part of the heavens (as had crossed the equator) etc.

Occam's Razor applies. Jackiespeel (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yess... The universe exists therefore somebody must have created it by magic. Is this really Occam's Razor?--BobBring back the hat! 00:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
  1. If# God had a part in making the universe, fewer assumptions need to be created for 'old and evolving universe' than for '6 000 year universe with fake fossils, fake geology etc sufficiently cleverly made to confuse the geologists, paleontologists, archaeologists, astronomers and all other interested parties.'

The 'black box of the origin of the universe' probably falls into the category of Arthur C Clarke's 'queerer/more peculiar than we can imagine.'

Has anyone done a list of mistakes made by Gods other than that of the Bible? Jackiespeel (talk) 21:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Another mistake made by God - people with sufficient lack of imagination to assume that 'all the scientific and theories devised two and more thousand years ago based on the information available in a particular desert context' are still valid today, even when later information on a wider base of sources ahs become available. (Some ethical and other aspects will still be valid.) Jackiespeel (talk) 22:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

It's just (1.) Assuming God exists. (2.) Assuming he created the universe using magic. Both look like pretty big assumptions. And they also don't explain very much.--BobBring back the hat! 22:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should state that this discussion should be separate from 'debates on religion per se, its benefits and negatives (including providing ethical systems, art and so on) - though ethics can exist independently of religion.

'Any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic' - and how would one explain 'a wiki' to someone from even 50 years ago?

The debate about God is in part about 'the act of creation' and 'where did everything come from and how did it start?' Jackiespeel (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:Emu picture and caption[edit]

No, you can't see the wing of this emu because this is an extinct King Island Emu which has little resemblance to the live & kicking kind of emu currently found on the Australian mainland — Unsigned, by: 210.10.106.195 / talk / contribs

Bible Nav[edit]

I like this page, but i think we should at least reference where (in the bible) we got the issues. And if/when we do, it should probably be dropped into the bible category.Pink mowse.pngGodotThe Peyote God awaits 19:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Boo hiss, some annoying facts...[edit]

I like the snark level of this article, so I'm hesitant to pollute it with facts. Regardless:

  1. Giving humans appendixes, which are literally worse than useless. - um, there is now evidence that the appendix may play an important role in the maintenance of intestinal flora. It's far from conclusive and the matter is still hotly debated. But we can't definitively say it has no function.
  2. So why aren't we born already knowing how to swim? Or at least tread water? - um, we are, see Primitive_reflexes#Swimming_Reflex. We then forget about it at about 4-6 months and have to relearn.

VOXHUMANA 06:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I have resnarked with those details accounted for. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 11:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Phimosis[edit]

I think it would work as material for this page. Look it up, and tell me it wouldn't.24.110.21.168 (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

God in Islam[edit]

In this edit, I found the Islam part iffy and removed it, because the article hardly talks about Islam. Although I admit that I have rather limited knowledge of Islam, I am well aware that Islam has its own creation narrative that is similar to the one in the Jewish Torah or Christian Old Testament. In Islam, it is believed that there is no Fall of Adam and Eve. God has always been with Adam and Eve. This belief greatly affects Islamic theology in that there is no such thing as Atonement in Islam. As far as I can tell, this article is pretty skewed towards the Jewish and Christian creation narratives and theologies. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Move to funspace? Filter and separate?[edit]

This mixes funspace-type stuff with actual apparent errors. Anyone have any interest or just move it? - David Gerard (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Purposeless in Existence[edit]

Sadly it appears that this article, and in fact this entire wiki, has an immensely strong atheistic bias. The stated purpose of this wiki is mainly aimed against pseudo-science and poor logic. These things are justly targeted. However, the entirety of this article rests on several false pretenses, including biblical literalism, and the very common "if God was so smart, why did He do (or not do) x" when, in reality, it is unlikely He partook in anything to make it so. Pseudoscience is *not* synonymous with religious belief (albeit regrettably the two appear together far too often). It would lend great credibility to the entire wiki if the articles at least pretended to aim for neutrality.

Foreskins[edit]

Thaay (it) is not a mistake. God likes foreskins so he provides every male with one so when sacrificed he has a steady supply. Hamster (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Unintelligently designed[edit]

Roughly 15% of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions, mostly because the fetus would never be viable. Looks like Humans have a defect rate higher than Yugos! Yet even after this culling of defective fetuses, roughly 10-15% of births show obvious birth defects. So God is an abortionist with very bad quality control. How bad? Look up Lesh-Nyhan Syndrome. marriage is a mistake God made becuase marriage is what everybody else seems to be doing and i really want everyone to stop getting married so in the future i want God to punish people who get married both gay and straight and remove marriage and dating from existance

This is all opinions[edit]

https://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/43nl4a/my_apt_owners_car_obnoxious_as_all_hell/czjne3j Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 21:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Another msitake by God[edit]

In Genesis and in Job there is reference to 'the sons of God.'

In the New Testament Jesus is God's only begotten son.

How does He explain this? (a) He has different methods of reproduction, (b) He is suffering from significant memory loss, (c) He has fallen out with the sons, or (d) the Bible is a Sammelband-equivalent. 86.191.125.152 (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Just confused[edit]

This might sound controversial, but isn't the first item of "God's mistakes in roughly chronological order" section a bit biased against females? If not, I would love some clarification. — Unsigned, by: 77.111.246.93 / talk / contribs

It is referring to Genesis 2:18-25. If the creation myth sounds sexist that is because, well it is. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Iirc, former is not "a mistake God made", but latter is. Chauvinistic straight men created religion for their own benefits. — Unsigned, by: 77.111.246.106 / talk
If we presume for the sake of argument that the god claim (as described in the Bible) is true, then yes, these are indeed mistakes made by God. Further, presuming the sexuality of the authors of the Bible is mere speculation. And lastly, there a more religions than Christianity, and they all deserve scrutiny. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. Many of the same mistakes listed can apply to whatever God other Abrahamic religions call as well. But that doesn't mean that divine beings of religions outside those are infallible. — Unsigned, by: 77.111.246.106 / talk / contribs

In the interest of balance[edit]

Have a list of things God got right. Bear in mind that some of the 'mistakes' are actually improvements on the original designs. Anna Livia (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the basis of this wiki... --80.6.203.151 (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Oncogenes[edit]

Not just for causing cancer. They're a fundamental part of cell division. -- 80.6.203.151 (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)