The Church of the Prime Bacteria

[Senor Hoint]

I'm trying to start the church of the prime bacteria. I'm all for worshiping bacteria, it has a number of advantages over God:

1) We know it exists
2) Not only do we know it exists, but it's literally everywhere around and inside us. There are estimated to be ten times as many bacteria in the human body than human cells.
3) Bacteria could be the Progenitor, or Most Recent Common Ancestor, for all life on Earth today.
4) Bacteria, through photosynthesis and other metabolic processes, are largely responsible in a literal sense for the world as humans see it. Oxygen in the atmosphere, the nutrient cycle, etc. etc...

[notthecheatr]

Bacteria is practically immortal, or at least, it will probably far outlive humans.

The only thing I'm not sure of is omniscience, but ever realistic deity concept must give something up...

Have you heard of the church of Google? Look it up

[Senor Hoint]

Google? Worshipping Google is illogical! What has Google ever really done for us? Kill the infidels!

[notthecheatr]

Google? Worshipping Google is illogical! What has Google ever really done for us? Kill the infidels!

1) We know it exists.
2) It's practically all-knowing and exists practically everywhere.
3) It could well be immortal.
4) One day it may be artificially intelligent.
5) Its very motto, "Don't Be Evil," implies that it is all good.

[Jack]

Does your church worship all bacteria collectively or is there a prime bacteria?

[arX]

Ha.

[Apeman81]

Is this supposed to evoke debate?

[notthecheatr]

Is this supposed to evoke debate?

I see little difference between this thread and the recently posted "proof god exists" thread. Granted, that one makes claims that can't be proven whereas this thread does not. However, while no specifically debatable claims are explicitly made, I think it's clear that the original poster wants us to debate the merits of this "religion" or discuss why any other gods might be better than the one proposed by this thread. Any ideas?

[Diogenes]

Is this supposed to evoke debate?

No. It's just another moronic thread devotedly solely, by a so-called rational level-headed and introspective atheist, to bash and mock theists.

Making my past assertions in this regard once again proven...that atheists are equally prone to stupidity and irrationality.

Just calling a cow a cow...!

It's not a debate...it belongs in the ' I wanna be a comedian ' section.

[notthecheatr]

No. It's just another moronic thread devotedly solely, by a so-called rational level-headed and introspective atheist, to bash and mock theists.

Please tell me what exactly makes this thread different from this one?

Both make assertions (which you either believe or don't). If you don't think there's anything to debate then go away. Most people who don't believe in God found things to debate in the "proof good exists" thread, and I think you could find something to debate here, too.

A couple of things for starters:
-Is it not true that there is more evidence for bacteria than for your God?
-What reason can you think of not to worship bacteria?
-Why should you worship something for which you have no evidence yet not worship something for which you do?

I would have expected you guys to be clever enough to figure these things out without my pointing them out for you, and I suspect the original poster thought so too. Not every thread has to be so direct as to be condescending; we are all smart enough to figure out what the point to be debated is. Am I wrong? Did none of these questions even begin to cross your mind? Do you have to have everything spelled out for you?

There's probably a debate lurking in just about any statement anyone can make, or any idea anyone can describe. I find your attitude condescending; the original poster wasn't being rude or (necessarily) satirical; he was making a point. Do you have anything to say with regards to the point made by the poster? Or are you going to continue the name-calling because it makes you feel better?

[Apeman81]

I see little difference between this thread and the recently posted "proof god exists" thread. Granted, that one makes claims that can't be proven whereas this thread does not. However, while no specifically debatable claims are explicitly made, I think it's clear that the original poster wants us to debate the merits of this "religion" or discuss why any other gods might be better than the one proposed by this thread. Any ideas?

I would await some claim or explanation of the merits of the proposed god prior to attempting advancing a comparitive (better) argument.

Absent of any such information, there is nothing to debate.

[notthecheatr]

I would await some claim or explanation of the merits of the proposed god prior to attempting advancing a comparitive (better) argument.

Absent of any such information, there is nothing to debate.

So you don't know anything about bacteria? You've never heard of it?