Learning a buncha shit from The God Delusion. I love it.

First of all, you guys should read Judges 19:22-29. It's some fucked up shit, right out of the fucking Bible...
Dawkins pointed it out, it's basically about this guy who remains unnamed, traveling around with his concubine, basically fuck-buddy.
And so they stop at this guy's house, and he welcomes them in, and they have a ball and a buncha fun.
But then, very reminiscent of good old Lot in Sodom and Gomorrah, the men from the town show up at the guys house, and they want to fuck his male guest basically, hell if I know why.
But the master of the house basically says "Hey, guys. No. Don't do this. In case you're disappointed, here, here's my virgin daughter, and this guy's concubine." Then he literally says Let me bring them out now. Ravish them and do with them what seems good to you, but against this man do not do so vile a thing.
So, it seems like this guy has no problem with throwing out this other guy's fuck pal, and his own virgin daughter out to be gang-raped, but not his male guest, who is, after all, male.
So, the guys outside don't want his daughter and the other guy's concubine, but he throws the concubine out anyway, and they gang-rape her all night long, until dawn, when she staggers and collapses on the doorstep of the house.
When her master guy opens the door on his way back home, he sees her lying there on the ground, and says "Get up, let us be going", yeah, she's only been gang raped all night, what the fuck is she thinking holding you up?
But it turns out she's dead, so he ties her up on his donkey, and when he gets back to his house, He fucking takes out a knife and cuts her into twelve pieces and sends them throughout Israel.

That story, it just makes no fucking sense to me... Why did he fucking cut her up? And why is the master of the house not at all concerned at the thought of his virgin daughter being gang raped all night, but he can't have his male guest be had?
It makes no sense...
Now, I guess everyone knows the Old Testament is weird, but Jesus...
That's like something I would think up, and I'm the most perverted guy I know...

Anyway, there was once this Youtube video I saw, and I didn't know how to explain it... So, basically, it was this old guy who said this: So, we have discovered that the bacteria, the species with the fewest possible genes, has about 220 genes. The scientists though this was great, they'd start with this species, and work back until they got to a dozen or less. But they ran into a problem, at about 180 genes, you can no longer have fewer genes and maintain life. So, how is it likely that 180 genes just formed and came to form life? Evolution itself may be sound, but it doesn't explain how life started...

That's a paraphrase, as I don't remember the video exactly, and I can't find it.
Anyway, at the time, while still atheist, I didn't know how to refute that...
But now, from some rational thinking and arguments I've learned from Dawkins' book, I can. I'll do so here.

So, first I'll explain why his theism is inferior rationally, and why atheism is superior in explaining life.

Okay, first, he's postulating that, rather than life forming originally out of 180 genes, an intelligent, thinking being, more complex than the cosmos itself, came into being somehow, I've never heard exactly how from a theologist, but he came into being, and then he created the 180 genes rather than them coming together...
I guess while I'm on the subject I'll refute something else.
First, this video:

Now, this video makes me furious, partly because it's a response to a video by a much smarter, funnier man.
Now, apart from his many obvious logical errors (Human morality has no issues, he points out slavery and Hitler who was an atheist supposedly. You can easily in a second point out the Bible sanctions slavery, and most people who were slavers were religious and got religious justification for it, and you can point out the Inquisition and the Crusades and the persecution of Jews and Galileo to just show some religious moral issues...), he says that atheists say that the universe has always existed.
Well, that's not necessarily true. There are many theories as to where the universe came from...
But it seems logical that either matter has existed forever, or that it somehow came into being from nothing. Even though both of those seem odd to think about, I can't think of anything else, though I'll never stop searching.
But he points out that doesn't make sense without addressing his view, which is that God created everything. Well, okay, where did God come from? Has he existed forever, or somehow came into existence out of nothing?
Or did something create him? And then who created that?
Even though the beginning of the universe seems logically to not make sense in any way in an atheism sense, religion takes a step backward, and also a really stupid one, in saying that an intelligent being more complex than the cosmos created it, and that not only that but he is intimately involved in human affairs, and knows our thoughts and assigns us to heaven or hell...
That makes no fucking sense to postulate, you point out the logical flaws in religion and cover them by making up total shit.

Anyway, continuing in my argument against the guy in the first video, his point makes no more sense than atheism, indeed, less, because he assumes that the more complicated thing came first...

Now, even though life seems unlikely to have arisen, it's possible.
1, it might have happened through a process we still don't understand, I'm always open to that possibility. And we'll always be looking for one, but even if there isn't one or we don't find it, it's possible it happened through chance.

Imagine you have a monkey randomly hacking away at a keyboard. If he's typing totally random letters, if you let him alone for long enough, say, a trillion years, he will eventually type the entire works of Shakespeare in order with no mistakes ever, just by random chance.
Or, a corollary to that is, if you have a hundred billion billion monkeys hacking away, then chances are that in a year or less, by sheer chance one monkey will do it.
That's like the universe creating life. We can see that in our galaxy there's probably about a billion planets. And there's about 100 billion galaxies in the universe.
So that means there's about 100 billion billion planets in the universe. Assume we're off maybe, so we knock off a few zeroes. A billion billion planets.
Assume each of those has one billion billionth of a chance of creating life every year, an almost nonexistent chance. That means, in a billion years, the time it took for our planet to create life, about a billion planets will have created life. Incredible shit. And it seems miraculous, but remember we have to necessarily be on a planet that has created life, we can't be on a planet that didn't create life and be around to say "oh, well too bad it didn't work on our planet"...
Chance can be valid because of the sheer number of planets it has to work with, as well as the sheer amount of time...

Jesus, I just wish I could have a theological debate with someone. But people are generally too passionate about it.
I just want to have a debate where both people are open to change. Hey, who knows, maybe they'll find a proof for God that even when I think about it for a year, I still can't refute? Maybe they'll change my mind. Or maybe, if they're truly open minded, I'll change theirs.
But they probably won't. Polls show that only 1 in 12 children break from their parents religion. Childhood indoctrination, powerful shit, man...

Anyway, I got a bit frantic by the end cause my computer still fucking shuts off at 11, so I need to go.
So g'night Oasies...