# Athiest memes. Each one it's own OP. Its own discussion.



## bigreddwon

I'd like to start a thread with Athiest themed memes that each could be its own thread..seems like a fun idea. Lets see yours.

I suggest that if your faith is easily shaken, in turn causing you to get angry, leave this thread now. None of these memes are put in here to offend you. That's only a bonus. Wear your big boy pants if you decide to read this thread.


----------



## bigreddwon

*To the point.*

I agree.


----------



## bigreddwon

*Truth*

I was asked not to return to my church at 13 because of questions they couldn't answer. I was leaving anyways.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

I think this one speaks volumes.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

I'm getting this.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Now this requires a leap of faith.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

On morality.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Pride.  Period.


----------



## hummdaddy

SemperFiDawg said:


> On morality.



it's amazing how you point the finger at others on this one ,when it's your own leading the way


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bigreddwon said:


> I agree.



Ahh!  Marx.  Thanks for the example.  Perhaps the very best example of where Atheist ideology leads.

Follow the meme.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Evolution at work


----------



## SemperFiDawg

The logical endpoint of Atheism brought to you by Marxism.


----------



## 660griz

SemperFiDawg said:


> On morality.



We know who wrote that one hasn't read the bible.


----------



## 660griz

Eat A Snickers


----------



## 660griz

The bible can't say anything that isn't true.


----------



## 660griz

Thank the right person


----------



## 660griz

Good for You


----------



## 660griz

Two Hands working


----------



## 660griz

Divine Authority


----------



## 660griz

Thank You.


----------



## David Parker

Fail


----------



## 660griz

Joseph is puzzled.


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> On morality.



Take those outstanding qualities listed in the picture you provided with the amount of Atheists in the Senate and Congress and the amount of Christians in the Senate and Congress and see which group really represents that claim.


----------



## 660griz

Personal Relationship


----------



## TripleXBullies

SemperFiDawg said:


> On morality.



That one completely not true... But, for you, you can do all of those things and get handed a get out of he11 free card... so do all you want.


----------



## TripleXBullies

660griz said:


> the bible can't say anything that isn't true.



perfect


----------



## 660griz

Blowing up


----------



## bullethead

660griz said:


> Blowing up



this one is just plain hilarious and true


----------



## 660griz

God will have to beg for forgiveness.


----------



## 660griz

Why did you tell me?


----------



## 660griz

Abe Schools Jesus


----------



## TripleXBullies

660griz said:


> God will have to beg for forgiveness.



Interesting. I can agree and it has nothing to do with evil in the world or torture to myself.


----------



## 660griz

Why dinosaurs are extinct.


----------



## bigreddwon

Holy crap.. I went to bed and this thread went full tilt AWESOME while I slept..


----------



## bigreddwon

*Bout sums it up*

Seems legit to me.


----------



## ddd-shooter

No offense, but this thread is as far away from intelligent conversation as you can get.


----------



## bigreddwon

*Once you know the whole story, no WAY it makes sense.*

This ones funny sad.


----------



## bigreddwon

ddd-shooter said:


> No offense, but this thread is as far away from intelligent conversation as you can get.



I disagree. A pictures worth a thousand words ain't it? We have plenty to discus with even ONE of these memes. Even the weak, reaching Christian ones Semper put up.


----------



## bigreddwon

*Fact*



100% on point


----------



## bigreddwon

*Good one*

Hitch says it like it is


----------



## bigreddwon

*Ahh hitler....*

Was he crazy, or JUST Christian?


----------



## bigreddwon

*Scary for normal people.*



But... But...


----------



## bigreddwon

*I love this one*

Homophobes beware, this one will make ya think. Don't read it if your easily butt hurt.


----------



## bigreddwon

This is why anyone who goes to the Dr IS an Athiest. Point blank. If your were NOT an Athiest, you'd stay home n pray away the cancer.


----------



## bigreddwon

Why modern women are Christians ill never know.


----------



## 660griz

T. Paine on Reason


----------



## bigreddwon

Ya gotta point there.. We will just cherry pick the parts that won't put us in jail and use backward logic to explain why we don't follow it all. _Yeaaaaaa_ that the ticket!!!


----------



## TripleXBullies

SemperFiDawg said:


> Now this requires a leap of faith.



This one is at least a little clever.


----------



## bigreddwon

Uuuuugh, uuuuuuuuuummm.... Our brains aren't smart enough to figure out his plan, that's all...


----------



## bigreddwon

Bingo


----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## bigreddwon

Exactly. Funny part they both pray to the same fake god to kill each other.


----------



## bigreddwon

Child abuse.

If I told my child I'd burn them with a blow torch if they disobeyed me ( even if that 'torch' wasn't real) and someone heard it it would defiantly be child abuse. 

Call it heck and its legit all the sudden. Sick.


----------



## centerpin fan

bigreddwon said:


> We have plenty to discus with even ONE of these memes.



Well, discuss one of them.  This thread is the equivalent of throwing spaghetti against the wall to see if it sticks.


----------



## bigreddwon

Y'all STILL can't deal with this garbage from the bible. 

So just ignore it.


----------



## centerpin fan

bigreddwon said:


> Y'all STILL can't deal with this garbage from the bible.



So, the Biblical references to slavery explain why there are no black Christians.  I knew there had to be a simple explanation!


----------



## bigreddwon

centerpin fan said:


> Well, discuss one of them.  This thread is the equivalent of throwing spaghetti against the wall to see if it sticks.



Maybe. If my threads got too much scetty flyin around for ya, step out. Nobody forcin ya in here. 

I've got about 300 more to put up, give or take 600' then I might. Feel free to discuss anyone you'd like at any time tho. 

Trust me, some of this is stickin to someone. Maybe not you. But someone will read one and go "yup, I feel the same way, I'm not alone"..


----------



## centerpin fan

bigreddwon said:


> I've got about 300 more to put up, give or take 600' ...


----------



## centerpin fan

bigreddwon said:


> Trust me, some of this is stickin to someone. Maybe not you. But someone will read one and go "yup, I feel the same way, I'm not alone"..



The same can be said of any Christian's posts in this forum.


----------



## bigreddwon

Oh man! I've got about twenty of these to put up, maybe twenty five. Bible contradictions, gotta love em. They are only funny if you know about them!! Cracks me up. What's even funnier is that 98% of 'Christians' will NEVER find them on their own, cause it would require the ACTUAL READING of the bible. 

No time fo dat!!!!


----------



## bigreddwon

Good one.


----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## bigreddwon

So true, gotta a bunch on morality. Stay tuned.


----------



## TripleXBullies

centerpin fan said:


> Well, discuss one of them.  This thread is the equivalent of throwing spaghetti against the wall to see if it sticks.



Which can be useful.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bigreddwon said:


> Maybe. If my threads got too much scetty flyin around for ya, step out. Nobody forcin ya in here.
> 
> I've got about 300 more to put up, give or take 600' then I might. Feel free to discuss anyone you'd like at any time tho.
> 
> Trust me, some of this is stickin to someone. Maybe not you. But someone will read one and go "yup, I feel the same way, I'm not alone"..



Whew!  Stop it!  You're scaring me.  Please, please, please don't, whatever you do, post 600 memes.  The horror of it all!!!!. Run for your lives!  THE MEMES ARE COMING!  THE MEMES ARE COMING!!!  What's worse they may be accompanied be discussion!!! (if he has time).


----------



## bigreddwon

I look forward to more anti Athiest ones, _maybe_ even a good one or two..


----------



## bigreddwon

SemperFiDawg said:


> Whew!  Stop it!  You're scaring me.  Please, please, please don't, whatever you do, post 600 memes.  The horror of it all!!!!. Run for your lives!  THE MEMES ARE COMING!  THE MEMES ARE COMING!!!  What's worse they may be accompanied be discussion!!! (if he has time).



Devil Docs gonna bring the discussion fo sho!!


Just gotta a few more to put up. Don't wait for me tho, ill catch up.


----------



## TripleXBullies

This has definitely been entertaining.


----------



## bigreddwon

Sad, but TRUE.


----------



## bigreddwon

I suspect its life is about ten minutes long!! God or a Mod will wipe it from the face of GON... Heheh.


----------



## bigreddwon

Argument to the contrary?


----------



## bigreddwon

More on morals, can you dispute this? ( with facts I mean)


----------



## bigreddwon

Creationism.. SOOOOOOMANY good ones on this.. Get ready for the memepocolyps...


----------



## bigreddwon

Oh man! Every time I hear a blubbering thumper going on and on about how their religions under attack. I just gotta giggle to myself a Lil.


----------



## bigreddwon

Condoms should be available free to kids from the 7th grade on. Free.


----------



## bigreddwon

Hard to argue with. Uphill fight if ya try.


----------



## bigreddwon

It's an absolute MUST if you are to preserve your faith.


----------



## bigreddwon

THINK!! How does this make YOU Feel?? Be honest.


----------



## bigreddwon

Again, follow his advice or an evil Athiest WILL snatch your faith right outta there..


----------



## bigreddwon

Naaaa, it'll be SO different when we do it.. Not.


----------



## bigreddwon

Bam!


----------



## bigreddwon

This one should go over to the PF, its got modern day GOP all over it.


----------



## ambush80

bigreddwon said:


> Creationism.. SOOOOOOMANY good ones on this.. Get ready for the memepocolyps...




Is that at the creationist museum in KY?


----------



## bigreddwon

ambush80 said:


> Is that at the creationist museum in KY?



I believe so. I can't wait to go there. Gonna take my daughter. It'll be like a joke you can walk through.


----------



## ambush80

bigreddwon said:


> I believe so. I can't wait to go there. Gonna take my daughter. It'll be like a joke you can walk through.



How old is she?


----------



## bigreddwon

Hypocritical hokie pokie.


----------



## ambush80

bigreddwon said:


> i believe so. I can't wait to go there. Gonna take my daughter. It'll be like a joke you can walk through.



$30!!!!!!!


----------



## bigreddwon

ambush80 said:


> How old is she?



5. She turns 6 this weekend at the Blast. 

She just asked me last night about god, just before she went to bed. I didn't go into detail because, well.. I love her and didn't want her to have nightmares. I told her we'd talk today. 

She wanted to know why people believe in him since since he's not real. We will have that talk today. Ill give her a quick rundown of a few of the gods man has invented and worshiped up till this current made up one. 

We've talked about god maybe three times since her birth. 

Isn't that how indoctrination goes? You mention it in passing every year and a half it lasts about 2 minutes a talk.


----------



## bigreddwon

Every now n then, this is how I feel being an Athiest amongst bible thumpers. Anyone else?


----------



## ambush80

bigreddwon said:


> 5.
> 
> She just asked me last night about god, just before she went to bed. I didn't go into detail because, well.. I love her and didn't want her to have nightmares. I told her we'd talk today.
> 
> She wanted to know why people believe in him since since he's not real. We will have that talk today. Ill give her a quick rundown of a few of the gods man has invented and worshiped up till this current made up one.
> 
> We've talked about god maybe three times since her birth.
> 
> Isn't that how indoctrination goes? You mention it in passing every year and a half it lasts about 2 minutes a talk.



My 4 year old goes to Peace Camp with her Nana; sometimes Sunday school.  One time she asked me why they nailed Jesus to a post.  That was a good conversation.

I told her that Nana thinks that Jesus can fly.   Then I asked her if people can fly and she said "only in cartoons'.


----------



## bigreddwon

Another good one. Sums it up.


----------



## bigreddwon

ambush80 said:


> My 4 year old goes to Peace Camp with her Nana; sometimes Sunday school.  One time she asked me why they nailed Jesus to a post.  That was a good conversation.
> 
> I told her that Nana thinks that Jesus can fly.   Then I asked her if people can fly and she said "only in cartoons'.



Yup.. If their minds are young enough and people they trust tell them lies often enough and with sincerity they will put aside common sense for the approval of their loved ones. 

Keep letting her go and one day, she's will start defending granny's tales. She won't even know why.


----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## ambush80

bigreddwon said:


> Yup.. If their minds are young enough and people they trust tell them lies often enough and with sincerity they will put aside common sense for the approval of their loved ones.
> 
> Keep letting her go and one day, she's will start defending granny's tales. She won't even know why.




We debrief after each session.  She hears Buddhist songs, Native American chants, knows about Greek gods.  She seems to have made their common connection on her own.


----------



## bigreddwon

Such a good one. They are right, unless you really know your biblical stuff, most Athiest's will hand you your proverbial butt when it comes to the bible. Funny ain't it?


----------



## bigreddwon

Totally gross. If ya think about it. Good thing most Christians don't, for Christianity's sake that is.


----------



## centerpin fan

bigreddwon said:


> THINK!! How does this make YOU Feel?? Be honest.



I honestly want to know what article of the Constitution talks about "separation of church and state".


----------



## ambush80

bigreddwon said:


> Totally gross. If ya think about it. Good thing most Christians don't, for Christianity's sake that is.



Things were different back then before there were rainbows.


----------



## stringmusic

bigreddwon said:


> Hard to argue with. Uphill fight if ya try.



LOL, that guy is wearing eyeliner.... and he's wrong.


----------



## bigreddwon

The bible.. Good CLEAN entertainment for the WHOLE family.. Except for women and children and those with actual morals... 


 Like I've said before. If you've ever watched Caligula the movie made by the owner of Penhouse, you'd understand how the bible 'movie' would be if it followed the actual storyline of the written book. It would NOT be something children should watch. 

Now Atheist kids would watch it and go.. I get it, I know why your an Atheist ..


----------



## stringmusic

This has to be one of the most useless threads I've ever seen.

Let's post misrepresented snippets of Christianity, and religion in general, and then laugh at them.


----------



## bigreddwon

stringmusic said:


> LOL, that guy is wearing eyeliner.... and he's wrong.



Nope, wears makup. Looks like a freak and is STILL right!! 

He's talking more truth than any preacher in a suit with NO makeup.


----------



## stringmusic

bigreddwon said:


> Nope, wears makup. Looks like a freak and is STILL right!!
> 
> He's talking more truth than any preacher in a suit with NO makeup.



I would get into a rational, intelligent discussion about why I think he's wrong, but I don't think that's what your trying to do here.


----------



## bigreddwon

stringmusic said:


> This has to be one of the most useless threads I've ever seen.
> 
> Let's post misrepresented snippets of Christianity, and religion in general, and then laugh at them.



I am. 

You don't have to open this thread yaknow, unless you don't have free will and its predetermined that you open it, in which case yer screwed cause its gonna get better.. For me. Not you. 

Face it, religions, all of them are equally STUPID when you lay them out and LOOK at them with a critical mind. You DO NOT have to 'misrepresent' them to get a laugh. The laughs ROLL on and On just with it EXACTLY as the goat herders wrote it.


----------



## David Parker

bigreddwon said:


> More on morals, can you dispute this? ( with facts I mean)



I dig it.  Form before function

never tried it but sounds rogue and I dig rogue


----------



## ambush80

stringmusic said:


> This has to be one of the most useless threads I've ever seen.
> 
> Let's post misrepresented snippets of Christianity, and religion in general, and then laugh at them.



Wrong.

This thread gave me a new sig line. (Maybe a T-shirt design.  Don't steal my idea.)


----------



## stringmusic

bigreddwon said:


> More on morals, can you dispute this? ( with facts I mean)



I have a question about this one.

If at any time a human is not moral or ethical, does that mean they were not designed correctly by the universe?


----------



## ambush80

stringmusic said:


> I have a question about this one.
> 
> If at any time a human is not moral or ethical, does that mean they were not designed correctly by the universe?




Seeing as how morals and ethics are constructs, I'd say the answer is "it depends".


----------



## bigreddwon

stringmusic said:


> I have a question about this one.
> 
> If at any time a human is not moral or ethical, does that mean they were not designed correctly by the universe?



No. It just means they where butt nuggets. Any other questions?


----------



## stringmusic

ambush80 said:


> Seeing as how morals and ethics are constructs, I'd say the answer is "it depends".





bigreddwon said:


> No. It just means they where butt nuggets. Any other questions?



Interesting......

"It depends" and "butt nuggets" are your answers.

Post more memes!


----------



## David Parker

yeah  MEMES,, MEMES, MEMEMMMMMMEEESSS


----------



## stringmusic

David Parker said:


> yeah  MEMES,, MEMES, MEMEMMMMMMEEESSS


----------



## stringmusic

Hey Fatboy, I see you readin' in here all the time.

You should chime in sometime


----------



## bigreddwon

stringmusic said:


> Interesting......
> 
> "It depends" and "butt nuggets" are your answers.
> 
> Post more memes!



Ok. They were jerks, or they just weren't nice people. Is the answer too simple or just not the answer you were fishing for? 

Doesn't change anything about what he said. It's STILL _true_.


----------



## stringmusic

...


----------



## stringmusic

bigreddwon said:


> Ok. They were jerks, or they just weren't nice people. Is the answer too simple or just not the answer you were fishing for?
> 
> Doesn't change anything about what he said. It's STILL _true_.



I didn't ask if they were jerks or if they were nice or not.

I asked...



			
				stringmusic said:
			
		

> If at any time a human is not moral or ethical, does that mean they were not designed correctly by the universe?


----------



## bigreddwon

SemperFiDawg said:


> On morality.



I rape and murder exactly as much as I want to as an Athiest. It just so happens I don't want to. For no other reason except I think it's wrong.  Kool huh?


----------



## bigreddwon

stringmusic said:


> I didn't ask if they were jerks or if they were nice or not.
> 
> I asked...



No. It's not because the were made wrong, or evolved 'wrong'.. They made a decision in their own mind to be bad. That's it. It's not complicated. It's also, I'm sure, not the answer your fishing for.


Bad, evil, immoral whatever. Why don't you do me a favor, and instead of beatin around the burnin bush come right out and make your point. If you have one.


----------



## Fatboy

Sorry string i am not well read nor educated enough to converse with ya'll.Besides I'm not on your side.


----------



## bigreddwon

It's ok man, your among friends. Come out of the closet String.  I know your an atheist, most of your post prove it. Don't be ashamed. Embrace the suck.


----------



## centerpin fan

Fatboy said:


> i am not well read nor educated enough to converse with ya'll.



That's never stopped anyone else.


----------



## stringmusic

bigreddwon said:


> No. It's not because the were made wrong, or evolved 'wrong'.. They made a decision in their own mind to be bad. That's it. It's not complicated. It's also, I'm sure, not the answer your fishing for.
> 
> 
> Bad, evil, immoral whatever. Why don't you do me a favor, and instead of beatin around the burnin bush come right out and make your point. If you have one.



I don't have a point, I was just asking a question.


----------



## stringmusic

Fatboy said:


> Sorry string i am not well read nor educated enough to converse with ya'll.


Neither are any of the other atheists in here.  

Sorry, I'm in a kiddin' mood today.



> Besides I'm not on your side.


I wasn't sure, I always see you reading, and it sparked my curiousity. Doesn't mean that you can't contribute to the discussions at times and give your thoughts on things.


----------



## stringmusic

bigreddwon said:


> It's ok man, your among friends. Come out of the closet String.  I know your an atheist, most of your post prove it. Don't be ashamed. Embrace the suck.


----------



## ambush80

bigreddwon said:


> It's ok man, your among friends. Come out of the closet String.  I know your an atheist, most of your post prove it. Don't be ashamed. Embrace the suck.



I love the suck.  It's way better than boredom.


----------



## TripleXBullies

stringmusic said:


> LOL, that guy is wearing eyeliner.... and he's wrong.



For wearing eye liner? Yep...


----------



## TripleXBullies

stringmusic said:


> ...meme are stupid



but fun


----------



## stringmusic

TripleXBullies said:


> For wearing eye liner? Yep...



And also, he's wrong on this comment.....



			
				eyeliner dude said:
			
		

> Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved


If this where true, then everyone of the planet denies observation, because everyone on the planet has varying degrees of faith.

What am I denying the observation of?


----------



## stringmusic

TripleXBullies said:


> but fun



I actually think many of them are hilarious, just not most of the ones posted in this thread.


----------



## TripleXBullies

centerpin fan said:


> That's never stopped anyone else.



It's also never stopped anyone from pointing out stupidity. Both ways - sure.


----------



## TripleXBullies

stringmusic said:


> I actually think many of them are hilarious, just not most of the ones posted in this thread.



I even thought that some of the ones you and SFD posted were funny.


----------



## TripleXBullies

I want more... where'd they go???


----------



## SemperFiDawg

stringmusic said:


> I would get into a rational, intelligent discussion about why I think he's wrong, but I don't think that's what your trying to do here.



Wasted breath String.  Save it for the reasoning folks.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Here fishy, fishy.


----------



## swampstalker24

Fatboy said:


> Sorry string i am not well read nor educated enough to converse with ya'll.Besides I'm not on your side.



Dang, if only some of the fellas in the political forum would have this mind set. 

JK, dont be so hard on yourself bud, you dont have to be a genius in order to have an opinion.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> I have a question about this one.
> 
> If at any time a human is not moral or ethical, does that mean they were not designed correctly by the universe?



What gives you the authority to question the Universe?(sound familiar?)
 In all seriousness, who says anything is designed incorrectly by the Universe?


----------



## TripleXBullies

SemperFiDawg said:


> Here fishy, fishy.



More like a fish denying that water is a god. Because I, personally, do not deny the existence of air.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> What gives you the authority to question the Universe?(sound familiar?)
> In all seriousness, who says anything is designed incorrectly by the Universe?



I don't know, I was just asking a question.


----------



## David Parker

centerpin fan said:


> That's never stopped anyone else.



I represent that remark


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> Here fishy, fishy.



I would love for you to explain that one.


----------



## David Parker

on a side note,  The Prestige was so boss


----------



## bullethead

David Parker said:


> on a side note,  The Prestige was so boss



Tesla. Incredibly fascinating


----------



## TripleXBullies

Did Telsa write that, or say it? I lost some respect if he capitalized the word Universe.... Maybe it was an accident, he wasn't from 'round here. We can't gO RoUnD calLing any word we wanT a PRoper NoUN or throwing CaPS AroUNd.


----------



## bullethead

"The IAU Style Manual recommends that astronomical objects be treated linguistically as proper nouns. This means we capitalize Sun (our local star), Earth (our planet), Moon (Earth's natural satellite), and Solar System (ours). Further, these words are not proceeded by "the" any more than we would say "the Jupiter". This use is consistent with Betelgeuse (a star), Neptune (a planet), Titan (a moon of Saturn), P/Halley (a periodic comet), and 1 Ceres (an asteroid), Milky Way (our galaxy), and Universe (the only one we know for sure). I know saying "Sun" instead of "the sun" can be awkward, but there are ways of working it, such as saying "our Sun".


----------



## bigreddwon

SemperFiDawg said:


> Here fishy, fishy.





bullethead said:


> I would love for you to explain that one.



Let me field that answer with, you guessed it, a meme.


----------



## bullethead

funny stuff


----------



## bigreddwon

stringmusic said:


> I actually think many of them are hilarious, just not most of the ones posted in this thread.



That's because they make you look at the uncomfortable truth that bubbles deep in your core. Your an Atheist. You know there is NO deity that's going to punish the wicked, save the good. Never. You _know_ this.... Otherwise they'd just be funny, maybe silly, like SFD's.

The 'sting' you feel is what's left of your reason and common sense being jack slapped into reality. It only hurts for a second.


----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## bigreddwon

*How many of you?*

Be honest. Have you read it? 

 If you haven't read it cover to cover your an Atheist. Be careful , because reading it, _understanding_ it for what it _SAYS_ and not what your pastor _tells_ you it says, would _*force*_ you to see ugly truths you won't see if you don't read it. It's IS without a doubt responsible for converting more to Atheism than any Athiest ever did.  

Read it. I dare you.


----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## centerpin fan

bigreddwon said:


> Be honest. Have you read it?



Yep.


----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## centerpin fan

See post 101.


----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## ddd-shooter

Wow. A name-calling thread. 
I'm waiting for the 'yo momma jokes to commence. 

Such a high moral ground you guys are taking.


----------



## bigreddwon

ddd-shooter said:


> Wow. A name-calling thread.
> I'm waiting for the 'yo momma jokes to commence.
> 
> Such a high moral ground you guys are taking.



Name calling?


----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## bigreddwon

oh no's avert your eyes its.... IT'S SCIENCE!!!!!


----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## bigreddwon

Silly to see it in a picture. I have had several fundamentalist tell me that the devil planted fossils to fool us. 

Hold your belly n roll around funny.


----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## ddd-shooter

bigreddwon said:


> Name calling?



I don't think one needs a Ph.D in psychology to decipher your intent here...


----------



## bigreddwon

ddd-shooter said:


> I don't think one needs a Ph.D in psychology to decipher your intent here...


 
You said there was name calling. Please elaborate.

What names am I calling you in your mind?   So its 'intent' now? Whats my intent? Are the voices in your head being more clear than you are?  

The WORST thing these simple memes MIGHT do is cause you to THINK just a little. I can see how that would upset you if you're comfortable in blissful ignorance. 


Those who all ready feel that the concept of worshiping a bronze age god invented in the minds of savages is silly at best these memes might let them know they are not alone. I care more about that possibility than your fragile faith. If its bothers you, WHY hang out in an Atheist forum?? Or go into a thread with a warning not to come in here if you'd be easily offended.


----------



## bullethead

ddd-shooter said:


> I don't think one needs a Ph.D in psychology to decipher your intent here...



You are asserting things that just are not there. You are offended because some of these things might have caused you to think a little more about something that may have never crossed your mind before and now you want to make it sound like like whatever has been posted is "bad" because it is doing something to you.....you don't know quite what....so you automatically want to make it something it is not.
I was the same way at one point. I was embarrassed that something made sense and I always thought/was taught that it should not make sense. I took offense to it thinking something fishy is going on here....I am not supposed to like this or even be curious about this, someone is duping me somehow...but later realized the offense was actually common sense and it was okay to start asking questions. No one is calling anyone else any names. You are not being singled out. If anything you are reading things that you would not have ever read on your own and it is causing you to think.

You may very well be safe and secure in your own beliefs and none of the posts interest you but you might be a little upset that it is a thread that does not include the usual back and forth discussions because it is geared more towards only two of the three "A's". That is fine but don't cry foul when there is no foul because you don't like the thread and think something should be wrong.


----------



## ambush80

Next thing you know there will be accusations of heresy.


----------



## JABBO

Great thread!!!  Keep'em coming...


----------



## jmharris23

ambush80 said:


> Next thing you know there will be accusations of heresy.



You bunch of heretics


----------



## fish hawk

This is one of the dumbest threads ever!!!


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bullethead said:


> You are asserting things that just are not there. You are offended because some of these things might have caused you to think a little more about something that may have never crossed your mind before and now you want to make it sound like like whatever has been posted is "bad" because it is doing something to you.....you don't know quite what....so you automatically want to make it something it is not.
> I was the same way at one point. I was embarrassed that something made sense and I always thought/was taught that it should not make sense. I took offense to it thinking something fishy is going on here....I am not supposed to like this or even be curious about this, someone is duping me somehow...but later realized the offense was actually common sense and it was okay to start asking questions. No one is calling anyone else any names. You are not being singled out. If anything you are reading things that you would not have ever read on your own and it is causing you to think.
> 
> You may very well be safe and secure in your own beliefs and none of the posts interest you but you might be a little upset that it is a thread that does not include the usual back and forth discussions because it is geared more towards only two of the three "A's". That is fine but don't cry foul when there is no foul because you don't like the thread and think something should be wrong.



Personally, I think these memes do more harm than good to the Atheist cause.  As others have already posted, the intent is clear.  It doesn't take a brain surgeon to grasp the anger in the thread's intent or author's posts and that's fine.  You are correct in stating that it's y'all's party.  By all means carry on, you wear the colors well.


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> Personally, I think these memes do more harm than good to the Atheist cause.  As others have already posted, the intent is clear.  It doesn't take a brain surgeon to grasp the anger in the thread's intent or author's posts and that's fine.  You are correct in stating that it's y'all's party.  By all means carry on, you wear the colors well.



Correct me if I am wrong but was it you that posted memes in here?
How exactly did they help the Christian cause?
What was your intent?
The color looks nice on you, Pastor.


----------



## bullethead

Never mind, I checked, 8 memes from SFD on the first page.

typical.
Do as I say, not as I do.


----------



## bullethead

"Atheist's cause"......

What is the Atheist's cause SFD? For not being an Atheist you sure seem you think you know a lot about it.


----------



## ddd-shooter

Each response has only further made my point. 
I am not offended, and cannot be offended by what you post. You are entitled to your beliefs. 
I was simply pointing out that a large number of posts, especially the text that was added with them did nothing except insult the intelligence of those who choose to believe differently than you. 
I am not scared of science, knowledge, or the pursuit thereof. Obviously, my interest in this forum reflects that. 
So when you think I'm offended simply because " you guys finally made me use my brain" nothing could be further from the truth. But it does prove the point that many on here think that simply because they don't agree with someone else, they must not have scrutinized the issues like others have. 
Oh those poor Christians, if only they used their brains they could be like us. 
It might surprise you to know many intelligent Christians do, in fact, exist; and just because they arrive at a different conclusion from you, does not mean they haven't thought it through.


----------



## bullethead

ddd-shooter said:


> Each response has only further made my point.
> I am not offended, and cannot be offended by what you post. You are entitled to your beliefs.
> I was simply pointing out that a large number of posts, especially the text that was added with them did nothing except insult the intelligence of those who choose to believe differently than you.
> I am not scared of science, knowledge, or the pursuit thereof. Obviously, my interest in this forum reflects that.
> So when you think I'm offended simply because " you guys finally made me use my brain" nothing could be further from the truth. But it does prove the point that many on here think that simply because they don't agree with someone else, they must not have scrutinized the issues like others have.
> Oh those poor Christians, if only they used their brains they could be like us.
> It might surprise you to know many intelligent Christians do, in fact, exist; and just because they arrive at a different conclusion from you, does not mean they haven't thought it through.



I tend to think that at one time I was an intelligent Christian. There is no doubt many of you are very intelligent. I am not knocking the smarts of anyone.
This thread was a way for like minded people to share some humorous memes along with some that make some darn good points. We can't go up in the spiritual section and give our 2 cents so this was one time the club got a little exclusive down here.
There was a warning right off the bat stating what the thread was about and still there are a few guys that do not like it. Heck one participated by posting his own memes and then calls the others out!
The nice thing down here is at least you can whine about it. And you can make up whatever things you want in order to try to justify your displeasure. The good thing is that you must have read em all, and for that we thank you.


----------



## ambush80

ddd-shooter said:


> Each response has only further made my point.
> I am not offended, and cannot be offended by what you post. You are entitled to your beliefs.
> I was simply pointing out that a large number of posts, especially the text that was added with them did nothing except insult the intelligence of those who choose to believe differently than you.
> I am not scared of science, knowledge, or the pursuit thereof. Obviously, my interest in this forum reflects that.
> So when you think I'm offended simply because " you guys finally made me use my brain" nothing could be further from the truth. But it does prove the point that many on here think that simply because they don't agree with someone else, they must not have scrutinized the issues like others have.
> Oh those poor Christians, if only they used their brains they could be like us.
> It might surprise you to know many intelligent Christians do, in fact, exist; and just because they arrive at a different conclusion from you, does not mean they haven't thought it through.



By FAR the most reasonable, open minded, highly traveled and educated religious folks have no problem with calling the miracles metaphoric or primitive peoples explanations for things they didn't understand.  I bet they wouldn't mind if I performed Buddhist meditation during their tithe \ceremony.

Some of them even speak of the resurrection as being symbolic.  And they don't care if I wear my Nirvana T-shirt.

Sensible folks.


----------



## TripleXBullies

bullethead said:


> "The IAU Style Manual recommends that astronomical objects be treated linguistically as proper nouns. This means we capitalize Sun (our local star), Earth (our planet), Moon (Earth's natural satellite), and Solar System (ours). Further, these words are not proceeded by "the" any more than we would say "the Jupiter". This use is consistent with Betelgeuse (a star), Neptune (a planet), Titan (a moon of Saturn), P/Halley (a periodic comet), and 1 Ceres (an asteroid), Milky Way (our galaxy), and Universe (the only one we know for sure). I know saying "Sun" instead of "the sun" can be awkward, but there are ways of working it, such as saying "our Sun".



Interesting... but he still said "the Universe."


----------



## TripleXBullies

ddd-shooter said:


> Each response has only further made my point.
> I am not offended, and cannot be offended by what you post. You are entitled to your beliefs.
> I was simply pointing out that a large number of posts, especially the text that was added with them did nothing except insult the intelligence of those who choose to believe differently than you.
> I am not scared of science, knowledge, or the pursuit thereof. Obviously, my interest in this forum reflects that.
> So when you think I'm offended simply because " you guys finally made me use my brain" nothing could be further from the truth. But it does prove the point that many on here think that simply because they don't agree with someone else, they must not have scrutinized the issues like others have.
> Oh those poor Christians, if only they used their brains they could be like us.
> It might surprise you to know many intelligent Christians do, in fact, exist; and just because they arrive at a different conclusion from you, does not mean they haven't thought it through.



There's quite a difference in most of us... several of us at least. We have sat RIGHT where you're sitting. There are plenty of smart christians... they just choose to turn a part of themselves off when it pertains to faith in a god.


----------



## TripleXBullies

bullethead said:


> and for that we thank you.



Why isn't there a Tosh meme??


----------



## David Parker

You know what this thread is missing?

You guessed it


----------



## TripleXBullies

Ah... can you attach that file?? I can't see it...


----------



## bullethead

TripleXBullies said:


> Why isn't there a Tosh meme??



Dang straight outta be!


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bullethead said:


> Correct me if I am wrong but was it you that posted memes in here?
> How exactly did they help the Christian cause?
> What was your intent?
> The color looks nice on you, Pastor.



Guilty as charged.  I was stupid.  Won't happen again.


----------



## TripleXBullies

SemperFiDawg said:


> Guilty as charged.  I was stupid.  Won't happen again.



You're a sinner. It will happen again.


----------



## TripleXBullies

bullethead said:


> Dang straight outta be!



Tosh was in Atlanta and Athens a couple of months ago... Unfortunately.... missed him


----------



## jmharris23

Let me wade in with a little moderation here. This forum allows for the posting of threads just like this. There is no problem with it. 

If you don't want to get bit, don't swim with the sharks. 

Not that I think it's happened yet, but I just thought I might post this friendly reminder to all to please refrain from attacking each other. 

For what it's worth, I don't consider a non-believers stance that a believer is unintelligent to be a personal attack. It is a basic tenet of atheism that believers are "less enlightened of reality." 

I think the believers who post here should expect that and take it accordingly.

Carry on


----------



## 660griz

stringmusic said:


> memes are stupid





			
				fish hawk said:
			
		

> This is one of the dumbest threads ever!!!





Too funny. I just picture someone watching a terrible t.v. show and keep muttering to themselves how stupid this show it but, will not change the channel. 
Don't get me wrong, we do appreciate the feed back.


----------



## David Parker

my belief, or lack thereof, is mine and I reveal as little or as much as I feel like.  But this thread is entertaining and thought-provoking.  Can't deny it.


----------



## bigreddwon

These memes have NO effect on the stupid. Thinkers, they bug the crap out of..

Believers, if you had better memes, youd still be puttin em up, they arent there. Your were outgunned and outclassed, not by me perse, but by the huge amout of awesome memes at our disposal. Christian memems have no teeth. None make a point that might sway an Atheist..however the ones put up by Athiests can greatly effect a believer. I KNOW some of them stung, and others I have yet to put up will feel worse than a skilled towell popper with a perfectly wet towell on your neckked butt. This I promis. WaaaaPop,,,,!!

I USED to have a similar emotional investment in religion like you do. It was so hard for me to let go of my familys hundreds of years of Christianity, passed from generation to generation,  each believing,  each family memebers massive amout of time WASTED on religion, WASTED on ministry's,  WASTED... until me. Im the first in my family to not pass the torch, to not continue the evil cycle of indoctrination of my familys children. It was hard to buck generations of indoctrination. It was hard for me to accept that so many people I had a deep respect for were in fact rubes, suckers n sheep, many of whom gave vast anounts of $$ to the church. . It hurt, I went back to all the prayers and ministrys, a waste. WASTE. Its an emotional investment in nothing when its boiled down, and that can hurt a thinking man for sure. Especially when you add yiur familys long historic participation in a fraud. It did me, for a SECOND. . 

There is no god of Abraham. Hes never exsisted except in the minds of those who invented him and 'need' him. There is nothing there, your time spent with the church is a waste. Just as those who worshiped Zeus or Ra, its for nothing. They exsist as much as Jehovah does, or any of the hundreds of other usless gods man has invented to help control his fellow man. 

Free yourself, your family and your mind. Follow our doubts, pick at inconsistencies and accept nothing that doesnt make sence. Faith is fraud. Faith is a choke collar. Faith is a tool used by greedy, power hungry humans to control weaker humans. 

Faith is fragile, thats the best part of it.


----------



## bigreddwon

jmharris23 said:


> Let me wade in with a little moderation here. This forum allows for the posting of threads just like this. There is no problem with it.
> 
> If you don't want to get bit, don't swim with the sharks.
> 
> Not that I think it's happened yet, but I just thought I might post this friendly reminder to all to please refrain from attacking each other.
> 
> For what it's worth, I don't consider a non-believers stance that a believer is unintelligent to be a personal attack. It is a basic tenet of atheism that believers are "less enlightened of reality."
> 
> I think the believers who post here should expect that and take it accordingly.
> 
> Carry on



Thanks Jim. 

I dont think all Christians are stupid people. There is a difference IMO between being stupid and doimg something stupid.


----------



## David Parker

My own experience suggests the same thing that's been posted up here earlier.  The individuals that read and comprehend the bible in its entirety, become the most venomous atheist.


----------



## jmharris23

bigreddwon said:


> Thanks Jim.
> 
> I dont think all Christians are stupid people. There is a difference IMO between being stupid and doimg something stupid.



Well I'm just doing my job. 

As to whether you think we who are believers are stupid, I am not sure what to think on that note. 

Your long post above sure seems to make it clear that you think we're ignorant. 

Maybe you make the distinction between ignorant and stupid? 

Either way though, I am fine with that. We both have the right to think what we want about the other. 

I know what you think about me when I wade in here, therefore I have no problem with being debated or tackled head on.


----------



## jmharris23

David Parker said:


> My own experience suggests the same thing that's been posted up here earlier.  The individuals that read and comprehend the bible in its entirety, become the most venomous atheist.



I am sure this is true with some. It is certainly not true with others. I know many men who know the bible inside and out, and they will believe it and defend it to end.


----------



## David Parker

jmharris23 said:


> I am sure this is true with some. It is certainly not true with others. I know many men who know the bible inside and out, and they will believe it and defend it to end.



I guess I just haven't met those types in a while.  I believe my granddaddy had read it cover to cover and was a dinner-blessin deacon at the Baptist church.  I hold him and his conviction in the highest regard, just as I show equal respect to someone who has put in the effort to read it thoroughly and come up with an alternate take on things.  I'm still straddlin the razor and trying to figure out which side is for me.  

I want to believe but reasoning is still my bed-partner.  So I observe and observe and the stuff that speaks to me more and more is the reasoning.  It makes sense to believe in that.


----------



## 660griz

ambush80 said:


> One time she asked me why they nailed Jesus to a post.



Meme on that somewhere. A carpenter, nailed to a wooden cross...irony.


----------



## 660griz

centerpin fan said:


> I honestly want to know what article of the Constitution talks about "separation of church and state".



I want to know where the Constitution was mentioned.
What post number? I ran right over it.


----------



## 660griz

SemperFiDawg said:


> Here fishy, fishy.



But we can see water...I don't get it. Splain it to me. 
(I must be one of the stupid atheist)


----------



## centerpin fan

660griz said:


> I want to know where the Constitution was mentioned.
> What post number? I ran right over it.



I was referring to post 78.


----------



## 660griz

centerpin fan said:


> I was referring to post 78.



Yea. Me too. I didn't see constitution in that post.

By the way, I watched Avatar for like the 3rd time this past week. It has been on almost every night.


----------



## TripleXBullies

bigreddwon said:


> These memes have NO effect on the stupid. Thinkers, they bug the crap out of..
> 
> Believers, if you had better memes, youd still be puttin em up, they arent there. Your were outgunned and outclassed, not by me perse, but by the huge amout of awesome memes at our disposal. Christian memems have no teeth. None make a point that might sway an Atheist..however the ones put up by Athiests can greatly effect a believer. I KNOW some of them stung, and others I have yet to put up will feel worse than a skilled towell popper with a perfectly wet towell on your neckked butt. This I promis. WaaaaPop,,,,!!
> 
> I USED to have a similar emotional investment in religion like you do. It was so hard for me to let go of my familys hundreds of years of Christianity, passed from generation to generation,  each believing,  each family memebers massive amout of time WASTED on religion, WASTED on ministry's,  WASTED... until me. Im the first in my family to not pass the torch, to not continue the evil cycle of indoctrination of my familys children. It was hard to buck generations of indoctrination. It was hard for me to accept that so many people I had a deep respect for were in fact rubes, suckers n sheep, many of whom gave vast anounts of $$ to the church. . It hurt, I went back to all the prayers and ministrys, a waste. WASTE. Its an emotional investment in nothing when its boiled down, and that can hurt a thinking man for sure. Especially when you add yiur familys long historic participation in a fraud. It did me, for a SECOND. .
> 
> There is no god of Abraham. Hes never exsisted except in the minds of those who invented him and 'need' him. There is nothing there, your time spent with the church is a waste. Just as those who worshiped Zeus or Ra, its for nothing. They exsist as much as Jehovah does, or any of the hundreds of other usless gods man has invented to help control his fellow man.
> 
> Free yourself, your family and your mind. Follow our doubts, pick at inconsistencies and accept nothing that doesnt make sence. Faith is fraud. Faith is a choke collar. Faith is a tool used by greedy, power hungry humans to control weaker humans.
> 
> Faith is fragile, thats the best part of it.



I am ok with saying that there are still benefits from religion today. I do not believe that on a macro level that it's a net positive... it's normally not net positive on a micro level either, but I'm sure it can be.


----------



## centerpin fan

660griz said:


> Yea. Me too. I didn't see constitution in that post.



It's not, but the phrase "separation of church and state" is often used as if it is included in the Constitution.




660griz said:


> By the way, I watched Avatar for like the 3rd time this past week. It has been on almost every night.



I hate the movie.  I've just always wanted an Avatar avatar.


----------



## bigreddwon

jmharris23 said:


> Well I'm just doing my job.
> 
> As to whether you think we who are believers are stupid, I am not sure what to think on that note.
> 
> Your long post above sure seems to make it clear that you think we're ignorant.
> 
> Maybe you make the distinction between ignorant and stupid?
> 
> Either way though, I am fine with that. We both have the right to think what we want about the other.
> 
> I know what you think about me when I wade in here, therefore I have no problem with being debated or tackled head on.



I think there's a definite difference between being stupid and being ignorant. Anybody can be ignorant not everybody is stupid. Almost all Christians are ignorant of Christianity. I would wager that nine out of 10 think that the story of Jesus is an original story. 

Ignorant of the facts, the history of other civilizations and their creations of deities. They will flat out deny that any other person or creature walked on water, was crucified ,born on Christmas etc. etc. 

You have the scholars and the very few back then who could read and they would plagiarize from the cultures,superstitions, and religious of their predecessors spawning a new religion in their day. A new choke collar for the masses. Happens every couple thousand years it seems. All you have to do is a tiny bit of research and it starts to unravel this, uniqueness this, originality that Christians _think_ Christianity has,it does not. 

For me personally the best way I could describe it is to imagine my favorite movie and that imagining that that director or artists thought of this out of his own head put it to paper put it to big screen and I saw the fruit of his genius. Let's say that there were several key points in the movie or book, they just _moved_ me, that were life-changing  works, important and very well their own message, each singularly.

Then let's say just by happenstance I stumble across several other movies that that artist liked and each of them had those points in their book and he stole them, and now I realize he's not original. He's a liar and a thief and a fraud. 

My opinion changed because new facts came in. If you don't change your opinion In the light of new facts then your trading ignorance for stupidity. I contend that most Christians just don't know the facts. I also think that they don't really care to get the facts because really they just don't believe this crap anyways, not really, not truly, not deeply and not when it matters. Children get injured or sick they do not stay at home and pray they _run_ to the hospital, they look for somebody very skilled in science and medicine to save their child. They are not and will not count on a god to do anything. 

They _will_ pray on the way there and they _will_ pray in the waiting room but that's just to hedge their bets, Pascal's wager if you will,covering all the bases that's not _*beliefe*_. That's superstition.


----------



## jmharris23

bigreddwon said:


> I think there's a definite difference between being stupid and being ignorant. Anybody can be ignorant not everybody is stupid. Almost all Christians are ignorant of Christianity. I would wager that nine out of 10 think that the story of Jesus is an original story.
> 
> Ignorant of the facts, the history of other civilizations and their creations of deities. They will flat out deny that any other person or creature walked on water, was crucified ,born on Christmas etc. etc.
> 
> You have the scholars and the very few back then who could read and they would plagiarize from the cultures,superstitions, and religious of their predecessors spawning a new religion in their day. A new choke collar for the masses. Happens every couple thousand years it seems. All you have to do is a tiny bit of research and it starts to unravel this uniqueness this originality that Christians _think_ Christianity has,it does not.
> 
> For me personally the best way I could describe it is to imagine my favorite movie and that imagining that that director or artists thought of this out of his own head put it to paper put it to big screen and I saw the fruit of his genius. Let's say that there were several key points in the movie or book, they just _moved_ me, that were life-changing  works, important and very well their own message, each singularly.
> 
> Then let's say just by happenstance I stumble across several other movies that that artist liked and each of them had those points in their book and he stole them, and now I realize he's not original. He's a liar and a thief and a fraud.
> 
> My opinion changed because new facts came in. If you don't change your opinion In the light of new facts then your trading ignorance for stupidity. I contend that most Christians just don't know the facts. I also think that they don't really care to get the facts because really they just don't believe this crap anyways, not really, not truly, not deeply and not when it matters. Children get injured or sick they do not stay at home and pray they _run_ to the hospital, they look for somebody very skilled in science and medicine to save their child. they are not and will not count on a gog to do anything.
> 
> They _will_ pray on the way there and they _will_ pray in the waiting room but that's just to hedge their bets, pascals wager if you will,covering all the bases that's not _*beliefe*_. That's superstition.




I take it you also do not believe then, that Jesus was a historical figure at all? Just another god created in the minds of some misguided humans? 

Just curious


----------



## stringmusic

bigreddwon said:


> I think there's a definite difference between being stupid and being ignorant. Anybody can be ignorant not everybody is stupid. Almost all Christians are ignorant of Christianity. I would wager that nine out of 10 think that the story of Jesus is an original story.
> 
> Ignorant of the facts, the history of other civilizations and their creations of deities. They will flat out deny that any other person or creature walked on water, was crucified ,born on Christmas etc. etc.
> 
> You have the scholars and the very few back then who could read and they would plagiarize from the cultures,superstitions, and religious of their predecessors spawning a new religion in their day. A new choke collar for the masses. Happens every couple thousand years it seems. All you have to do is a tiny bit of research and it starts to unravel this uniqueness this originality that Christians _think_ Christianity has,it does not.
> 
> For me personally the best way I could describe it is to imagine my favorite movie and that imagining that that director or artists thought of this out of his own head put it to paper put it to big screen and I saw the fruit of his genius. Let's say that there were several key points in the movie or book, they just _moved_ me, that were life-changing  works, important and very well their own message, each singularly.
> 
> Then let's say just by happenstance I stumble across several other movies that that artist liked and each of them had those points in their book and he stole them, and now I realize he's not original. He's a liar and a thief and a fraud.
> 
> My opinion changed because new facts came in. If you don't change your opinion In the light of new facts then your trading ignorance for stupidity. I contend that most Christians just don't know the facts. I also think that they don't really care to get the facts because really they just don't believe this crap anyways, not really, not truly, not deeply and not when it matters. Children get injured or sick they do not stay at home and pray they _run_ to the hospital, they look for somebody very skilled in science and medicine to save their child. they are not and will not count on a gog to do anything.
> 
> They _will_ pray on the way there and they _will_ pray in the waiting room but that's just to hedge their bets, pascals wager if you will,covering all the bases that's not _*beliefe*_. That's superstition.



I'm not going to address any of your rant here, but I will address this meme.....

http://beginningandend.com/jesus-copy-horus-mithras-dionysis-pagan-gods/



> Was Jesus a Copy of Horus?
> 
> 
> The Egyptian God Horus.
> 
> 
> The Zeitgeist film makes a number of wild statements about Horus to attempt to prove that Jesus is a copy. But let’s look at the claims against actual Egyptian mythology:
> 
> “Horus was born on December 25th”  — According to Egyptian mythological history, Horus’s birthday is celebrated in the season of Khoiak, which runs in the months of October and November, not December 25th. Furthermore, the date of December 25th is never mentioned in the Bible as the date of Jesus’ birth and thus has no relevance to the account of Jesus’ life. So right away, the claims of “plagiarism” look completely baseless.
> 
> “Horus was born of a virgin”  — There are two accounts of Horus’ birth. The most famous by far, was that Horus was born from his mother Isis, who was not a virgin, but rather a widow of the slain Osiris. Through sorcery, Isis, assembled the body of Osiris and was impregnated with his phallus. Clearly this was a sexual union and not a virgin birth. The “Hymn to Osiris” which records this account states: “[Isis] made to rise up the helpless members [phallus] of him whose heart was at rest, she drew from him his essence [DNA material], and she made therefrom an heir [Horus].” (Source and Source).
> 
> “Three Wise Men Came to Adore the New Born Savior”- No source is provided by the documentary for this claim. Additionally, the Bible does not say “three wise men” came to see Jesus. It never tells us the number of wise men. And they did not come at Jesus’ birth in a manger. They came to his family home when he was a toddler.
> 
> “Horus was a child prodigy teacher at 12″ — The movie offers no pre-New Testament sources that state this.
> 
> “Horus had 12 Disciples” — Historian Glen Miller writes: “But again, my research in the academic literature does not surface this fact. I can find references to FOUR “disciples”–variously called the semi-divine HERU-SHEMSU (“Followers of Horus”) [GOE:1.491]. I can find references to SIXTEEN human followers. And I can find reference to an UNNUMBERED group of followers called mesniu/mesnitu (“blacksmiths”) who accompanied Horus in some of his battles [although these might be identified with the HERU-SHEMSU in GOE:1.84]. But I cannot find TWELVE anywhere…]”
> 
> Additionally, some of have said the 12 signs of the zodiac are the “disciples” of Horus. Even if this were the case, they are just stars and not actual people who followed Horus, preached about him or recorded his life. This is another empty and false claim.
> 
> 
> 
> “Horus was crucified. Dead for three days. And Resurrected” — There is no historical record in any credible Egyptian mythology of Horus being crucified. Additionally, crucifixion was a method of execution invented by the Roman Empire thousands of years after the time of the Horus myth. Whereas the accounts of Jesus’ crucifixion exist in thousands of manuscripts from the century after his death. Additionally, as we detailed in our article “Did Jesus Really Exist? Proving Jesus without The Bible” there are many secular historical sources that record His crucifixion as described in the Bible.
> 
> If you are wondering how Zeitgeist could make such wild claims, that have no real historical evidence, they benefit from the Skeptic’s Fallacy: in short, when it comes to attacking the credibility of the Bible it is assumed that the skeptic is completely credible. So the Zeitgeist creators know most people will not research their attacks and just take it as factual (just as Dan Brown did with the numerous inaccuracies of the DaVinci Code). If one takes the time, they will also notice that Zeitgeist gets almost all of its information from one source, a book called “The Christ Conspiracy” by a woman named Acharya S. (we will address her later).


This is just Horus, the others are addressed in the link as well. Almost seems like you can simply post anything in a meme against Christianity and atheists will post them to forums without researching what's actually written, funny, that is your biggest claim against Christians.


This is what I mean when I say these memes are not made for discussion. They're made for atheists to posts on forums and laugh at Christians like they've "bet them" at some game. Almost zero intelligent discussion has gone on in this thread...... and we're on page 5.


----------



## TripleXBullies

bigreddwon said:


> I think there's a definite difference between being stupid and being ignorant. Anybody can be ignorant not everybody is stupid. Almost all Christians are ignorant of Christianity. I would wager that nine out of 10 think that the story of Jesus is an original story.
> 
> Ignorant of the facts, the history of other civilizations and their creations of deities. They will flat out deny that any other person or creature walked on water, was crucified ,born on Christmas etc. etc.
> 
> You have the scholars and the very few back then who could read and they would plagiarize from the cultures,superstitions, and religious of their predecessors spawning a new religion in their day. A new choke collar for the masses. Happens every couple thousand years it seems. All you have to do is a tiny bit of research and it starts to unravel this, uniqueness this, originality that Christians _think_ Christianity has,it does not.
> 
> For me personally the best way I could describe it is to imagine my favorite movie and that imagining that that director or artists thought of this out of his own head put it to paper put it to big screen and I saw the fruit of his genius. Let's say that there were several key points in the movie or book, they just _moved_ me, that were life-changing  works, important and very well their own message, each singularly.
> 
> Then let's say just by happenstance I stumble across several other movies that that artist liked and each of them had those points in their book and he stole them, and now I realize he's not original. He's a liar and a thief and a fraud.
> 
> My opinion changed because new facts came in. If you don't change your opinion In the light of new facts then your trading ignorance for stupidity. I contend that most Christians just don't know the facts. I also think that they don't really care to get the facts because really they just don't believe this crap anyways, not really, not truly, not deeply and not when it matters. Children get injured or sick they do not stay at home and pray they _run_ to the hospital, they look for somebody very skilled in science and medicine to save their child. They are not and will not count on a god to do anything.
> 
> They _will_ pray on the way there and they _will_ pray in the waiting room but that's just to hedge their bets, Pascal's wager if you will,covering all the bases that's not _*beliefe*_. That's superstition.



Carlos Mencia???


----------



## 660griz

stringmusic said:


> I'm not going to address any of your rant here, but I will address this meme.....
> 
> http://beginningandend.com/jesus-copy-horus-mithras-dionysis-pagan-gods/
> 
> 
> This is just Horus, the others are addressed in the link as well.



I can post links saying it is true about Horus and the others. You can probably find more that say it isn't true. What kind of intelligent discussion is that? Bottom line, we are discussing myths. One myth, you will defend and only believe text that promotes your belief. I don't believe and will read all and come to my own conclusion. The fact that, in that link, they claim that Dec. 25th is NOT MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE, is almost a, ye who protest too much, moment. Now, even I know most all Christians in the civilized world chose Dec. 25th to celebrate the birth of Christ but, when it is convenient...well, you see.

And why did they choose the 25th? Have you read all the reasons or just the ones that fit your belief?


----------



## bigreddwon

jmharris23 said:


> I take it you also do not believe then, that Jesus was a historical figure at all? Just another god created in the minds of some misguided humans?
> 
> Just curious



Not certain if the man lived. But his momma told a whopper if he did. All the Mumbo-jumbo is add on to lend power to a myth. He wasn't even written about by anyone who ever saw him alive. All 'tales' about him are told by folks who weren't even alive when he died. Supposedly died. 

I lean towards he never existed and humans made him up.


----------



## TripleXBullies

stringmusic said:


> I'm not going to address any of your rant here, but I will address this meme.....
> 
> http://beginningandend.com/jesus-copy-horus-mithras-dionysis-pagan-gods/
> 
> 
> This is just Horus, the others are addressed in the link as well. Almost seems like you can simply post anything in a meme against Christianity and atheists will post them to forums without researching what's actually written, funny, that is your biggest claim against Christians.
> 
> 
> This is what I mean when I say these memes are not made for discussion. They're made for atheists to posts on forums and laugh at Christians like they've "bet them" at some game. Almost zero intelligent discussion has gone on in this thread...... and we're on page 5.




One of your pieces of information there says, "there is no historical record." You're disregarding details of those myths for the same reasons we disregard yours...... and theirs...


----------



## bigreddwon

stringmusic said:


> I'm not going to address any of your rant here, but I will address this meme.....
> 
> http://beginningandend.com/jesus-copy-horus-mithras-dionysis-pagan-gods/
> 
> 
> This is just Horus, the others are addressed in the link as well. Almost seems like you can simply post anything in a meme against Christianity and atheists will post them to forums without researching what's actually written, funny, that is your biggest claim against Christians.
> 
> 
> This is what I mean when I say these memes are not made for discussion. They're made for atheists to posts on forums and laugh at Christians like they've "bet them" at some game. Almost zero intelligent discussion has gone on in this thread...... and we're on page 5.



You call it a rant I call it _sharing_. Probably a little too much, But whatever you call it I'd stay pretty far away from it too if I had Fairweather faith. 

On the meme. 60griz covered it perfectly. Truth hurts. Your myth doesn't trump any other myth. Your religion will be my great,great,great grand kids mythology.


----------



## stringmusic

TripleXBullies said:


> One of your pieces of information there says, "there is no historical record." You're disregarding details of those myths for the same reasons we disregard yours...... and theirs...


You don't think there are historical records of the bible?


----------



## centerpin fan

bigreddwon said:


> I lean towards he never existed and humans made him up.



I believe it was C.S. Lewis who said that, if this were true, humans would have made up the most talked about, most written about, and most influential person in history.


----------



## TripleXBullies

Yeah, the bible... There's a meme about that one too. 

Are you willing to provide proof that there is no other documentation that would corroborate any of the other stuff. You can't do that either.. You're choosing what is credible and what isn't.


----------



## bigreddwon

centerpin fan said:


> I believe it was C.S. Lewis who said that, if this were true, humans would have made up the most talked about, most written about, and most influential person in history.



You mean Santa? Kids act better for xboxs, not heaven.


----------



## stringmusic

660griz said:


> I can post links saying it is true about Horus and the others. You can probably find more that say it isn't true. What kind of intelligent discussion is that? Bottom line, we are discussing myths. One myth, you will defend and only believe text that promotes your belief. I don't believe and will read all and come to my own conclusion. The fact that, in that link, they claim that Dec. 25th is NOT MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE, is almost a, ye who protest too much, moment. Now, even I know most all Christians in the civilized world chose Dec. 25th to celebrate the birth of Christ but, when it is convenient...well, you see.
> 
> And why did they choose the 25th? Have you read all the reasons or just the ones that fit your belief?





bigreddwon said:


> You call it a rant I call it _sharing_. Probably a little too much, But whatever you call it I'd stay pretty far away from it too if I had Fairweather faith.
> 
> On the meme. 60griz covered it perfectly. Truth hurts. Your myth doesn't trump any other myth. Your religion will be my great,great,great grand kids mythology.


"Yea, but your belief is still a myth"

That meme was not a very good one, it's a lie.


----------



## stringmusic

TripleXBullies said:


> Yeah, the bible... There's a meme about that one too.
> 
> Are you willing to provide proof that there is no other documentation that would corroborate any of the other stuff. You can't do that either.. You're choosing what is credible and what isn't.



It's not my claim. If you think there is credible evidence, then let's see it.


----------



## centerpin fan

bigreddwon said:


> You mean Santa? Kids act better for xboxs, not heaven.



Santa doesn't fit my description.  There is no period in history referred to as "Before Santa" or "Anno Santa".


----------



## bigreddwon

stringmusic said:


> "Yea, but your belief is still a myth"
> 
> That meme was not a very good one, it's a lie.



I picture you rolled up the in the fetal position rocking back n forth... " it's a lie " "it's a lie " " it _HAS_ to be a lie ".. Yuuuuup. 



Truth is, they are ALL lies. Yours included. All are branches of the same tree.


----------



## 660griz

stringmusic said:


> "Yea, but your belief is still a myth"



It is not. It is too. It is not. It is too. I know mine is but what is yours?


----------



## David Parker




----------



## stringmusic

660griz said:


> It is not. It is too. It is not. It is too. I know mine is but what is yours?



He posted another meme, and I posted a link disputing the claims in that meme, you both came back with, "yea, but your beleif is still a myth"

Why not just take the untrue meme down?


----------



## centerpin fan

bigreddwon said:


> I picture you rolled up the in the fetal position rocking back n forth... " it's a lie " "it's a lie " " it _HAS_ to be a lie ".. Yuuuuup.



No, that was my reaction to hearing "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo"  would be renewed for a second season.


----------



## stringmusic

centerpin fan said:


> No, that was my reaction to hearing "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo"  would be renewed for a second season.


----------



## 660griz

centerpin fan said:


> No, that was my reaction to hearing "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo"  would be renewed for a second season.



With ya there. I am canceling cable anyway.


----------



## 660griz

stringmusic said:


> He posted another meme, and I posted a link disputing the claims in that meme, you both came back with, "yea, but your beleif is still a myth"
> 
> Why not just take the untrue meme down?



There are untrue atheist memes posted. We don't ask for them to be taken down. We can actually prove they are not true. However, like I alluded to before, one link vaguely discounting one meme is not proof.


----------



## stringmusic

660griz said:


> There are untrue atheist memes posted. We don't ask for them to be taken down. We can actually prove they are not true. However, like I alluded to before, one link vaguely discounting one meme is not proof.


Which part is "vaguely discounted"?


----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## bullethead

centerpin fan said:


> I believe it was C.S. Lewis who said that, if this were true, humans would have made up the most talked about, most written about, and most influential person in history.



And someone held the title before him.


----------



## centerpin fan

bigreddwon said:


>



Say what you want about Zeus and Ra, but Thor kicked butt in _The Avengers_.  He's the only one who can even remotely hang with Hulk.


----------



## bullethead

centerpin fan said:


> Say what you want about Zeus and Ra, but Thor kicked butt in _The Avengers_.  He's the only one who can even remotely hang with Hulk.



Hulk said it best...."puny gods"


----------



## bigreddwon

*A different perspective.*

This is a perspective I've heard from a few. Your thoughts?


----------



## TripleXBullies

660griz said:


> There are untrue atheist memes posted. We don't ask for them to be taken down. We can actually prove they are not true. However, like I alluded to before, one link vaguely discounting one meme is not proof.



For some, I say they are true... and I'm fine with it.


----------



## TripleXBullies

bigreddwon said:


> This is a perspective I've heard from a few. Your thoughts?



He gives us the dominion... so we're good... but that leopard is going to he11... god never granted him dominion over the cute birdie.


----------



## bigreddwon

centerpin fan said:


> Say what you want about Zeus and Ra, but Thor kicked butt in _The Avengers_.  He's the only one who can even remotely hang with Hulk.



Don't worry, in the near future they will be making silly movies with Jesus and Mohammad and nobody will be even the slightest bit offended. 

If the Avengers played to the folks who believed as deeply in Thor as you do Jesus they would be offended enough to kill you for mocking their 'god'. Keep that in mind. A 'god' you know full well never existed.


----------



## stringmusic

bigreddwon said:


> This is a perspective I've heard from a few. Your thoughts?



"Animals don't eat right, so that's evidence that God's not real" 

It seems as the quality rate on these memes is slipping a bit.


Is that a quote from a PETA member?


----------



## stringmusic

TripleXBullies said:


> He gives us the dominion... so we're good... but that leopard is going to he11... god never granted him dominion over the cute birdie.



That leopard is not going anywhere, except in the ground.


----------



## bigreddwon

One of the most offensive statement made by a President towards fellow Americans.


----------



## bigreddwon

I think I posted this one before. It deserves to be posted again if I did. Sickening. Disgusting. Ill stop there.


----------



## TripleXBullies

stringmusic said:


> That leopard is not going anywhere, except in the ground.



.... for the bible tells me so....


----------



## stringmusic

TripleXBullies said:


> .... for the bible tells me so....



Really? Where does it say that animals are made in the image of God and have a soul?


----------



## TripleXBullies

stringmusic said:


> "Animals don't eat right, so that's evidence that God's not real"
> 
> It seems as the quality rate on these memes is slipping a bit.
> 
> 
> Is that a quote from a PETA member?



I think the reason was more along the lines of a requirement for violence and destruction for living things to live. Including us, but that's a nice picture to put it to.


----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## centerpin fan

bigreddwon said:


> Don't worry, in the near future they will be making silly movies with Jesus and Mohammad and nobody will be even the slightest bit offended.



Really?  The Muslims would be AOK with a movie about Mohammad?




bigreddwon said:


> A 'god' you know full well never existed.



C'mon.


----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## centerpin fan

stringmusic said:


> Almost zero intelligent discussion has gone on in this thread...... and we're on page 5.



Page six is a comin'!


----------



## stringmusic

centerpin fan said:


> Page six is a comin'!


----------



## bigreddwon

No No:

So wrong. On many levels. When you look at it without an emotional investment, its impossible to see any 'good' in this whatsoever.


----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## bigreddwon

GOP jab. Couldn't resist.


----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## TripleXBullies

Now that's love right there. I wish I could love my girlfriend that much.


----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## bigreddwon

Does it say anywhere in the bible that Mary consented to 'god' impregnating her? If not that's rape.

 Rape was huge with the goat herding savages who wrote the bible. They advocated it often. Even as a way to acquire a bride. 

Don't get emotional about this one. Think how bad Joseph must have felt.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> Really? Where does it say that animals are made in the image of God and have a soul?



It does not say that in the Bible. THAT is his point!  The animals will go right into the ground... BECAUSE that is what the Bible says......"for the Bible tells me so".....


----------



## bigreddwon

No reasoning your way outta this one.


----------



## bigreddwon

Exactly.


----------



## bullethead

Uhhh, errr, what God was saying was......I mean those should not be taken literally, they are metaphors for...uhh....Oh Boy!


----------



## bigreddwon

Y'all just need to soma final rewrite and smooth out all the rough edges._ The bible just needs one more version_.


----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## bigreddwon

Sad, very sad and very true.


----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## bigreddwon

Absolutely no different, exactly the same.


----------



## ambush80

jmharris23 said:


> Well I'm just doing my job.
> 
> As to whether you think we who are believers are stupid, I am not sure what to think on that note.
> 
> Your long post above sure seems to make it clear that you think we're ignorant.
> 
> Maybe you make the distinction between ignorant and stupid?
> 
> Either way though, I am fine with that. We both have the right to think what we want about the other.
> 
> I know what you think about me when I wade in here, therefore I have no problem with being debated or tackled head on.



He was just saying that brilliant people lock their keys in the car sometimes.  I could be wrong.   I'm not good with parable.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Honestly,  do you have anything to offer here other patting yourself on the back for your ability to cut and paste some else's clip art?  At some point can we expect more from you than paroting a meme or are you just jockeying to become the Fred Phelps of Atheism; an empty shell filled with vitriol and sporting a placard.  To be honest you come off as a little Private Freddy just out of PI all full of himself thinking you're very presence puts the fear of God in everyone you meet.  I got news for you boot.  You remember how it was when you got to the Fleet and found out you were just another boy in a mans world?  Well that's where you are here.  And just like the Fleet you have to be respectful and earn your stripes.  Well the same applies here.  You are not impressing anyone with your mousing skills.  The Christians here are not running for the hills.  For the most part the ones that come in here are a heck of a lot more grounded in their faith than those that just show up at church on Sunday because the Kuntry Klub bar ain't open yet, so don't kid yourself into thinking anyone is quaking in their boots or questioning their faith because you showed up with your scissors and Elmer's glue.  You wanna respect here from Theist or Atheist you are gonna have to actually prove you can posit a reasonable argument AND DEFEND IT, until then you're just little Freddy Boot.


----------



## ambush80

SemperFiDawg said:


> Honestly,  do you have anything to offer here other patting yourself on the back for your ability to cut and paste some else's clip art?  At some point can we expect more from you than paroting a meme or are you just jockeying to become the Fred Phelps of Atheism; an empty shell filled with vitriol and sporting a placard.  To be honest you come off as a little Private Freddy just out of PI all full of himself thinking you're very presence puts the fear of God in everyone you meet.  I got news for you boot.  You remember how it was when you got to the Fleet and found out you were just another boy in a mans world?  Well that's where you are here.  And just like the Fleet you have to be respectful and earn your stripes.  Well the same applies here.  You are not impressing anyone with your mousing skills.  The Christians here are not running for the hills.  For the most part the ones that come in here are a heck of a lot more grounded in their faith than those that just show up at church on Sunday because the Kuntry Klub bar ain't open yet, so don't kid yourself into thinking anyone is quaking in their boots or questioning their faith because you showed up with your scissors and Elmer's glue.  You wanna respect here from Theist or Atheist you are gonna have to actually prove you can posit a reasonable argument AND DEFEND IT, until then you're just little Freddy Boot.



Tell your little one that a donkey talked for real life


----------



## bigreddwon

SemperFiDawg said:


> Honestly,  do you have anything to offer here other patting yourself on the back for your ability to cut and paste some else's clip art?  At some point can we expect more from you than paroting a meme or are you just jockeying to become the Fred Phelps of Atheism; an empty shell filled with vitriol and sporting a placard.  To be honest you come off as a little Private Freddy just out of PI all full of himself thinking you're very presence puts the fear of God in everyone you meet.  I got news for you boot.  You remember how it was when you got to the Fleet and found out you were just another boy in a mans world?  Well that's where you are here.  And just like the Fleet you have to be respectful and earn your stripes.  Well the same applies here.  You are not impressing anyone with your mousing skills.  The Christians here are not running for the hills.  For the most part the ones that come in here are a heck of a lot more grounded in their faith than those that just show up at church on Sunday because the Kuntry Klub bar ain't open yet, so don't kid yourself into thinking anyone is quaking in their boots or questioning their faith because you showed up with your scissors and Elmer's glue.  You wanna respect here from Theist or Atheist you are gonna have to actually prove you can posit a reasonable argument AND DEFEND IT, until then you're just little Freddy Boot.




You seem threatened, relax. 

These memes only have the power you give them. 
Maybe you should find a thread more to your liking. 

There will be many, many more.


----------



## bigreddwon

True statement.


----------



## bigreddwon

Do we have free will? Does god already know what we're going to do? Why would he punish us for doing what he already knows where going to do it? You could argue, he created us to do it. Reminds me of my ex. 

If he did exists, even he couldn't explain this mess.


----------



## JB0704

660griz said:


> Thank the right person



That's ^^^^^ funny stuff!

Not sure why I didn't open this thread until this morning.


----------



## JB0704

bigreddwon said:


> Bam!



Did you think about this one first?  The fact that you posted it contradicts it's point (it's the 3 persecuted meme, post 81).


----------



## 660griz

Old but funny..

After God created Adam, and Adam had been in the Garden for a really long time, he started to get a little lonely. So, Adam went to God and said, "This Garden is amazing, but I'm starting to get a little lonely; is there anyone that you can send to keep me company?"

God answered, "I have the perfect person. She will help you with almost everything. She'll clean, cook, wash you clothes, be your friend, and even rub your feet after a long day. She really is perfect in every way!"

Adam said, "That sounds great! How soon can you send her?"

God replied again, "I can send her right away, but there is one thing ... it's going to cost you an arm and a leg to get her."

Adam thought for a moment, and then said, "What can I get for a rib?"


----------



## 660griz

JB0704 said:


> Did you think about this one first?  The fact that you posted it contradicts it's point (it's the 3 persecuted meme, post 81).



So posting memes against religion is equal to the persecution shown? 
And we wonder why discussions go nowhere.


----------



## JB0704

660griz said:


> So posting memes against religion is equal to the persecution shown?
> And we wonder why discussions go nowhere.



When each of the memes mocks one's religion, yes.

My discussions on here are typically cordial and insightful, not sure why you are having difficulty.


----------



## 660griz

stringmusic said:


> Which part is "vaguely discounted"?




As would be expected, all three myths(Horus, Mithra, Jesus) have overlapping details. Not because any one god is a carbon-copy of the other. But rather because most religions, including Christianity, have astrological beginnings. (Even the cross)

What's strange, is not that so many deities are said to have been born in late December, but that so many Christians are completely unaware that late December marks the Winter Solstice in the Northern Hemisphere, an event which has always been associated with gods, festivals, and rebirth.

Jesus was not born on the 25th but, Christians chose that day because of either astrological reasons, offset pagan stuff,  or to get in on the festivities. 

Even some christians recognize that Isis and the baby Horus could be seen as the model for Mary and infant Jesus. There are many many simularities not only in Horus but, other religions as well.


----------



## 660griz

JB0704 said:


> When each of the memes mocks one's religion, yes.



Wow. Memes that 'mock', equal beatings and murder?

Just so I understand, In a forum for atheist and 'defenders' of religion, post are made to discredit religion and the defense is that they should be removed because they are equal to beatings and murder and other horrific persecutions? Just trying to wrap my head around what you and others have said related to this. 




JB0704 said:


> My discussions on here are typically cordial and insightful, not sure why you are having difficulty.



Yes they are. As I try to be. I do not understand the, why you are having difficulty, part of the sentence. Are you saying I am having difficulty being cordial and insightful?


----------



## TripleXBullies

bigreddwon said:


> No reasoning your way outta this one.



This was the slavery one... and I think it helps to illustrate, especially to christians, how morals are cultural. Your Jesus even shows it. He is good with slavery, because it wasn't morally wrong back then. We feel as a society feel it is now.


----------



## JB0704

660griz said:


> Wow. Memes that 'mock', equal beatings and murder?



The reference was "persecution."  Not "equaling beatings and murder."  But, as to persecution.....yes.

Definition of PERSECUTION
1: the act or practice of persecuting especially those who differ in origin, religion, or social outlook 
2: the condition of being persecuted, harassed, or annoyed 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/persecution




660griz said:


> Yes they are. As I try to be. I do not understand the, why you are having difficulty, part of the sentence.



The  emoticon you used is my basis for that, and the generalization that "discussions go nowhere." 



660griz said:


> Are you saying I am having difficulty being cordial and insightful?



Nope.  It was a defense of my position, not relevant to yours.


----------



## stringmusic

660griz said:


> As would be expected, all three myths(Horus, Mithra, Jesus) have overlapping details. Not because any one god is a carbon-copy of the other. But rather because most religions, including Christianity, have astrological beginnings. (Even the cross)
> 
> What's strange, is not that so many deities are said to have been born in late December, but that so many Christians are completely unaware that late December marks the Winter Solstice in the Northern Hemisphere, an event which has always been associated with gods, festivals, and rebirth.
> 
> Jesus was not born on the 25th but, Christians chose that day because of either astrological reasons, offset pagan stuff,  or to get in on the festivities.
> 
> Even some christians recognize that Isis and the baby Horus could be seen as the model for Mary and infant Jesus. There are many many simularities not only in Horus but, other religions as well.



Umm, ok.

The meme is still completely untrue.


----------



## 660griz

JB0704 said:


> The reference was "persecution."  Not "equaling beatings and murder."  But, as to persecution.....yes.
> 
> Definition of PERSECUTION
> 1: the act or practice of persecuting especially those who differ in origin, religion, or social outlook
> 2: the condition of being persecuted, harassed, or annoyed
> 
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/persecution



Definitions are cool. However, it is best to use them in context. I am not going to insult your intelligence with going any further with this. Whether you used it out of context to over dramatize your point or, actually think persecution is voluntary,(like coming to an atheist forum), either way, it is a no win for me.


----------



## TripleXBullies

SemperFiDawg said:


> Honestly,  do you have anything to offer here other patting yourself on the back for your ability to cut and paste some else's clip art?  At some point can we expect more from you than paroting a meme or are you just jockeying to become the Fred Phelps of Atheism; an empty shell filled with vitriol and sporting a placard.  To be honest you come off as a little Private Freddy just out of PI all full of himself thinking you're very presence puts the fear of God in everyone you meet.  I got news for you boot.  You remember how it was when you got to the Fleet and found out you were just another boy in a mans world?  Well that's where you are here.  And just like the Fleet you have to be respectful and earn your stripes.  Well the same applies here.  You are not impressing anyone with your mousing skills.  The Christians here are not running for the hills.  For the most part the ones that come in here are a heck of a lot more grounded in their faith than those that just show up at church on Sunday because the Kuntry Klub bar ain't open yet, so don't kid yourself into thinking anyone is quaking in their boots or questioning their faith because you showed up with your scissors and Elmer's glue.  You wanna respect here from Theist or Atheist you are gonna have to actually prove you can posit a reasonable argument AND DEFEND IT, until then you're just little Freddy Boot.



Wow... so is your church full of kristians who are there because the kuntry klub bar ain't open yet?? Rember SFD... 1 peter 3:15... sinner....


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> Honestly,  do you have anything to offer here other patting yourself on the back for your ability to cut and paste some else's clip art?  At some point can we expect more from you than paroting a meme or are you just jockeying to become the Fred Phelps of Atheism; an empty shell filled with vitriol and sporting a placard.  To be honest you come off as a little Private Freddy just out of PI all full of himself thinking you're very presence puts the fear of God in everyone you meet.  I got news for you boot.  You remember how it was when you got to the Fleet and found out you were just another boy in a mans world?  Well that's where you are here.  And just like the Fleet you have to be respectful and earn your stripes.  Well the same applies here.  You are not impressing anyone with your mousing skills.  The Christians here are not running for the hills.  For the most part the ones that come in here are a heck of a lot more grounded in their faith than those that just show up at church on Sunday because the Kuntry Klub bar ain't open yet, so don't kid yourself into thinking anyone is quaking in their boots or questioning their faith because you showed up with your scissors and Elmer's glue.  You wanna respect here from Theist or Atheist you are gonna have to actually prove you can posit a reasonable argument AND DEFEND IT, until then you're just little Freddy Boot.



You do realize that you are speaking for yourself right?

This is twice that you have posted on here about the awful Memes and the people that post them. You are now trying to go all military on someone for posting (copy/paste)Memes and YOU did the exact same thing!! (unless you are going to prove that you made those Memes up all by your self) You lost all credibility the second you tried to condemn someone for doing the same thing you have done yourself and now to top it off your having a flashback into your military years thinking that (like religion) intimidation and fear is going to solve anything.
This is a thread that you did not have to open, read or PARTICIPATE in. You chose to do so and now you don't like it because you either tried and failed to use Memes to your advantage or now want to post more Memes but have painted yourself into the corner by being a total hypocrite.
I thank you for your military service.
This is not the Corps. Snap out of your Slim Jim.

See posts #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #10 #11 and #12


----------



## JB0704

660griz said:


> Definitions are cool. However, it is best to use them in context. I am not going to insult your intelligence with going any further with this. Whether you used it out of context to over dramatize your point or, actually think persecution is voluntary,(like coming to an atheist forum), either way, it is a no win for me.



Valid point.  Additionally, there was a qualifier in the OP that this thread was not going to be sensitive.  I know you want to drop it, and that's cool, but the point remains that the fact that the meme was made contradicts the point of the meme.

Yes, they are extrememly different levels of persecution.  However, one being worse does not elliminate the existence of the other.

It's not like I haven't gotten a kick out of many of the meme's posted here.....I pointed out one of yours that gave me a good laugh.


----------



## David Parker

less talk, more meme


----------



## TripleXBullies

David Parker said:


> less talk, more meme



I saw Joe Pesci on a piece of toast the other day.


----------



## 660griz

JB0704 said:


> Valid point.


 You have just restored my faith in mankind again.  



JB0704 said:


> Yes, they are extrememly different levels of persecution.  However, one being worse does not elliminate the existence of the other.


 True. I will add the voluntary part though. 



JB0704 said:


> It's not like I haven't gotten a kick out of many of the meme's posted here.....I pointed out one of yours that gave me a good laugh.


 Thanks.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> This thread gave me a new sig line. (Maybe a T-shirt design.  Don't steal my idea.)



That is hilarious and so wrong at the same time.......I get this mental image of a new poster thinking you are a Christian, looking up your "favorite verse," and running into that mess!!

I had never read that particular scripture until it was posted on here by 4 a while back.


----------



## JB0704

660griz said:


> You have just restored my faith in mankind again.
> 
> True. I will add the voluntary part though.
> 
> Thanks.


----------



## JB0704

bigreddwon said:


> Let me field that answer with, you guessed it, a meme.



.....almost spit out my coffee reading this one.....(post #145)


----------



## TripleXBullies

JB0704 said:


> .....almost spit out my coffee reading this one.....(post #145)



You know that SFD and String are shaking their heads at you right now for fueling the fire... I bet SFD would kick you out of his church.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> That is hilarious and so wrong at the same time.......I get this mental image of a new poster thinking you are a Christian, looking up your "favorite verse," and running into that mess!!
> 
> I had never read that particular scripture until it was posted on here by 4 a while back.



There are more than a few verses that you will not find posted in the bulletin nor read on the pulpit.


----------



## JB0704

TripleXBullies said:


> You know that SFD and String are shaking their heads at you right now for fueling the fire... I bet SFD would kick you out of his church.



Eh, I don't know SFD, but String's got a sense of humor.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> There are more than a few verses that you will not find posted in the bulletin nor read on the pulpit.



I went back and actually read the book after 4 posted it, and, it obviously has some context to it....the dude was just being graphic in his disgust with the people.

But, yes, it will probably not make the local church's daily Bible Verse bulletins.


----------



## stringmusic

JB0704 said:


> Eh, I don't know SFD, but String's got a sense of humor.






...and triple X, I ain't mad a nobody, I would venture to say that SFD isn't either.


----------



## David Parker

stringmusic said:


> ...and triple X, I ain't mad a nobody, I would venture to say that SFD isn't either.



Wait til thread hits page 11 and then we'll see.  kiddin


----------



## 660griz

Why did miracles stop?


----------



## bullethead

660griz said:


> Why did miracles stop?



Now THAT is funny


----------



## TripleXBullies

Shaking of heads conveys disappointment, not anger.


----------



## 660griz

Freedom of Religion


----------



## 660griz

You just wait.


----------



## 660griz

Yum


----------



## 660griz

Why are yall here?


----------



## 660griz

A classic...


----------



## 660griz

If you like it...


----------



## 660griz

Atheist cat.


----------



## 660griz

I like miracles.


----------



## TripleXBullies

660griz said:


> Why are yall here?



computers, the internet and facebook are the devil.. didn't know that....


----------



## 660griz

Of course you are...


----------



## 660griz

Logical


----------



## 660griz




----------



## 660griz

Seems simple.


----------



## 660griz

Proof.


----------



## 660griz

Poor starving children...


----------



## 660griz

Actual translation...


----------



## 660griz

Who's laughing now...


----------



## 660griz

God!


----------



## 660griz

Kinda reminds me of government.


----------



## 660griz




----------



## 660griz

I'll skip that section...


----------



## 660griz

Even Christians can't deny this.


----------



## 660griz

burden of proof.


----------



## 660griz

Wrong?


----------



## 660griz

Plan sucks.


----------



## 660griz

The most interesting man in the world..


----------



## 660griz

Whah!


----------



## 660griz

A win!


----------



## TripleXBullies




----------



## TripleXBullies

660griz said:


> The most interesting man in the world..



hahahahah


----------



## TripleXBullies

slightly changing gears.


----------



## TripleXBullies




----------



## TripleXBullies




----------



## TripleXBullies




----------



## SemperFiDawg

bullethead said:


> You do realize that you are speaking for yourself right?
> 
> This is twice that you have posted on here about the awful Memes and the people that post them. You are now trying to go all military on someone for posting (copy/paste)Memes and YOU did the exact same thing!! (unless you are going to prove that you made those Memes up all by your self) You lost all credibility the second you tried to condemn someone for doing the same thing you have done yourself and now to top it off your having a flashback into your military years thinking that (like religion) intimidation and fear is going to solve anything.
> This is a thread that you did not have to open, read or PARTICIPATE in. You chose to do so and now you don't like it because you either tried and failed to use Memes to your advantage or now want to post more Memes but have painted yourself into the corner by being a total hypocrite.
> I thank you for your military service.
> This is not the Corps. Snap out of your Slim Jim.
> 
> See posts #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #10 #11 and #12



I posted the memes in jest.  Think that is pretty obvious.   At some point I expected some intelligent conversation to break out.  Still waiting.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

660griz said:


> Kinda reminds me of government.



Been there.  It's on I 40 in Texas.  Visible for miles away.  It's awesome.


----------



## 660griz

SemperFiDawg said:


> Been there.  It's on I 40 in Texas.  Visible for miles away.  It's awesome.



Good to know where the Christian priority is.


----------



## 660griz

SemperFiDawg said:


> At some point I expected some intelligent conversation to break out.  Still waiting.



If you wouldn't put so much faith in the bible, you might be better equipped to recognize it.


----------



## TripleXBullies

SemperFiDawg said:


> Been there.  It's on I 40 in Texas.  Visible for miles away.  It's awesome.



You should get one for your church... Show the world that y'all have it right.

Or IL...
http://www.worldslargestthings.com/easterntour/cross.htm

hah... They appreciate donations...
http://www.crossusa.org/


----------



## WaltL1

SemperFiDawg said:


> I posted the memes in jest.


Come on SFD at least give us a little prior warning so we can put our boots on before we step in that!


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> I posted the memes in jest.  Think that is pretty obvious.   At some point I expected some intelligent conversation to break out.  Still waiting.



Well start some.

Start with the first meme and discuss.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Come on SFD at least give us a little prior warning so we can put our boots on before we step in that!



Yeah, everything is in jest AFTER a few melt downs.


----------



## pnome

Anyone post this yet?


----------



## Bobby Jackson

Very interesting thread..thought provoking.
Enjoyed it


----------



## TripleXBullies

pnome said:


> Anyone post this yet?



Like almost everyone does to almost everyone else when it comes to world views?


----------



## pnome

TripleXBullies said:


> Like almost everyone does to almost everyone else when it comes to world views?



That one is actually me poking fun at myself.


----------



## TripleXBullies

pnome said:


> That one is actually me poking fun at myself.



I think we all do it.


----------



## bigreddwon

Yup...


----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## bigreddwon

"God did it". The ultimate 'putty' to fill in all the holes..


----------



## bigreddwon

My personal and political philosophy.


----------



## bigreddwon

True.. Very similar. If you don't think so, wear a t shirt that says 'I'm an Athiest'.. You'll see the ugly side of folks real quick.


----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## bigreddwon

"Your taking it out of conteeeeeeeeeext"


----------



## kc65

bigreddwon said:


> True.. Very similar. If you don't think so, wear a t shirt that says 'I'm an Athiest'.. You'll see the ugly side of folks real quick.



gotta give it to ya on that one....


----------



## bigreddwon

Not an Athiest one, just a good idea IMO.


----------



## bigreddwon

He made some sense.


----------



## bigreddwon

Not much left to say.


----------



## bigreddwon

Every prayer ever prayed since the beginning of time doesn't add up to the same amount of help donating .10 does to any charity.


----------



## kc65

all thought provoking to say the least....


----------



## bigreddwon

Yuuuuuup..  Any comments pro or con to this. ( get it, con? )


----------



## bigreddwon

kc65 said:


> all thought provoking to say the least....



For some of us that's a good thang...


----------



## kc65

bigreddwon said:


> Yuuuuuup..  Any comments pro or con to this. ( get it, con? )



best one yet...


----------



## bigreddwon

Hey Swd. Lets have a discussion on this one. Youve said several times how ther is no debate or original thought. Insert some. Anyone else is welcome. _Someone_ explain why a person can understand every nuance, every petty personality trait,of the god in this tale and come to the conclusion that IF you believe in _THIS_ god, _how_ can you call it a god of love? Or the origins of morals? ? 

I really want to know. How do you not, right there just call shenanigans on the whole thing? 

Is this what you want your kids to grow up _emulating_ or..... _*overlooking??*_.. Because its, well... Disgusting behavior.. I'd _*hope*_ my child never displayed behavior like this. I'd be ashamed. I wonder what the % of Wall Street bankers n politicians that ruined this country's economy an perpetual war are '_Christian_'? And thought that screwing folks over for amusement surely meant screwing them over for their gain was equally justified?? Get yer morals outta the crapper and ya got crap morals .. (that's original btw) 

 Frankly when they were deciding which of the freaking hundreds of books from the semi original version to remove, they should have lost this one.  Cause it doesn't exactly paint the almighty in a very flattering light. 

Advice to future Christian 'profits'.. ($).. On the next 'version' of the holy bible y'all invent. _Leave that one out_.  which 'version' are you on _now_?


----------



## outdooraddict




----------



## outdooraddict

What a sad state of affairs that in a nation whose universities were founded on christian thinking and the idea that there is a rational creator and a logos to the universe could now find its intellectual thinking deteriorated to a point that its citizens would use memes and ridicule in place of logical discourse. But then without the logos there is no logic and there is no reasoning, only a superstitious belief that the higher cortex magical leaped to metaphysical reasoning in the pursuit of truth. But then there can really be no finding of truth, only the hope that a random thought "there is no God" will confer upon its possessor a survival benefit. But what the heck I'll play along if we have gone to this as rational thinking...........


----------



## outdooraddict




----------



## outdooraddict

*No worries about my faith being shaken*


----------



## 660griz

The World Without Religion


----------



## 660griz

outdooraddict said:


> View attachment 743816
> 
> View attachment 743817
> 
> View attachment 743818
> 
> View attachment 743819



I wonder if they killed all those people in the name of atheism or just because they were a-holes. Compared to the crusades...


----------



## bullethead

660griz said:


> I wonder if they killed all those people in the name of atheism or just because they were a-holes. Compared to the crusades...



If you add them all up they can't compare to the number of killings the God of the Bible, according to the Bible, has done.


----------



## 660griz

bullethead said:


> If you add them all up they can't compare to the number of killings the God of the Bible, according to the Bible, has done.



Just in the bible, around 24 million. 

I guess by "imagine no organized atheism", that means folks would have been happy with all the murders and genocide if they would have done it in God's name.  Don't kill for power, or control, or because you are demented, kill for Jesus, or Allah, or Unicorns...then it is fine.


----------



## bullethead

660griz said:


> Just in the bible, around 24 million.
> 
> I guess by "imagine no organized atheism", that means folks would have been happy with all the murders and genocide if they would have done it in God's name.  Don't kill for power, or control, or because you are demented, kill for Jesus, or Allah, or Unicorns...then it is fine.



Notice no Hitler on those images.
"Gott Mit Uns"


----------



## 660griz

bullethead said:


> Notice no Hitler on those images.
> "Gott Mit Uns"



Hitler seeking power, wrote in Mein Kampf. "... I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work."


----------



## 660griz

This one made me laugh. The "reality of God's existence". 







"A Few Good Men" "You can't handle the truth."  Just too funny.


----------



## 660griz

Imagine. 
Kinda ironic Imagine was used in the anti-atheist memes when John Lennon wrote: Imagine there’s no heaven. It’s easy if you try. No he11 below us, above us only sky.

Imagine there’s no countries, It isn’t hard to do, Nothing to kill or die for, And no religion too, Imagine all the people living life in peace.


----------



## centerpin fan

660griz said:


> I wonder if they killed all those people in the name of atheism ...



If you believe that man is no better than an animal, why not kill him?


----------



## bullethead

centerpin fan said:


> If you believe that man is no better than an animal, why not kill him?



Works for God.


----------



## centerpin fan

bullethead said:


> Works for God.



No No:

That is _not_ God's opinion of man:

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”  -- Gen. 1:26


----------



## stringmusic

centerpin fan said:


> No No:
> 
> That is _not_ God's opinion of man:
> 
> Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”  -- Gen. 1:26



Oh yea?!? Well the bible isn't true!!


----------



## centerpin fan

stringmusic said:


> Oh yea?!? Well the bible isn't true!!



Shhhh.  Don't tell 'em.  I've still got a warehouse full of my "Miracle Healing Cloths" to sell.


----------



## stringmusic

centerpin fan said:


> Shhhh.  Don't tell 'em.  I've still got a warehouse full of my "Miracle Healing Cloths" to sell.


Just as long a my order is shipped before you sell out.


----------



## 660griz

centerpin fan said:


> If you believe that man is no better than an animal, why not kill him?



I don't kill animals unless it will serve a necessary purpose.
Food or protection. When the time comes that I have to kill an animal (human or otherwise) My belief, or lack of beliefs do not weigh into the equation. 
My goals of survival (animal instincts) take over. 

Man is an animal. Does not justify genocide.

The argument I was really hoping for would be that demented minds do these atrocities, and whether it is for a so called religious purpose or for power and control, it is still from a demented mind. I guess you really can't say that cause that would force a defense of the undefensible. 

Telling responses though.


----------



## centerpin fan

660griz said:


> I don't kill animals unless it will serve a necessary purpose.



Mao allowed 45 million to starve to death, and here was is necessary purpose:

“When there is not enough to eat people starve to death. It is better to let half of the people die so that the other half can eat their fill.”

If you think man is no better than an animal, that makes perfect sense.


----------



## 660griz

centerpin fan said:


> Mao allowed 45 million to starve to death, and here was is necessary purpose:
> 
> “When there is not enough to eat people starve to death. It is better to let half of the people die so that the other half can eat their fill.”
> 
> If you think man is no better than an animal, that makes perfect sense.



Sorry. I am really having a hard time linking this to atheism. I link it to a terrible person. Unless, like my Hitler quote, I know you gave it a shot but, very weak. 

Apparently, it is kind of a mute point. God screwed up and flooded the entire world. Killing every man, woman, child and all the animals(except for the boat occupants). Now, which is worse?


----------



## 660griz

centerpin fan said:


> Mao allowed 45 million to starve to death, and here was is necessary purpose:



People are starving to death everyday. Where is the outrage? How about that million dollar cross that everyone is so proud of?

Total number of people who will die of hunger this year  7,615,360 

Atheist killing them too?


----------



## TripleXBullies

centerpin fan said:


> Mao allowed 45 million to starve to death, and here was is necessary purpose:
> 
> “When there is not enough to eat people starve to death. It is better to let half of the people die so that the other half can eat their fill.”
> 
> If you think man is no better than an animal, that makes perfect sense.



He should just bring a basket of fish and bread and let god do the rest... what is he thinking...


----------



## centerpin fan

660griz said:


> Sorry. I am really having a hard time linking this to atheism.



The Communists were atheists.  




660griz said:


> I link it to a terrible person.



Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot were all terrible people.


----------



## 660griz

TripleXBullies said:


> He should just bring a basket of fish and bread and let god do the rest... what is he thinking...



Think about it. God exists. Atheist are wrong. Everything is God's will. 45 million folks starve to death = God's will. No matter who is responsible. Right?


----------



## centerpin fan

660griz said:


> People are starving to death everyday. Where is the outrage? How about that million dollar cross that everyone is so proud of?
> 
> Total number of people who will die of hunger this year  7,615,360
> 
> Atheist killing them too?



Read it again:



centerpin fan said:


> Mao allowed 45 million to starve to death ...



Another way of saying it is that he _caused_ them to starve to death.  He was completely _indifferent_ to them starving to death.  In the words of Janet Napolitano, it was a "man-caused disaster".


----------



## 660griz

centerpin fan said:


> The Communists were atheists.



So, Communist would be o.k. if they just had some religion in them? If the political party of Republicans had a few atheist come to power, mass murder would follow? 

What about a religious U.S. President, sending folks to die for a political gain? Does that make him a bad person or a religious nut? I say bad person.


----------



## centerpin fan

660griz said:


> So, Communist would be o.k. if they just had some religion in them?



They have plenty of religion, and The State is their god.


----------



## bullethead

centerpin fan said:


> Read it again:
> 
> 
> 
> Another way of saying it is that he _caused_ them to starve to death.  He was completely _indifferent_ to them starving to death.  In the words of Janet Napolitano, it was a "man-caused disaster".



No different than God allowing it.
Snap of his spiritual fingers and no more Mao. God HAD to know Mao was going to do this and God must have been alright with that.


----------



## centerpin fan

bullethead said:


> No different than God allowing it.
> Snap of his spiritual fingers and no more Mao. God HAD to know Mao was going to do this and God must have been alright with that.



We're back to the ol' free will argument.  Remember, I'm president of the Free Will Society (Dunwoody chapter.)


----------



## 660griz

centerpin fan said:


> Read it again:



Well, if you honestly believe he allowed 45 million folks to die because he didn't beleive in God then, so be it. I just can't link atheism + man is an animal = o.k. to kill millions. 
Just because I consider man an animal doesn't mean it is o.k. to kill or let suffer at will. Why, cause I'm not a maniac.

Personally, if I didn't know he was an atheist,  I couldn't come to the conclusion he must be an atheist cause he let all those folks die. I would assume the opposite, based on history. 

I realize the importance of having a link to atheism for these atrocities for the religious community. Take it. 

You really know it isn't the same as screaming " 
allahu akbar!" before blowing yourself up in a crowd.
Or, asking someone if they are Christian, if no, off with their head. Any doubt or special interpretation to know the above was being done in the name of religion?


----------



## centerpin fan

660griz said:


> I just can't link atheism + man is an animal = o.k. to kill millions.



As John Lennon said, "It's easy if you try."


----------



## outdooraddict

*Kinda ironic Imagine was used in the anti-atheist memes when John Lennon wrote: Imagine there’s no heaven. It’s easy if you try. No he11 below us, above us only sky. Imagine there’s no countries, It isn’t hard to do, Nothing to kill or die for, And no religion too, Imagine all the people living life in peace.-*

Kinda the point, how did that atheism-peace thing workout

_Well, if you honestly believe he allowed 45 million folks to die because he didn't beleive in God then, so be it. I just can't link atheism + man is an animal = o.k. to kill millions. Just because I consider man an animal doesn't mean it is o.k. to kill or let suffer at will. Why, cause I'm not a maniac.Personally, if I didn't know he was an atheist, I couldn't come to the conclusion he must be an atheist cause he let all those folks die. I would assume the opposite, based on history.I realize the importance of having a link to atheism for these atrocities for the religious community. Take it. You really know it isn't the same as screaming " allahu akbar!" before blowing yourself up in a crowd. Or, asking someone if they are Christian, if no, off with their head. Any doubt or special interpretation to know the above was being done in the name of religion?_

- In the” name of religion” is the point. Christianity doesn’t teach this. Separate in the name of from the doctrine. From an atheistic standpoint I see no problem with killing, why do you assert moral values into this equation?

_Another way of saying it is that he caused them to starve to death. He was completely indifferent to them starving to death. In the words of Janet Napolitano, it was a "man-caused disaster". Think about it. God exists. Atheist are wrong. Everything is God's will. 45 million folks starve to death = God's will. No matter who is responsible. Right? _

Whats wrong with them starving to death. You seem to insert morality without a source.  What happened to survival of the fittest?

_Hitler quotes._ Honestly you guys gotta do your history. Hitler may have referenced a god but an atheist saying " god bless you" to a sneeze doesn’t make him a theist. Hitler was a follower of Neitsche (God is dead) and based his atrocities on neitschian atheistic philosophy

_So, Communist would be o.k. if they just had some religion in them? If the political party of Republicans had a few atheist come to power, mass murder would follow?  What about a religious U.S. President, sending folks to die for a political gain? Does that make him a bad person or a religious nut? I say bad person. _

Wow, way to change the subject.



I don’t get all this circular reasoning. There is no God. There is no absolute morality of right and wrong. The strong survive. God isn’t real. God is real but immoral. No morals truly exist. God is strong and does what he wants. Being strong and forcing your will is good. Being strong and forcing your will is bad. You guys don’t even consistently apply your own beliefs.

The problems is for Christians to reconcile God is good with understanding bad things that happen but the athiests don’t have a voice in this, you don’t believe in God, you have no consistent morality for good, and you can’t figure out if the strong should survive or whether the weak should die!


----------



## ddd-shooter

Why would someone think they can label another a maniac? 
Dictators are simply the alpha male of their environment. Even better, Hitler believed he was doing mankind a favor by creating the Arian race. 
Someone should have told Great Britain it was all for their own good...


----------



## ddd-shooter

bigreddwon said:


> Yuuuuuup..  Any comments pro or con to this. ( get it, con? )



As someone already posted in another thread about the good things the Christians do, most of the US is Christian. What would you expect, they are all Hindu?


----------



## outdooraddict

The difference is the motivation or reason for doing good. A christian is to do good. An atheist has no clear reasoning for what good is, and no motivation to perform it even if they could identify it. It would only be what they felt like doing at the moment, or a random behavior to see if it confers a survival advantage.


----------



## TripleXBullies

outdooraddict said:


> The difference is the motivation or reason for doing good. A christian is to do good. An atheist has no clear reasoning for what good is, and no motivation to perform it even if they could identify it. It would only be what they felt like doing at the moment, or a random behavior to see if it confers a survival advantage.



When you feel like doing "bad" like looking at porn, you do it. When you feel like doing "good", like placing some money in the offering place - giving 10%+, you do it. No difference.


----------



## outdooraddict

TripleXBullies said:


> When you feel like doing "bad" like looking at porn, you do it. When you feel like doing "good", like placing some money in the offering place - giving 10%+, you do it. No difference.



So far you haven't defined good and bad, what feeling has to do with it, or why there is no difference. Not a very useful sentence.


----------



## hummdaddy

centerpin fan said:


> No No:
> 
> That is _not_ God's opinion of man:
> 
> Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”  -- Gen. 1:26



who was god talking to?"our" is plural


----------



## stringmusic

hummdaddy said:


> who was god talking to?"our" is plural



The Trinity.


----------



## hummdaddy

stringmusic said:


> The Trinity.



no someone's writing error ....


----------



## TripleXBullies

You do good, you do bad... it doesn't matter what you're SUPPOSED to do..


----------



## hummdaddy

i don't know who predetermined that an atheist is bad and a christian is good...that sounds ludicrous in itself!!!


----------



## outdooraddict

I agree. From an atheistic standpoint I don't see how there is any good or bad or anything your "supposed to do". That's why many of the points raised against a God don't even make sense from an atheistic world view. All your complaints about killing must be personal preferences.


----------



## TripleXBullies

And you base all of yours off a book written over a thousand years ago.. And half the time you don't follow it... What does that mean? PERSONAL PREFERENCE


----------



## outdooraddict

Maybe. I'm not the one pushing my beliefs on you, I haven't mentioned the bible. I'm still stuck at the inconsistencies I'm reading about the atheistic point of view and the circular reasoning. I'm sorry if pointing out the fallacies is uncomfortable but I just want a logical discussion among reasonable people. I didn't stoop to starting a thread of memes as a logical discussion ( I did throw some in to point out the uselessness of them however, it's the fallacy of "parables". You say the early bird catches the worm and I say fools rush in where angels fear to tread. You throw silly memes in that will "challenge faith" and I throw in silly memes that counter).


----------



## TripleXBullies

outdooraddict said:


> Maybe. I'm not the one pushing my beliefs on you, I haven't mentioned the bible. I'm still stuck at the inconsistencies I'm reading about the atheistic point of view and the circular reasoning. I'm sorry if pointing out the fallacies is uncomfortable but I just want a logical discussion among reasonable people. I didn't stoop to starting a thread of memes as a logical discussion ( I did throw some in to point out the uselessness of them however, it's the fallacy of "parables". You say the early bird catches the worm and I say fools rush in where angels fear to tread. You throw silly memes in that will "challenge faith" and I throw in silly memes that counter).



I don't stoop to the level of memes, but I got my shots in... lol Come on....

The memes were to start logical discussion... and some entertainment.


----------



## outdooraddict

I don't mean your personally. I'm sure you're more reasonable than to start a "hate thread" of memes instead of engaging in intelligent discourse. It's just that ignorance grows when people toss aside intelligent reasoning in favor of "one liner" ignorance. You might as well say "your mama" (and if you do, I'll just thank you and tell you she says "Jesus loves you")


----------



## bigreddwon

outdooraddict said:


> Maybe. I'm not the one pushing my beliefs on you, I haven't mentioned the bible. I'm still stuck at the inconsistencies I'm reading about the atheistic point of view and the circular reasoning. I'm sorry if pointing out the fallacies is uncomfortable but I just want a logical discussion among reasonable people. I didn't stoop to starting a thread of memes as a logical discussion ( I did throw some in to point out the uselessness of them however, it's the fallacy of "parables". You say the early bird catches the worm and I say fools rush in where angels fear to tread. You throw silly memes in that will "challenge faith" and I throw in silly memes that counter).



If you have some memes that will challenge the fact that gods are invented, by MEN. Id love to see them. The ones you posted were not thought provoking,not to me. Maybe they just went over my head? Good for a giggle, but no teeth. 

Go back and answer the question I asked about Job a page back, if you would please. Thats a tought one. I understand why the usual cast of Christian warriors keep skipping that question, that conversation.

About Zeus or Poseidon. Were they real deitys?  If the answers no, how'd you come to that conclusion?


----------



## 660griz

outdooraddict said:


> The difference is the motivation or reason for doing good. A christian is to do good. An atheist has no clear reasoning for what good is, and no motivation to perform it even if they could identify it. It would only be what they felt like doing at the moment, or a random behavior to see if it confers a survival advantage.



You are correct. The motivation is different.
The morality of atheists is in a sense more noble by definition than the morality of theists. While theists believe that god will punish them for immoral acts and reward them for moral acts, atheists have no motivation to be moral other than their own innate sense of morality. It is morality for its own sake, not out of fear for punishment or desire for reward.


----------



## bigreddwon

outdooraddict said:


> I don't mean your personally. I'm sure you're more reasonable than to start a "hate thread" of memes instead of engaging in intelligent discourse. It's just that ignorance grows when people toss aside intelligent reasoning in favor of "one liner" ignorance. You might as well say "your mama" (and if you do, I'll just thank you and tell you she says "Jesus loves you")



I haven't seen any memes that were hate.I've seen some thought provoking ones that may be touched on subjects that Christians find very sensitive. Mostly because they're impossible positions to defend from with logic, they require faith. Maybe you should read the OP again, it might be a sensitive topic for you. If this is the intellectual mosh pit of the forums you need to brace yourself for an elbow every now and then. Thinking thoughts you'd rather not think can feel like a mighty blow,your medulla given your medulla an uppercut....POW!


----------



## TripleXBullies

outdooraddict said:


> I don't mean your personally. I'm sure you're more reasonable than to start a "hate thread" of memes instead of engaging in intelligent discourse. It's just that ignorance grows when people toss aside intelligent reasoning in favor of "one liner" ignorance. You might as well say "your mama" (and if you do, I'll just thank you and tell you she says "Jesus loves you")



Or, "for the bible tells me so."   Because that's all you've got...


----------



## outdooraddict

660griz said:


> You are correct. The motivation is different.
> The morality of atheists is in a sense more noble by definition than the morality of theists. While theists believe that god will punish them for immoral acts and reward them for moral acts, atheists have no motivation to be moral other than their own innate sense of morality. It is morality for its own sake, not out of fear for punishment or desire for reward.



Your missing the point. Other than personal preference you have NO IDEA what noble is!


----------



## centerpin fan

bigreddwon said:


> I haven't seen any memes that were hate.I've seen some thought provoking ones that may be touched on subjects that Christians find very sensitive.



I think y'all are a little touchy about "imagine" in post 373.


----------



## centerpin fan

660griz said:


> It is morality for its own sake, not out of fear for punishment or desire for reward.



If Mao had any fear of punishment, maybe he wouldn't have starved 45 million people.


----------



## TripleXBullies

Fear of punishment? I don't fear eternal punishment... but I remain good... as good as many of you I'm sure. That should mean I am better because I do it because I want to... hahhahaha


----------



## TripleXBullies

outdooraddict said:


> Your missing the point. Other than personal preference you have NO IDEA what noble is!



And you have a perfect idea of noble because you believe in your god?


----------



## bigreddwon

Not at all, at least not for me personally.I think a rational person has no problem differentiating between a godless person who kills for power and political control and a God fearing person who kills because his God tells him to or he thinks it will somehow please his particular God. There are differences between those two people. Your memes miss those points. You get that little free 3 inch tall trophy for participating, you don't get the two foot tall winners trophy yet.


----------



## centerpin fan

bigreddwon said:


> I think a rational person has no problem differentiating between a godless person who kills for power and political control and a God fearing person who kills because his God tells him to or he thinks it will somehow please his particular God. There are differences between those two people



The name of the God-fearing man who starved 45 million of his own people escapes me.


----------



## outdooraddict

bigreddwon said:


> If you have some memes that will challenge the fact that gods are invented, by MEN. Id love to see them. The ones you posted were not thought provoking,not to me. Maybe they just went over my head? Good for a giggle, but no teeth.
> 
> Go back and answer the question I asked about Job a page back, if you would please. Thats a tought one. I understand why the usual cast of Christian warriors keep skipping that question, that conversation.
> 
> About Zeus or Poseidon. Were they real deitys?  If the answers no, how'd you come to that conclusion?



The book of Job is a fantastic point for why answers aren't easy. I believe if you look at the book, you see that they dealt with a silly concept that atheists and christians alike find empty. The story was "Job was good, God and Satan played a game with his life, but since Job was faithful got all his stuff back" but he didn't. He didn't get the ones he loved back. So the first couple of chapters and the end are a "fable" that was passed along by verbal story telling some believe. However, the written book then divides this beginning tale and ending with 30 something chapters that nobody talks about to make the very point that this isn't easy. Jobs friends can't come up with a simple explanation to explain to Job what happened, Just like simple Christians who say "have faith and nothing painful will ever happen" or simple atheist who say "look God doesn't care,or he's bad" all take an ignorant simplistic view to why "bad" things happen.  Again, if you don't buy God and an absolute morality or understanding of right and wrong/good and bad, you don't have any point to make. If there's no God then Job losing his family isn't bad, its the consequence of natural disaster. On the other hand, since you do think this was somehow bad then you claim a source to define good and bad and that is something you don't have. You can't have it both ways.


----------



## TripleXBullies

outdooraddict said:


> The book of Job is a fantastic point for why answers aren't easy. I believe if you look at the book, you see that they dealt with a silly concept that atheists and christians alike find empty. The story was "Job was good, God and Satan played a game with his life, but since Job was faithful got all his stuff back" but he didn't. He didn't get the ones he loved back. So the first couple of chapters and the end are a "fable" that was passed along by verbal story telling some believe. However, the written book then divides this beginning tale and ending with 30 something chapters that nobody talks about to make the very point that this isn't easy. Jobs friends can't come up with a simple explanation to explain to Job what happened, Just like simple Christians who say "have faith and nothing painful will ever happen" or simple atheist who say "look God doesn't care,or he's bad" all take an ignorant simplistic view to why "bad" things happen.  Again, if you don't buy God and an absolute morality or understanding of right and wrong/good and bad, you don't have any point to make. If there's no God then Job losing his family isn't bad, its the consequence of natural disaster. On the other hand, since you do think this was somehow bad then you claim a source to define good and bad and that is something you don't have. You can't have it both ways.



Source to define good or bad? That decision is for you to make for yourself. So red and I would say what happened to him was bad... because I wouldn't want any of it to happen to me. Would you want it done to you? Would you feel special if it happened to you? I wouldn't. That god would have to beg me for forgiveness because it's ruthless. But hey, Jesus loves me this I know, for the bible tells me so...


----------



## hummdaddy

outdooraddict said:


> I agree. From an atheistic standpoint I don't see how there is any good or bad or anything your "supposed to do". That's why many of the points raised against a God don't even make sense from an atheistic world view. All your complaints about killing must be personal preferences.



What's this your mess, i am not christian or atheist...i am deist ,please tell me what my world view is! Donit try to lump me in with just. Anybody,i have a brain of my own....


----------



## outdooraddict

TripleXBullies said:


> Source to define good or bad? That decision is for you to make for yourself. So red and I would say what happened to him was bad... because I wouldn't want any of it to happen to me. Would you want it done to you? Would you feel special if it happened to you? I wouldn't. That god would have to beg me for forgiveness because it's ruthless. But hey, Jesus loves me this I know, for the bible tells me so...



Great so it's all relative. You wouldn't want it to happen to you but it's just your view, you wouldn't want to tell anyone else because they have their own view. But then you do tell them about bad because you don't believe the very premise that you state, so you commit a self defeating argument. You say good and bad are personal then cry there is no God because he's bad for all to see. Again, I'm only pointing out the fallacies. If we can't be logical we can't move on to the next step.


----------



## TripleXBullies

Good and bad are obviously subjective. You think it's good to run around spreading your good word... Because the same word says you must. And for the most part that is socially accepted. Society objectifies good and bad and morals.. It makes you think it's objective, but it's just what society tells you... and you, for the most part, agree with. There are plenty of threads on that. The slavery thread talks about it too.


----------



## outdooraddict

TripleXBullies said:


> Good and bad are obviously subjective. You think it's good to run around spreading your good word... Because the same word says you must. And for the most part that is socially accepted. Society objectifies good and bad and morals.. It makes you think it's objective, but it's just what society tells you... and you, for the most part, agree with. There are plenty of threads on that. The slavery thread talks about it too.



I haven't spread anything, only pointed out fallacies, like using "obviously".  Society can't "do" morality because when societies collide you have no idea who is good or right. The society of the north vs the society of the south for instance to use your slavery analogy. One society shouldn't have forced their ideas on another from that point of view. However, I do feel that slavery as practiced in the south was wrong in a way that transcends the society. I'm sorry you wouldn't be able to feel the same but I understand that you feel this decision would have to be subjective and therefore slavery would be acceptable for some.


----------



## hummdaddy

outdooraddict said:


> I haven't spread anything, only pointed out fallacies, like using "obviously".  Society can't "do" morality because when societies collide you have no idea who is good or right. The society of the north vs the society of the south for instance to use your slavery analogy. One society shouldn't have forced their ideas on another from that point of view. However, I do feel that slavery as practiced in the south was wrong in a way that transcends the society. I'm sorry you wouldn't be able to feel the same but I understand that you feel this decision would have to be subjective and therefore slavery would be acceptable for some.[/QUOT


----------



## outdooraddict

bigreddwon said:


> I haven't seen any memes that were hate.I've seen some thought provoking ones that may be touched on subjects that Christians find very sensitive. Mostly because they're impossible positions to defend from with logic, they require faith. Maybe you should read the OP again, it might be a sensitive topic for you. If this is the intellectual mosh pit of the forums you need to brace yourself for an elbow every now and then. Thinking thoughts you'd rather not think can feel like a mighty blow,your medulla given your medulla an uppercut....POW!



Funny. I can only speak for myself but I certainly haven't found anything difficult myself, at least as far as the way you guys have raised your points. I'm not sensitive and I'm yet to be "thought provoked".  I have to echo the importance of logic because so far that's the only thing I've been dealing with. Far from a blow to my medulla, I am just trying to get you guys to argue from a logically consistent frame work, I haven't seen you "defend from logic" very well yet, and I don't yet know what you mean by "faith" so personally I haven't had to brace for anything. I do feel there are good questions and issue about God to raise, but so far no one has gotten there. Job is a good start, but only from a theistic standpoint, no point is raised if you don't have an absolute concept of right and wrong, and so far all I'm hearing is relativism which defeats your points.


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> Funny. I can only speak for myself but I certainly haven't found anything difficult myself, at least as far as the way you guys have raised your points. I'm not sensitive and I'm yet to be "thought provoked".  I have to echo the importance of logic because so far that's the only thing I've been dealing with. Far from a blow to my medulla, I am just trying to get you guys to argue from a logically consistent frame work, I haven't seen you "defend from logic" very well yet, and I don't yet know what you mean by "faith" so personally I haven't had to brace for anything. I do feel there are good questions and issue about God to raise, but so far no one has gotten there. Job is a good start, but only from a theistic standpoint, no point is raised if you don't have an absolute concept of right and wrong, and so far all I'm hearing is relativism which defeats your points.



How can we argue with a logically consistent framework when there is no base for which terms are defined and base where a God is established?
We are all involved daily in conversation about an entity that is and has been totally non existent. We have to pretend an entity exists in order to talk about it. Can anyone produce such an entity without assertions and circular reasoning?
The very base level is missing. How can we define terms and use logic when so far the subject is make believe?


----------



## swampstalker24

stringmusic said:


> The Trinity.


 

That's funny.  Why would the bible make a reference to the trinity in the first few sentences of the first book, and then not mention it for another couple thousand years?  Is that what the Jewish people believe also, that we were created in the image of the trinity?   How are we like a trinity?  Are we a father, son, and holy ghost?  I have heard several folks make your same argument and i just doesn't hold water.


----------



## bullethead

swampstalker24 said:


> That's funny.  Why would the bible make a reference to the trinity in the first few sentences of the first book, and then not mention it for another couple thousand years?  Is that what the Jewish people believe also, that we were created in the image of the trinity?   How are we like a trinity?  Are we a father, son, and holy ghost?  I have heard several folks make your same argument and i just doesn't hold water.



The religious mind can justify anything but the truth.


----------



## outdooraddict

bullethead said:


> How can we argue with a logically consistent framework when there is no base for which terms are defined and base where a God is established?
> We are all involved daily in conversation about an entity that is and has been totally non existent. We have to pretend an entity exists in order to talk about it. Can anyone produce such an entity without assertions and circular reasoning?
> The very base level is missing. How can we define terms and use logic when so far the subject is make believe?



Are we discussing God or gravity?


----------



## TripleXBullies

outdooraddict said:


> I haven't spread anything, only pointed out fallacies, like using "obviously".  Society can't "do" morality because when societies collide you have no idea who is good or right. The society of the north vs the society of the south for instance to use your slavery analogy. One society shouldn't have forced their ideas on another from that point of view. However, I do feel that slavery as practiced in the south was wrong in a way that transcends the society. I'm sorry you wouldn't be able to feel the same but I understand that you feel this decision would have to be subjective and therefore slavery would be acceptable for some.



That happens when societies collide. 100 years before that almost everyone thought slavery was perfectly fine. Then societies collided and caused wars.. Do you see wars ever ending? If not, then it supports that morals are societal and people are willing to go to war over differing moral views.


----------



## ddd-shooter

TripleXBullies said:


> That happens when societies collide. 100 years before that almost everyone thought slavery was perfectly fine. Then societies collided and caused wars.. Do you see wars ever ending? If not, then it supports that morals are societal and people are willing to go to war over differing moral views.



Yep. We should have never fought against Hitler. He was just the alpha male exercising survival of the fittest. Silly Americans.


----------



## 660griz

outdooraddict said:


> Your missing the point. Other than personal preference you have NO IDEA what noble is!



And you know that because?


----------



## ambush80

ddd-shooter said:


> Yep. We should have never fought against Hitler. He was just the alpha male exercising survival of the fittest. Silly Americans.




His logic was wrong.  

I don't think we need to discuss that point.


----------



## ddd-shooter

ambush80 said:


> His logic was wrong.
> 
> I don't think we need to discuss that point.



His logic was truthful to him. Who are you to say he was wrong?


----------



## outdooraddict

660griz said:


> And you know that because?



Because you haven't defined it. Please proceed and reference source.


----------



## outdooraddict

ambush80 said:


> His logic was wrong.
> 
> I don't think we need to discuss that point.



I thought people were already complaining about what others didn't want to discuss...typically a charge against christians in this blog. Everything must be discussed logically. No gimmes or no, as somebody recently said, "obviously"


----------



## outdooraddict

TripleXBullies said:


> That happens when societies collide. 100 years before that almost everyone thought slavery was perfectly fine. Then societies collided and caused wars.. Do you see wars ever ending? If not, then it supports that morals are societal and people are willing to go to war over differing moral views.


 Actually it doesn't support that. It may actually support that each society feels their morals are the absolute ones and they want to inflict the other society with these rules. IF each society thought their own rules only applied to them they wouldn't go to war. But to my previous point that's why "society does morality" doesn't work.


----------



## outdooraddict

ddd-shooter said:


> His logic was truthful to him. Who are you to say he was wrong?


Now we're getting to the real question!


----------



## ambush80

ddd-shooter said:


> His logic was truthful to him. Who are you to say he was wrong?



His "plan" was unsustainable.  Do you REALLY want to break it down?


----------



## David Parker

um MEMEs







Woohoo, 10 pages so far


----------



## outdooraddict

ambush80 said:


> His "plan" was unsustainable.  Do you REALLY want to break it down?


Sure. His logic was wrong, what was his logic? 
His plan was unsustainable. Is that something he should have foreseen or something we can only know after the fact because he failed? Did he do anything morally wrong or just plan poorly?


----------



## bullethead

ddd-shooter said:


> His logic was truthful to him. Who are you to say he was wrong?



Hitler thought he was right, we thought he was wrong.
We thought we are right, Hitler thought we were wrong.

Might makes right. the winner makes the rules and the morals.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> Hitler thought he was right, we thought he was wrong.
> We thought we are right, Hitler thought we were wrong.
> 
> Might makes right. the winner makes the rules and the morals.



So Nazi Germany wins WW2, and that makes killing millions of people morally acceptable?


----------



## outdooraddict

bullethead said:


> Hitler thought he was right, we thought he was wrong.
> We thought we are right, Hitler thought we were wrong.
> 
> Might makes right. the winner makes the rules and the morals.



Do you feel this is absolutely true or your opinion? Is this a moral statement or are you just typing your present thoughts?


----------



## ddd-shooter

bullethead said:


> Might makes right. the winner makes the rules and the morals.



Perfectly acceptable when dealing with humans. 

Yet a response that God is on a higher plane is discounted wholeheartedly for being a cop out.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> So Nazi Germany wins WW2, and that makes killing millions of people morally acceptable?



We will never know will we?


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> Do you feel this is absolutely true or your opinion? Is this a moral statement or are you just typing your present thoughts?



Well if it is a moral statement it would have come from your God since he dishes out the morals.
If it is any other type of statement it is based off of observing history and reading your Bible.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> We will never know will we?


You tell me....


bullethead said:


> Hitler thought he was right, we thought he was wrong.
> We thought we are right, Hitler thought we were wrong.
> 
> Might makes right. the winner makes the rules and the morals.



If the winner makes the rules and the morals, and if Hilter would have won the war, by your own logic, it would be moraly acceptable to slaughter Jews.


----------



## bullethead

ddd-shooter said:


> Perfectly acceptable when dealing with humans.
> 
> Yet a response that God is on a higher plane is discounted wholeheartedly for being a cop out.



Hey if you want to hold God on a higher plane for drowning everybody but eight people because he screwed up and didn't like the results, then go for what you know.
God wasn't happy. God killed everybody except for who he did not want dead. He showed us. Might=Right


----------



## hummdaddy

stringmusic said:


> So Nazi Germany wins WW2, and that makes killing millions of people morally acceptable?



he was christian of coarse he thought it was morally right


----------



## ddd-shooter

It's like nailing Jell-o to a wall. 
Here is a meme for you atheists-forgive me if it comes off rude. 

I found this picture and I think it is representative of atheist convictions. At least in so many atheists I have met personally:










































Captures it quite nicely doesn't it?


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> You tell me....
> 
> 
> If the winner makes the rules and the morals, and if Hilter would have won the war, by your own logic, it would be moraly acceptable to slaughter Jews.



I would say in Germany it would have been. There didn't seem to be much moral opposition against it when the people in Germany and in other countries....not just Hitler and his cronies.... were rounding them up and killing them.
Nobody batted a moral eye in Rome for thousands of years when amoral things (in today's society) were not only common but expected.

Me, I would not be for it.


----------



## outdooraddict

bullethead said:


> Well if it is a moral statement it would have come from your God since he dishes out the morals.
> If it is any other type of statement it is based off of observing history and reading your Bible.



You're not making any sense. You made a statement and I asked you what YOU meant. Don't duck and run. If it's an observation just say it's an observation, don't state it as a truth or a rule "might makes right". I think you were just giving an opinion or maybe a random thought but I asked you to please clarify. It was your claim not mine.


----------



## outdooraddict

ddd-shooter said:


> Perfectly acceptable when dealing with humans.
> 
> Yet a response that God is on a higher plane is discounted wholeheartedly for being a cop out.



Still not clear what you mean when you state things. What is your point about being acceptable? Are you claiming it's true or not?


----------



## outdooraddict

bullethead said:


> We will never know will we?



But you said we would know! If they win, it is "right"


----------



## outdooraddict

bullethead said:


> Hey if you want to hold God on a higher plane for drowning everybody but eight people because he screwed up and didn't like the results, then go for what you know.
> God wasn't happy. God killed everybody except for who he did not want dead. He showed us. Might=Right



But you said might makes right, God is the ultimate might, God must be right. Why the sarcasm against God, after all this is your position yet you don't like it. Your mad at God because he is exactly what you feel is right? Confusing!


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> You're not making any sense. You made a statement and I asked you what YOU meant. Don't duck and run. If it's an observation just say it's an observation, don't state it as a truth or a rule "might makes right". I think you were just giving an opinion or maybe a random thought but I asked you to please clarify. It was your claim not mine.



It was my opinion which is based off of repeated history.

 The winner gets to tell the story and makes the rules.
You know as well as I do that the War Between the States aka War of Northern Aggression is two different stories depending where it is told. Acts done during it were justified both morally and ethically and increased to their lowest forms depending on how low either side is willing to stoop to obtain victory. Each had God on their side so it was man that decided what goes.


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> But you said might makes right, God is the ultimate might, God must be right. Why the sarcasm against God, after all this is your position yet you don't like it. Your mad at God because he is exactly what you feel is right? Confusing!



You believe God is the Ultimate so that holds true for you. Your assertions in here.


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> But you said we would know! If they win, it is "right"



I said we would know?
hmmmm


----------



## outdooraddict

hummdaddy said:


> he was christian of coarse he thought it was morally right



First off I think you are confusing the abuse of a philosophy (crusade would be a better example) with the philosophy itself since Christianity is based on loving God and fellow man.

Second, you're continuing the same "Hitler was a  christian" fable that is so uninformed. Yes, "Hitler was born Catholic just as Stalin was born into the Russian Orthodox Church and Mao was raised as a Buddhist but that doesn't exactly make your point. Hitler did make statements to rally support of those claiming Christianity but then abandoned those statements once in control. In his multi-volume history of the Third Reich, historian Richard Evans writes that "the Nazis regarded the churches as the strongest and toughest reservoirs of ideological opposition to the principles they believed in." Once Hitler and the Nazis came to power, they launched a ruthless drive to subdue and weaken the Christian churches in Germany. 
After 1937 the policies of Hitler's government became increasingly anti-religious. The Nazis stopped celebrating Christmas, and the Hitler Youth recited a prayer thanking the Fuhrer rather than God for their blessings. Clergy regarded as "troublemakers" were ordered not to preach, hundreds of them were imprisoned, and many were simply murdered. Research Dietrich Bonhoeffer! Churches were under constant Gestapo surveillance. The Nazis closed religious schools, forced Christian organizations to disband, dismissed civil servants who were practicing Christians, confiscated church property, and censored religious newspapers. 
Nazism represented the culmination of the nineteenth-century and early-twentieth century ideology of social Darwinism. Both Hitler and Himmler were admirers of Darwin and often spoke of their role as enacting a "law of nature" that guaranteed the "elimination of the unfit."  Without Darwinism, there would not have been Nazism.
The Nazis also drew on the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, adapting his atheist philosophy to their purposes. Nietzsche's vision of the ubermensch and his elevation of a new ethic "beyond good and evil" were avidly embraced by Nazi propagandists. Nietzsche's "will to power" almost became a Nazi recruitment slogan. The Nazis, like the Communists, deliberately targeted the churches and the believers because they wanted to create a new man and a new utopia freed from the shackles of traditional religion and traditional morality. (Thanks Dinesh D’Souza)"

Doesn't all this sound more like the might makes right position that is being put out on this blog instead of the christian view? Silly to say "Hitler was a christian"


----------



## outdooraddict

bullethead said:


> I said we would know?
> hmmmm



Yup- Review it again.

Originally Posted by bullethead  
_Hitler thought he was right, we thought he was wrong.
We thought we are right, Hitler thought we were wrong.

Might makes right. the winner makes the rules and the morals._



Since your conclusion does not follow from your premises, I think it would be perfectly fine if you now withdraw your conclusion "Might makes right. the winner makes the rules and the morals" and change it to "I don't know" which I guess you are now saying.


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> Yup- Review it again.
> 
> Originally Posted by bullethead
> _Hitler thought he was right, we thought he was wrong.
> We thought we are right, Hitler thought we were wrong.
> 
> Might makes right. the winner makes the rules and the morals._
> 
> 
> 
> Since your conclusion does not follow from your premises, I think it would be perfectly fine if you now withdraw your conclusion "Might makes right. the winner makes the rules and the morals" and change it to "I don't know" which I guess you are now saying.



Nah, I'll stand by my statement saying it is based off of historical findings.
Heck I'll even use your post above #471 and your final paragraph to help me out.

If Hitler was not a Christian he sure had a way to make Christian people abandon their God given morals in favor of his own. Might makes right much?

Here is another good read about morals. You can just read the reviews if you want.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/145757101...-History-of-Pius-XII-Penguin-books-1999-426-p

More:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/pius.html

http://www.emperors-clothes.com/vatican/cpix.htm


----------



## outdooraddict

bullethead said:


> Nah, I'll stand by my statement saying it is based off of historical findings.
> Heck I'll even use your post above #471 and your final paragraph to help me out.
> 
> If Hitler was not a Christian he sure had a way to make Christian people abandon their God given morals in favor of his own. Might makes right much?
> 
> Here is another good read about morals. You can just read the reviews if you want.
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/145757101...-History-of-Pius-XII-Penguin-books-1999-426-p
> 
> More:
> http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/pius.html
> 
> http://www.emperors-clothes.com/vatican/cpix.htm


Thanks, I'll try to read them. You leave me so confused.  I do think my last paragraph above should help you out as I said above. It is consistent with some of what you said and the opposite of Christianity as I pointed out. That's why it was silly to put Hitler in the Christian camp, his rationale is more along your points. I'm glad we now agree on that point. 

You stand by you statement of an absolute truth (I think) yet claimed you don't know "hmmmm". Which way do you stand? 

The question still goes unanswered-Do you feel this ("Might makes right. the winner makes the rules and the morals") is absolutely true or your opinion? Is this a moral statement or are you just typing your present thoughts? 

Historical facts tell us how things have been, morals tell us how things should be. Don't confuse history with a moral statement.


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> Thanks, I'll try to read them. You leave me so confused.  I do think my last paragraph above should help you out as I said above. It is consistent with some of what you said and the opposite of Christianity as I pointed out. That's why it was silly to put Hitler in the Christian camp, his rationale is more along your points. I'm glad we now agree on that point.
> 
> You stand by you statement of an absolute truth (I think) yet claimed you don't know "hmmmm". Which way do you stand?
> 
> The question still goes unanswered-Do you feel this ("Might makes right. the winner makes the rules and the morals") is absolutely true or your opinion? Is this a moral statement or are you just typing your present thoughts?
> 
> Historical facts tell us how things have been, morals tell us how things should be. Don't confuse history with a moral statement.



I asked and answered in another thread and will put it here also.

I trust my own senses. They have served me well for 43 years. They have been influenced by many things that include but are not limited to society, upbringing, experience, family, etc . But I cannot say for sure that a supreme being has downloaded the Ultimate Morals program into my brain. I have yet to see such a list and have yet to know anyone that has been able to provide such a list and do not know of anyone who has been able to follow such a list, mainly because again, there is no list for every situation and scenario. Everyone makes a choice, hopefully to the best of their ability.
At best you can tell me what you would do in a certain situation. And like me, I would tend to think that you have not made the correct moral decision every single time despite our best wishes that we have the ultimate answer within us.


----------



## outdooraddict

bullethead said:


> I asked and answered in another thread and will put it here also.
> 
> I trust my own senses. They have served me well for 43 years. They have been influenced by many things that include but are not limited to society, upbringing, experience, family, etc . But I cannot say for sure that a supreme being has downloaded the Ultimate Morals program into my brain. I have yet to see such a list and have yet to know anyone that has been able to provide such a list and do not know of anyone who has been able to follow such a list, mainly because again, there is no list for every situation and scenario. Everyone makes a choice, hopefully to the best of their ability.
> At best you can tell me what you would do in a certain situation. And like me, I would tend to think that you have not made the correct moral decision every single time despite our best wishes that we have the ultimate answer within us.



Thank you, that seems an honest and sincere answer. Unfortunately it is fraught with problems. To trust your senses you must assume there is a reason you can. It requires you to internally have a reliability to your thinking, not the product of random changes that lead to a survival benefit. Second, you be able to trust your senses(as Scrooge questioned Marley) , you could actually be living in the Matrix. Third, you must live in an external logical and consistent universe for which rules/a logos exists in order to apply those senses and analyze the data. These assumptions are not scientific they are principles that must exist for science to work. People often gloss over that fact when they try to defend science as the only way to "know" something. I know you didn't say that, just pointing it out. Finally, while your approach is well intentioned, it is circular. You ended by saying that you know we don't always make the correct moral decision. THAT is the whole point. It brings us right back to an absolute moral standard by which we are graded, and that requires an absolute source somewhere. Otherwise, what is correct?


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> Thank you, that seems an honest and sincere answer. Unfortunately it is fraught with problems. To trust your senses you must assume there is a reason you can. It requires you to internally have a reliability to your thinking, not the product of random changes that lead to a survival benefit. Second, you be able to trust your senses(as Scrooge questioned Marley) , you could actually be living in the Matrix. Third, you must live in an external logical and consistent universe for which rules/a logos exists in order to apply those senses and analyze the data. These assumptions are not scientific they are principles that must exist for science to work. People often gloss over that fact when they try to defend science as the only way to "know" something. I know you didn't say that, just pointing it out. Finally, while your approach is well intentioned, it is circular. You ended by saying that you know we don't always make the correct moral decision. THAT is the whole point. It brings us right back to an absolute moral standard by which we are graded, and that requires an absolute source somewhere. Otherwise, what is correct?



That all sounds pretty good but am I to accept that we have been given an absolute moral standard which is not outlined anywhere and nobody has been able to adhere to it and it is given to us by a being no one can prove exists and that being grades us on our morals?
Sorry. I don't buy it.
In order for your reasoning to work you are going to have to show us an absolute moral "giver" exists. And you are going to have to set the standards by showing us a set of the absolute morals.


----------



## David Parker




----------



## outdooraddict

bullethead said:


> That all sounds pretty good but am I to accept that we have been given an absolute moral standard which is not outlined anywhere and nobody has been able to adhere to it and it is given to us by a being no one can prove exists and that being grades us on our morals?
> Sorry. I don't buy it.
> In order for your reasoning to work you are going to have to show us an absolute moral "giver" exists. And you are going to have to set the standards by showing us a set of the absolute morals.



So far all I've done is show why yours is logically inconsistent. You will notice I never referenced God. It is important first to note the inconsistencies and fallacies you presented. You're right, that is the next step but in fact I already outlined why my belief in God, like gravity, is reasonable. Ockham's razor-among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected. In other words, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. God is the simplest explanation for all those questions I raised above, and the assumptions you described for how you decide what to do. You still haven't provided the alternative from the thousands of plausible explanations you said there were.


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> So far all I've done is show why yours is logically inconsistent. You will notice I never referenced God. It is important first to note the inconsistencies and fallacies you presented. You're right, that is the next step but in fact I already outlined why my belief in God, like gravity, is reasonable. Ockham's razor-among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected. In other words, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. God is the simplest explanation for all those questions I raised above, and the assumptions you described for how you decide what to do. You still haven't provided the alternative from the thousands of plausible explanations you said there were.



I think we are each in the business of providing fallacies and inconsistencies.
God is not the simplest explanation. That is your assertion. I can say all of it is because of Ra, Thor, Zeus, Krishna and or any one of the thousands of Gods that have the same credibility as your God. It is very simple to say it is any one of the Gods of creation, so they must be equally as valid as yours.
You are very good at asserting a God. It is not hard to outline a logical reason for belief in a God, it is another thing to actually prove that such a line of logic transforms that belief into an actual being.

I have been thinking all day about these absolute morals. You have made a great case for a belief in these morals but I have yet to see you give us any examples of an absolute moral, absolute morals and an absolute moral giver or source. It is time to take your argument to the next level beyond asserting such things and show us examples of what you mean. Absolute morals should have absolute examples.
I see the world is full of examples of varying morals. Billions of people all with billions of different morals. If an absolute source has given us absolute morals, where are they?


----------



## outdooraddict

bullethead said:


> I think we are each in the business of providing fallacies and inconsistencies.
> God is not the simplest explanation. That is your assertion. I can say all of it is because of Ra, Thor, Zeus, Krishna and or any one of the thousands of Gods that have the same credibility as your God. It is very simple to say it is any one of the Gods of creation, so they must be equally as valid as yours.
> You are very good at asserting a God. It is not hard to outline a logical reason for belief in a God, it is another thing to actually prove that such a line of logic transforms that belief into an actual being.
> 
> I have been thinking all day about these absolute morals. You have made a great case for a belief in these morals but I have yet to see you give us any examples of an absolute moral, absolute morals and an absolute moral giver or source. It is time to take your argument to the next level beyond asserting such things and show us examples of what you mean. Absolute morals should have absolute examples.
> I see the world is full of examples of varying morals. Billions of people all with billions of different morals. If an absolute source has given us absolute morals, where are they?



Actually no you can't just as easily claim these other Gods. Ra, Thor, Zeus are all within an already existing universe, they didn't create the universe so they can't answer where the universe came from, why the universe has a logos/certain consistent rules and constants, where an absolute morality came from (they behaved however they wanted and were often viewed as immoral-ie there was a morality above them) Krishna doesn't work because these eastern religions belieive that reality is an illusion and the universe is eternal. However an eternal universe will not work and there is no role for science because everything is an illusion. Reasonable logic doesn't work because things came be true and false at the same time, there is no law of noncontradiction.

So you see they don't provide the simplest answer for all my questions. Even if we try to force them into the equation we still have to look elsewhere to answer all the other questions.


----------



## ambush80

outdooraddict said:


> Actually no you can't just as easily claim these other Gods. Ra, Thor, Zeus are all within an already existing universe, they didn't create the universe so they can't answer where the universe came from, why the universe has a logos/certain consistent rules and constants, where an absolute morality came from (they behaved however they wanted and were often viewed as immoral-ie there was a morality above them) Krishna doesn't work because these eastern religions belieive that reality is an illusion and the universe is eternal. However an eternal universe will not work and there is no role for science because everything is an illusion. Reasonable logic doesn't work because things came be true and false at the same time, there is no law of noncontradiction.
> 
> So you see they don't provide the simplest answer for all my questions. Even if we try to force them into the equation we still have to look elsewhere to answer all the other questions.




Other religions worked just fine for establishing moral codes for most the rest of the world and are just as flawed as your own, mostly due to the fact that they are outdated.  How do you account for the overlap in ideologies between the different religions?


----------



## outdooraddict

bullethead said:


> I think we are each in the business of providing fallacies and inconsistencies.
> God is not the simplest explanation. That is your assertion. I can say all of it is because of Ra, Thor, Zeus, Krishna and or any one of the thousands of Gods that have the same credibility as your God. It is very simple to say it is any one of the Gods of creation, so they must be equally as valid as yours.
> You are very good at asserting a God. It is not hard to outline a logical reason for belief in a God, it is another thing to actually prove that such a line of logic transforms that belief into an actual being.
> 
> I have been thinking all day about these absolute morals. You have made a great case for a belief in these morals but I have yet to see you give us any examples of an absolute moral, absolute morals and an absolute moral giver or source. It is time to take your argument to the next level beyond asserting such things and show us examples of what you mean. Absolute morals should have absolute examples.
> I see the world is full of examples of varying morals. Billions of people all with billions of different morals. If an absolute source has given us absolute morals, where are they?



If you saw me pass a mother on the street and then rip her baby out of her hands and slash that babies throat and then laugh and tell you I did that because I thought it would be fun, would you find that wrong or distasteful. I know it's sick but true relativist have told me it's distasteful but they can't say its wrong because they have no higher authority on right and wrong. 

Just because we don't have a 100% agreement that it is wrong doesn't mean most people wouldn't none the less tell you that is wrong even though they can't explain its "wrongness" by nature or might makes right or genetic predisposition or survival of the fittest or however you want to otherwise come up with the "why" its wrong. 

You can't appeal to society, as the Germans and most recently Iraq and the middle east societies tried. At the Nuremberg trial Hitler's henchmen and in Iraq Saddam Hussein's henchman tried to argue they were obeying the laws of the land but that was not acceptable. Not because of might but as in the Nuremberg trials it was argued that there is a higher level of morality that is "obvious". Since none of these other origins for that absolute morality work as I have continually pointed out, I'm either left with no morality and I really can do whatever I feel like, or I am left with some absolute higher source by which I measure morality.


----------



## outdooraddict

ambush80 said:


> Other religions worked just fine for establishing moral codes for most the rest of the world and are just as flawed as your own, mostly due to the fact that they are outdated.  How do you account for the overlap in ideologies between the different religions?



You don't know my moral codes and I don't know what you mean by overlapping ideologies or why it is a problem.

You may confuse morals with cultural expression. I may feel immodesty is immoral but what was immodest 100 years ago (seeing a woman's ankle exposed under her dress) and today (probably gotta be topless and I'm not even sure about that) has a cultural reference. Vulgarity may be immoral and "bloody" was a horrible vulgar word in England a decade or 2 ago I've been told, but no problem now.

Absolute morals don't by definition change but culture relevance of expression may evolve.


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> Actually no you can't just as easily claim these other Gods. Ra, Thor, Zeus are all within an already existing universe, they didn't create the universe so they can't answer where the universe came from, why the universe has a logos/certain consistent rules and constants, where an absolute morality came from (they behaved however they wanted and were often viewed as immoral-ie there was a morality above them) Krishna doesn't work because these eastern religions belieive that reality is an illusion and the universe is eternal. However an eternal universe will not work and there is no role for science because everything is an illusion. Reasonable logic doesn't work because things came be true and false at the same time, there is no law of noncontradiction.
> 
> So you see they don't provide the simplest answer for all my questions. Even if we try to force them into the equation we still have to look elsewhere to answer all the other questions.



I am still having a hard time finding where your God created anything let alone the Universe. For the reasons you dismiss any other gods are the same reasons your God is dismissed.
These will do:

    Abassi
Abira
Adroa
Ahone
Aiomun-Kondi
Alatangana
Altjira
Amotken
Anansi
Anulap
Aramazd
Ataguju
Awonawilona
Bagadjimbiri
Bai-Ulgan
Baiame
Baiameskyfather
Banaitja
BataraKala
Bathala
Brahma
Bumba
Bunjil
Cagn
Cghene
Chiconahuiehecatl
Chirakan-Ixmucane
Chiuta
Cocijo
Daksha
Damballa
Elkunirsa
Enki
Eskeri
GitcheManitou
GreatSpirit
Gukumatz
Heryshaf
Huracan
HÅ“nir
Imra
Itherther
Ixpiyacoc
Izanagi
Jah
Kaang
Karora
Khnum
Khonvoum
Kneph
Kuk
Kukulkan
Mangar-kunjer-kunja
Mbere
MelekTaus
Muluku
Nanabozho
Ngai
Nogomain
Noncomala
Numakulla
Obatala
Olelbis
Omai
PachaKamaq
Pangu
Pariacaca
Prajapati
Ptah
Pundjel
Pluga
Qat
Quaoar
Quetzalcoatl
Rod
Ta'aroa
Tabaldak
Tengri
Tezcatlipoca
Tonacatecuhtli
Tupã
Tzacol
Unkulunkulu
Unumbotte
ViliandVé
Viracocha
Wak
Xamaba
Xumucane
Yahweh
YuanshiTianzun
Zamba


----------



## JB0704

stringmusic said:


> So Nazi Germany wins WW2, and that makes killing millions of people morally acceptable?



A few floors down, killin' lots of folks is an acceptable means to an end.  Speaking out to the contrary get's one labeled a liberal.


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> If you saw me pass a mother on the street and then rip her baby out of her hands and slash that babies throat and then laugh and tell you I did that because I thought it would be fun, would you find that wrong or distasteful. I know it's sick but true relativist have told me it's distasteful but they can't say its wrong because they have no higher authority on right and wrong.
> 
> Just because we don't have a 100% agreement that it is wrong doesn't mean most people wouldn't none the less tell you that is wrong even though they can't explain its "wrongness" by nature or might makes right or genetic predisposition or survival of the fittest or however you want to otherwise come up with the "why" its wrong.
> 
> You can't appeal to society, as the Germans and most recently Iraq and the middle east societies tried. At the Nuremberg trial Hitler's henchmen and in Iraq Saddam Hussein's henchman tried to argue they were obeying the laws of the land but that was not acceptable. Not because of might but as in the Nuremberg trials it was argued that there is a higher level of morality that is "obvious". Since none of these other origins for that absolute morality work as I have continually pointed out, I'm either left with no morality and I really can do whatever I feel like, or I am left with some absolute higher source by which I measure morality.



You can do whatever you feel like. It is just that society judges you by your actions because morals have evolved as society has evolved. In order to live together WE had to make up rules of what is acceptable and what is not. Where we are now in society is far different than 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, 10,000 years ago. We don't have 100% agreement because there is nothing to 100% agree on. There is not an absolute list anywhere to tell us Yes or No for each situation that arises. If so PLEASE show us where this absolute list is.


----------



## hummdaddy

compassion and empathy are learned  behavior that form our moral codes


----------



## outdooraddict

bullethead said:


> I am still having a hard time finding where your God created anything let alone the Universe. For the reasons you dismiss any other gods are the same reasons your God is dismissed.
> These will do:
> 
> Abassi
> Abira
> Adroa
> Ahone
> Aiomun-Kondi
> Alatangana
> Altjira
> Amotken
> Anansi
> Anulap
> Aramazd
> Ataguju
> Awonawilona
> Bagadjimbiri
> Bai-Ulgan
> Baiame
> Baiameskyfather
> Banaitja
> BataraKala
> Bathala
> Brahma
> Bumba
> Bunjil
> Cagn
> Cghene
> Chiconahuiehecatl
> Chirakan-Ixmucane
> Chiuta
> Cocijo
> Daksha
> Damballa
> Elkunirsa
> Enki
> Eskeri
> GitcheManitou
> GreatSpirit
> Gukumatz
> Heryshaf
> Huracan
> HÅ“nir
> Imra
> Itherther
> Ixpiyacoc
> Izanagi
> Jah
> Kaang
> Karora
> Khnum
> Khonvoum
> Kneph
> Kuk
> Kukulkan
> Mangar-kunjer-kunja
> Mbere
> MelekTaus
> Muluku
> Nanabozho
> Ngai
> Nogomain
> Noncomala
> Numakulla
> Obatala
> Olelbis
> Omai
> PachaKamaq
> Pangu
> Pariacaca
> Prajapati
> Ptah
> Pundjel
> Pluga
> Qat
> Quaoar
> Quetzalcoatl
> Rod
> Ta'aroa
> Tabaldak
> Tengri
> Tezcatlipoca
> Tonacatecuhtli
> Tupã
> Tzacol
> Unkulunkulu
> Unumbotte
> ViliandVé
> Viracocha
> Wak
> Xamaba
> Xumucane
> Yahweh
> YuanshiTianzun
> Zamba



Great so now, just as we did with the other gods, please point out which of these boil down to be the simplest quintessential ones that will explain all manâ€™s questions or could be the source for these presuppositions (the Logos of the universe) instead of unintelligible randomness. The presuppositions canâ€™t be from any gods within the universe because they must exist and form the logos at the point the universe begins in order for us to â€œknowâ€� anything- a priori knowledge.

*The Logos/presuppositions:*
The universe must exist
There must be an ultimate uncaused cause for things that exist
The cause for the existence of the universe must be outside of the universe
The universe must be rational
The universe must be approachable by your senses
You must be able to trust your senses
The universe must be approachable by your reasoning
You must be able to trust your reasoning
Rules of logic must apply in order to use reason
Rules of mathematics must exist in order to apply empiric observations
Rules must apply independent of experience (mathematics, 2+2=4 must be absolute and must exist before empiric science can work). 
Morality must exist (honesty in experimentation, reporting of findings, conclusions) 
Your thoughts must be trustworthy
Methods of communication must be trustworthy means for transferring concepts and sharing ideas between observers

It requires you to internally have a reliability to your thinking, not the product of random changes that lead to a survival benefit. Second, you be able to trust your senses(as Scrooge questioned Marley) , you could actually be living in the Matrix. Third, you must live in an external logical and consistent universe for which rules/a logos exists in order to apply those senses and analyze the data.

*Some of the questions:*
 Yoko Ono-What is real? Is anything real? 
Zhuangzi (369 BC) -One night I dreamed that i was a carefree butterfly, flying happily. After i woke up, i wondered how i could determine whether i was Zhuangzi who had just finished dreaming i was a butterfly, or a butterfly who had just started dreaming i was Zhuangzi 
The Greeks- why is there something instead of nothing, where do we find our origin, destiny, meaning, morality
Why does the universe appear designed for life (anthropic principle)
Why is there life in the universe

The god must be outside the universe (knocking out the Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and primitive tribe gods). The biblical God is outside of the universe, an uncaused cause, associated with a beginning point for the universe Gen 1:1 so he meets some of our needs.

You and I seem to think we can question and explore the universe so presuppositions must exist as opposed to being an illusion (knocking out the Eastern religion gods). 
How many of these Gods are left as possibilities as the source for these presuppositions or supply answers for these questions.

 Iâ€™m not saying the God of the bible is the source, Iâ€™m just helping you thin down that list.


----------



## outdooraddict

hummdaddy said:


> compassion and empathy are learned  behavior that form our moral codes



They may be learned behavior but you certainly haven't shown that they form our moral codes.


----------



## outdooraddict

bullethead said:


> You can do whatever you feel like. It is just that society judges you by your actions because morals have evolved as society has evolved. In order to live together WE had to make up rules of what is acceptable and what is not. Where we are now in society is far different than 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, 10,000 years ago. We don't have 100% agreement because there is nothing to 100% agree on. There is not an absolute list anywhere to tell us Yes or No for each situation that arises. If so PLEASE show us where this absolute list is.



Ok, you're a moral relativist, why is it so hard for anybody to come out and say this? You don't feel the above sick example is wrong just distasteful, along with slavery, rape, etc. So long as you don't claim anything is wrong, you are being consistent. The problem is you guys keep talking about the moral wrongness of the God of the bible while at the same time taking a relativist view that "you can do whatever you like". 

You can't escape to the level of society sets morals. We've already reviewed that and you guys have a whole other thread I see on the "evils" of slavery yet it was "right" in the Southern society and you label them as wrong. You can't have it both ways. Law of noncontradiction, either you believe there are no abosolute morals and stop complaining about how evil God or christians are OR you explain where absolute morals come from.


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> Ok, you're a moral relativist, why is it so hard for anybody to come out and say this? You don't feel the above sick example is wrong just distasteful, along with slavery, rape, etc. So long as you don't claim anything is wrong, you are being consistent. The problem is you guys keep talking about the moral wrongness of the God of the bible while at the same time taking a relativist view that "you can do whatever you like".
> 
> You can't escape to the level of society sets morals. We've already reviewed that and you guys have a whole other thread I see on the "evils" of slavery yet it was "right" in the Southern society and you label them as wrong. You can't have it both ways. Law of noncontradiction, either you believe there are no abosolute morals and stop complaining about how evil God or christians are OR you explain where absolute morals come from.



Now you are putting words in my mouth. That doesn't work for me. I personally felt the example was wrong as is slavery and rape. I don't believe everyone is right or everyone is wrong. They have the ability to judge for themselves and be judged by others. Ultimately it is your own personal control that either keeps you from doing something or your lack of that control to just say the heck with it and do it. Either way there are consequences that exist today that might not have existed years ago. People DO do whatever they like. They just have to accept the consequences from a society that will judge them for their actions. There are so many examples of "immoral" acts done every day. Like the guy Kidnapping women, raping them and holding them as hostages inside of his home for years and years. The guy either did not think he was doing wrong or did not care.  Either way he did it. He was not struck down by lightening for attempting to go through with the act. Now he pays the consequences for his actions. People decide his fate. He lives in a society where those things are not accepted. Maybe somewhere else on the planet nobody would bat an eyelash at his actions. Obviously though, he did not get the absolute morals memo at the office that week.
Society does set the morals. Had I been born in the South 150 years ago my idea of slavery might not be what it is today. Had I been born in Iran in 1969 and spent my entire life there I may have a very different set of morals than I do right now being born here in 1969. 
We are not complaining about morals from your God or Christians, we are pointing out the contradictions of both when we are told who has these absolute morals and where they get them from. If the one dishing out these morals can't follow them and his most devout believers do not follow them then something does not add up.

In all these conversations you have yet to give us an example of what you are claiming. You have not shown us what exactly absolute morals are, who follows them exactly or who gave us these morals. 7 billion people on the planet. Can you give me one that follows the absolute morals that is supposedly given to us all by your God? You have slathered us with logic that backs up why you believe but you have failed to give any hard evidence that anything you claim actually exists.
You are a great debater and you stick to the classic "rules" of debating. You take it all the way to the part where you should put the nail in the coffin and provide us with proof of what you have built up to that point. Where is it? We are not looking for another question from you to use as a turn the tables tactic, we would not need to discuss any of this if you could give us the facts that prove that what you are claiming is true.
Where are these absolute morals? If we all have them instilled into us Who follows them to the letter? Who has given us these morals.
We expect detailed provable answers. No assertions. No asking yourself another question phrased differently so you can tailor the answer to the way you want it. Please don't give us another detailed debating tactics 101 answer that explains why you believe or backs up why you believe...we know that already.
It is time to lay out the undeniable proof.


----------



## outdooraddict

bullethead said:


> Now you are putting words in my mouth. That doesn't work for me. I personally felt the example was wrong as is slavery and rape. I don't believe everyone is right or everyone is wrong. They have the ability to judge for themselves and be judged by others. Ultimately it is your own personal control that either keeps you from doing something or your lack of that control to just say the heck with it and do it. Either way there are consequences that exist today that might not have existed years ago. People DO do whatever they like. They just have to accept the consequences from a society that will judge them for their actions. There are so many examples of "immoral" acts done every day. Like the guy Kidnapping women, raping them and holding them as hostages inside of his home for years and years. The guy either did not think he was doing wrong or did not care.  Either way he did it. He was not struck down by lightening for attempting to go through with the act. Now he pays the consequences for his actions. People decide his fate. He lives in a society where those things are not accepted. Maybe somewhere else on the planet nobody would bat an eyelash at his actions. Obviously though, he did not get the absolute morals memo at the office that week.
> Society does set the morals. Had I been born in the South 150 years ago my idea of slavery might not be what it is today. Had I been born in Iran in 1969 and spent my entire life there I may have a very different set of morals than I do right now being born here in 1969.
> We are not complaining about morals from your God or Christians, we are pointing out the contradictions of both when we are told who has these absolute morals and where they get them from. If the one dishing out these morals can't follow them and his most devout believers do not follow them then something does not add up.
> 
> In all these conversations you have yet to give us an example of what you are claiming. You have not shown us what exactly absolute morals are, who follows them exactly or who gave us these morals. 7 billion people on the planet. Can you give me one that follows the absolute morals that is supposedly given to us all by your God? You have slathered us with logic that backs up why you believe but you have failed to give any hard evidence that anything you claim actually exists.
> You are a great debater and you stick to the classic "rules" of debating. You take it all the way to the part where you should put the nail in the coffin and provide us with proof of what you have built up to that point. Where is it? We are not looking for another question from you to use as a turn the tables tactic, we would not need to discuss any of this if you could give us the facts that prove that what you are claiming is true.
> Where are these absolute morals? If we all have them instilled into us Who follows them to the letter? Who has given us these morals.
> We expect detailed provable answers. No assertions. No asking yourself another question phrased differently so you can tailor the answer to the way you want it. Please don't give us another detailed debating tactics 101 answer that explains why you believe or backs up why you believe...we know that already.
> It is time to lay out the undeniable proof.



Thank you and please indulge me one more time. I think the logic 101 is crucial or we can’t really have a meaningful conversation.  I really have to beat to death why these other ways of arriving at morality don’t work because it’s critical to getting to my reasons. I haven’t jumped to a conclusion of God as the moral source, I’ve ruled out my other options.

 It’s very important to establish the logical fallacies, circular reasoning and inconsistencies that everyone has been putting out because I wanted to try all these other possibilities first. I prefer not to answer to a God or be subject to an absolute moral standard. Please forgive me but I must point out one more logical fallacy called distinction without a difference.  I think by saying not to put words in your mouth that you are saying you are not a moral relativist but then you said “That *doesn't work for me*. *I personally felt* the example was wrong as is slavery and rape. *I don't believe* everyone is right or everyone is wrong. They have the ability to *judge for themselves* and be judged by others. Ultimately it is *your own personal control* that either keeps you from doing something or your lack of that control to just say the heck with it and do it.” 

These are statements of relativism!

I think the fundamental question, as I continue to bring us back to, is whether morals are absolute or relative. Everybody has tried to come up with a way to have absolute morals but none of it works.

 I have already explained why I don’t see that society does morality gives you absolute morals and I have already pointed out the problems you end up with such as slave societies, Nazi societies, etc. If societies define morality then it is relative and not absolute so there is no way that someone “should” behave. The Nazis and Saddam’s henchmen would have been correct in claiming they did nothing wrong because they followed their own laws. Rape is only wrong if it isn’t acceptable in your society. If you are in a Muslim extremist society where a woman has little value then rape is fine. There is no absolute moral rule.

Evolution can’t do absolute morality. As I’ve said, naturalistic evolution is based on the occurrence of random events with those that confer a survival advantage “sticking” in the gene pool. There is no absolute moral rule. Rape is appropriate if the strongest individual with the best genes does the raping. In fact, the closest thing to an evolutionary moral would demand that the strongest rape in order to promote the good of the group as somebody tried to keep arguing for (even though natural selection only works at the individual level, The Selfish Gene- R Dawkins).

Nature and observation don’t provide us with absolute morality. As we have already discussed, some animals guard their young and some eat them. Some animals mate for life and others eat their mate. So observing nature gets us nowhere.

Some have advocated might make right morality. This in fact is not morality at all but anarchy and a lack of any morals to guide behavior. You are merely saying that if I can beat up a woman and rape her so what. As a statement of truth it is self-defeating because since it is a minority opinion and not held by force and might, it must not be true because only might makes it right. So this is not a position for an absolute morality or any morality and as a truth statement is self defeating.

An absolute morality would tell us how we “ought” to behave. It not only provides list A “good stuff” and list B “bad stuff”, but it has an expectation that you ought to choose good not bad, but why?

An absolute morality is not just about behavior. As I said before is it morally wrong to trip grandma? Well it depends on intent, maybe it was an accident and clumsy but not immoral. It also depends on purpose, if I did it on purpose was I trying to hurt grandma or stop her before she stepped in front of a bus? So, morality cannot be defined as a behavior.

The only choices left are a transcendent set of laws which logically require a source, or relativism.

Pragmatically, almost no one really believes in relativism. Some claim to but as has been said in the past, if you want to disprove a relativist steal their stereo. Immediately they believe in an absolute moral and feel the thief wronged them. They never say “well if you believe it’s ok to steal then that’s fine for you”. No one that I know who claims to be a relativist has been able to use this as a real directive for their own behavior. They usually say something like this “everybody should decide for themselves, you should stop telling people how to behave/you Christians shouldn’t judge people/nobody has the right to tell others how to act”. This is obviously self defeating because the moral relativist is the first to judge others like the Christian and is quick to tell others how to behave. Therefore, relativism does not seem to work and the loudest proponents for it violate it immediately.

That leaves a transcendent source.  Gods or some moral authority seems to be the logical source. As we discussed earlier, the God must be creative and must be outside of the creation or else he would be subject to the rules of the universe not the source for it and we would still be looking for an uncaused cause to explain why there was a universe or the laws, moral or otherwise, in it. Gen 1:1 describes one such possibility. Most all other gods are a part of the universe, part of the creation and therefore have removed themselves from the running. Greek and Roman gods may torture you into doing what they want but they do not provide us with an absolute moral code. Second to be absolute you certainly can’t be an “illusion”. You can’t simultaneously be the source for absolute morals and at the same time declare that all is an illusion, nothing is real or as it seems. That takes the eastern religion gods out.
That leaves me with the God of the bible and for theologic reasons takes me on to the New Testament. The cliff notes for morality in the New Testament is summed up very quickly by someone who claims to be the Logos/the word/ the rationale for the universe. He said” love God and love your fellow man as you love yourself, all the laws and the prophets hang on this”. How does one love God? He says by following his commandments. Why does he want you to follow his commandments? For the same reason your doctor wants you to fill your prescription (and I get that, I’m a physician). It’s not because I will throw a fit if you don’t do what I want, it’s because it’s my job to know what you need and it matters to me whether or not you get better.

I agree that pain and suffering are a problem. I know because my first born suffers from serious medical problems and has since birth. It doesn’t seem fair but that begs the moral question of fair that we are discussing and means I need a lot more information than I presently possess to really decide the fate of myself or my child and I’m not up to that task. Old Testament history is hard to deal with from the lens of our present culture that says we should answer to no one, no one knows more than me, and no one should ever feel pain, just put us in the Matrix and give us an alternative reality. However, these problems are really for the Christian NOT the atheist. As above, if there is no God I see no source for absolute morals and without absolute morals you can’t claim God is bad. You can’t deny absolute morals and then rage against God because he is immoral.

So what is my conclusion of absolute morals? Love God and love(agape, “do what’s best for”)  your fellow man as you love yourself. That’s why the soldier who dies for the village is a hero and does good even if he ends his own survival and even if he doesn’t get to pass on his genes and even if in nature we see the deer run from a threat. It doesn't matter if he is a christian, and it doesn't matter whether he believes in good anymore than he has to believe in gravity to make it work. He has done good. It’s why rape is wrong no matter what your society says or how mighty you are or how it will help you spread your genes.


----------



## hummdaddy

outdooraddict said:


> They may be learned behavior but you certainly haven't shown that they form our moral codes.



WILL THIS WORK ,OR DO YOU COMPREHEND IT!!! I ALREADY POSTED IT ONCE....

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compassion
com·pas·sion noun \kÉ™m-Ëˆpa-shÉ™n\

Definition of COMPASSION

: sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...0&t=1375925715
em·pa·thy noun \Ëˆem-pÉ™-thÄ“\

Definition of EMPATHY

1
: the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it
2
: the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also : the capacity for this


----------



## outdooraddict

hummdaddy said:


> WILL THIS WORK ,OR DO YOU COMPREHEND IT!!! I ALREADY POSTED IT ONCE....
> 
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compassion
> com·pas·sion noun \kÉ™m-Ëˆpa-shÉ™n\
> 
> Definition of COMPASSION
> 
> : sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it
> 
> 
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...0&t=1375925715
> em·pa·thy noun \Ëˆem-pÉ™-thÄ“\
> 
> Definition of EMPATHY
> 
> 1
> : the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it
> 2
> : the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also : the capacity for this



works fine for me, I know what empathy means. Thanks. You crack me up. I'm up at 1 AM trying to do the best I can to explain why I believe what I believe and you're mad that I didn't acknowledge that you looked up what empathy means. That's actually funny.


----------



## stringmusic

outdooraddict said:


> Thank you and please indulge me one more time. I think the logic 101 is crucial or we can’t really have a meaningful conversation.  I really have to beat to death why these other ways of arriving at morality don’t work because it’s critical to getting to my reasons. I haven’t jumped to a conclusion of God as the moral source, I’ve ruled out my other options.
> 
> It’s very important to establish the logical fallacies, circular reasoning and inconsistencies that everyone has been putting out because I wanted to try all these other possibilities first. I prefer not to answer to a God or be subject to an absolute moral standard. Please forgive me but I must point out one more logical fallacy called distinction without a difference.  I think by saying not to put words in your mouth that you are saying you are not a moral relativist but then you said “That *doesn't work for me*. *I personally felt* the example was wrong as is slavery and rape. *I don't believe* everyone is right or everyone is wrong. They have the ability to *judge for themselves* and be judged by others. Ultimately it is *your own personal control* that either keeps you from doing something or your lack of that control to just say the heck with it and do it.”
> 
> These are statements of relativism!
> 
> I think the fundamental question, as I continue to bring us back to, is whether morals are absolute or relative. Everybody has tried to come up with a way to have absolute morals but none of it works.
> 
> I have already explained why I don’t see that society does morality gives you absolute morals and I have already pointed out the problems you end up with such as slave societies, Nazi societies, etc. If societies define morality then it is relative and not absolute so there is no way that someone “should” behave. The Nazis and Saddam’s henchmen would have been correct in claiming they did nothing wrong because they followed their own laws. Rape is only wrong if it isn’t acceptable in your society. If you are in a Muslim extremist society where a woman has little value then rape is fine. There is no absolute moral rule.
> 
> Evolution can’t do absolute morality. As I’ve said, naturalistic evolution is based on the occurrence of random events with those that confer a survival advantage “sticking”. There is no absolute moral rule. Rape is appropriate if the strongest individual with the best genes does the raping. In fact, the closest thing to an evolutionary moral would demand that the strongest rape in order to promote the good of the group as somebody tried to keep arguing for (even though natural selection only works at the individual level, The Selfish Gene- R Dawkins).
> 
> Nature and observation don’t provide us with absolute morality. As we have already discussed, some animals guard there young and some eat them. Some animals mate for life and others eat their mate. So observing nature gets us nowhere.
> 
> Some have advocated might make right morality. This in fact is not morality at all but anarchy and a lack of any morals to guide behavior. You are merely saying that if I can beat up a woman and rape her so what. As a statement of truth it is self-defeating because since it is a minority opinion and not held by force and might, it must not be true because only might makes it right. So this is not a position for an absolute morality or any morality and as a truth statement is self defeating.
> 
> An absolute morality would tell us how we “ought” to behave. It not only provides list A “good stuff” and list B “bad stuff”, but it has an expectation that you ought to choose good not bad, but why?
> 
> An absolute morality is not just about behavior. As I said before is it morally wrong to trip grandma? Well it depends on intent, maybe it was an accident and clumsy but not immoral. It also depends on purpose, if I did it on purpose was I trying to hurt grandma or stop her before she stepped in front of a bus? So, morality cannot be defined as a behavior.
> 
> The only choices left are a transcendent set of laws which logically require a source, or relativism.
> 
> Pragmatically, almost no one really believes in relativism. Some claim to but as has been said in the past, if you want to disprove a relativist steal their stereo. Immediately they believe in an absolute moral and feel the thief wronged them. They never say “well if you believe it’s ok to steal then that’s fine for you”. No one that I know who claims to be a relativist has been able to use this as a real directive for their own behavior. They usually say something like this “everybody should decide for themselves, you should stop telling people how to behave/you Christians shouldn’t judge people/nobody has the right to tell others how to act”. This is obviously self defeating because the moral relativist is the first to judge others like the Christian and is quick to tell others how to behave. Therefore, relativism does not seem to work and the loudest proponents for it violate it immediately.
> 
> That leaves a transcendent source.  Gods or some moral authority seems to be the logical source. As we discussed earlier, the God must be creative and must be outside of the creation or else he would be subject to the rules of the universe not the source for it and we would still be looking for an uncaused cause to explain why there was a universe or the laws, moral or otherwise, in it. Gen 1:1 describes one such possibility. Most all other gods are a part of the universe, part of the creation and therefore have removed themselves from the running. Greek and Roman gods may torture you into doing what they want but they do not provide us with an absolute moral code. Second to be absolute you certainly can’t be an “illusion”. You can’t simultaneously be the source for absolute morals and at the same time declare that all is an illusion, nothing is real or as it seems. That takes the eastern religion gods out.
> That leaves me with the God of the bible and for theologic reasons takes me on to the New Testament. The cliff notes for morality in the New Testament is summed up very quickly by someone who claims to be the Logos/the word/ the rationale for the universe. He said” love God and love your fellow man as you love yourself, all the laws and the prophets hang on this”. How does one love God? He says by following his commandments. Why does he want you to follow his commandments? For the same reason your doctor wants you to fill your prescription (and I get that, I’m a physician). It’s not because I will throw a fit if you don’t do what I want, it’s because it’s my job to know what you need and it matters to me whether or not you get better.
> 
> I agree that pain and suffering are a problem. I know because my first born suffers from serious medical problems and has since birth. It doesn’t seem fair but that begs the moral question of fair that we are discussing and means I need a lot more information than I presently possess to really decide the fate of myself or my child and I’m not up to that task. Old Testament history is hard to deal with from the lens of our present culture that says we should answer to no one, no one knows more than me, and no one should ever feel pain, just put us in the Matrix and give us an alternative reality. However, these problems are really for the Christian NOT the atheist. As above, if there is no God I see no source for absolute morals and without absolute morals you can’t claim God is bad. You can’t deny absolute morals and then rage against God because he is immoral.
> 
> So what is my conclusion of absolute morals? Love God and love(agape, “do what’s best for”)  your fellow man as you love yourself. That’s why the soldier who dies for the village is a hero and does good even if he ends his own survival and even if he doesn’t get to pass on his genes and even if in nature we see the deer run from a threat. It doesn't matter if he is a christian, and it doesn't matter whether he believes in good anymore than he has to believe in gravity to make it work. He has done good. It’s why rape is wrong no matter what your society says or how mighty you are or how it will help you spread your genes.



Wow. One of the best post I've ever read in this forum.

Thanks for taking the time to write all that out.


----------



## stringmusic

I would just like to throw something else out there that I don't think has been talked about yet in this thread.

To make a moral statement, "slavery is wrong" or "rape is wrong" is to imply an inherent meaning and value to the slave or the person being raped.

To make either statement, one must first establish that a human life has value and meaning. To say, "that person shouldn't be a slave" is to imply that person's life means more than being tortured and forced to do what another tells them to do.

So, before ANY moral judgement can be made, a person must first establish _objective_ value and meaning to human life.


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> Thank you and please indulge me one more time. I think the logic 101 is crucial or we can’t really have a meaningful conversation.  I really have to beat to death why these other ways of arriving at morality don’t work because it’s critical to getting to my reasons. I haven’t jumped to a conclusion of God as the moral source, I’ve ruled out my other options.
> 
> It’s very important to establish the logical fallacies, circular reasoning and inconsistencies that everyone has been putting out because I wanted to try all these other possibilities first. I prefer not to answer to a God or be subject to an absolute moral standard. Please forgive me but I must point out one more logical fallacy called distinction without a difference.  I think by saying not to put words in your mouth that you are saying you are not a moral relativist but then you said “That *doesn't work for me*. *I personally felt* the example was wrong as is slavery and rape. *I don't believe* everyone is right or everyone is wrong. They have the ability to *judge for themselves* and be judged by others. Ultimately it is *your own personal control* that either keeps you from doing something or your lack of that control to just say the heck with it and do it.”
> 
> These are statements of relativism!
> 
> I think the fundamental question, as I continue to bring us back to, is whether morals are absolute or relative. Everybody has tried to come up with a way to have absolute morals but none of it works.
> 
> I have already explained why I don’t see that society does morality gives you absolute morals and I have already pointed out the problems you end up with such as slave societies, Nazi societies, etc. If societies define morality then it is relative and not absolute so there is no way that someone “should” behave. The Nazis and Saddam’s henchmen would have been correct in claiming they did nothing wrong because they followed their own laws. Rape is only wrong if it isn’t acceptable in your society. If you are in a Muslim extremist society where a woman has little value then rape is fine. There is no absolute moral rule.
> 
> Evolution can’t do absolute morality. As I’ve said, naturalistic evolution is based on the occurrence of random events with those that confer a survival advantage “sticking”. There is no absolute moral rule. Rape is appropriate if the strongest individual with the best genes does the raping. In fact, the closest thing to an evolutionary moral would demand that the strongest rape in order to promote the good of the group as somebody tried to keep arguing for (even though natural selection only works at the individual level, The Selfish Gene- R Dawkins).
> 
> Nature and observation don’t provide us with absolute morality. As we have already discussed, some animals guard there young and some eat them. Some animals mate for life and others eat their mate. So observing nature gets us nowhere.
> 
> Some have advocated might make right morality. This in fact is not morality at all but anarchy and a lack of any morals to guide behavior. You are merely saying that if I can beat up a woman and rape her so what. As a statement of truth it is self-defeating because since it is a minority opinion and not held by force and might, it must not be true because only might makes it right. So this is not a position for an absolute morality or any morality and as a truth statement is self defeating.
> 
> An absolute morality would tell us how we “ought” to behave. It not only provides list A “good stuff” and list B “bad stuff”, but it has an expectation that you ought to choose good not bad, but why?
> 
> An absolute morality is not just about behavior. As I said before is it morally wrong to trip grandma? Well it depends on intent, maybe it was an accident and clumsy but not immoral. It also depends on purpose, if I did it on purpose was I trying to hurt grandma or stop her before she stepped in front of a bus? So, morality cannot be defined as a behavior.
> 
> The only choices left are a transcendent set of laws which logically require a source, or relativism.
> 
> Pragmatically, almost no one really believes in relativism. Some claim to but as has been said in the past, if you want to disprove a relativist steal their stereo. Immediately they believe in an absolute moral and feel the thief wronged them. They never say “well if you believe it’s ok to steal then that’s fine for you”. No one that I know who claims to be a relativist has been able to use this as a real directive for their own behavior. They usually say something like this “everybody should decide for themselves, you should stop telling people how to behave/you Christians shouldn’t judge people/nobody has the right to tell others how to act”. This is obviously self defeating because the moral relativist is the first to judge others like the Christian and is quick to tell others how to behave. Therefore, relativism does not seem to work and the loudest proponents for it violate it immediately.
> 
> That leaves a transcendent source.  Gods or some moral authority seems to be the logical source. As we discussed earlier, the God must be creative and must be outside of the creation or else he would be subject to the rules of the universe not the source for it and we would still be looking for an uncaused cause to explain why there was a universe or the laws, moral or otherwise, in it. Gen 1:1 describes one such possibility. Most all other gods are a part of the universe, part of the creation and therefore have removed themselves from the running. Greek and Roman gods may torture you into doing what they want but they do not provide us with an absolute moral code. Second to be absolute you certainly can’t be an “illusion”. You can’t simultaneously be the source for absolute morals and at the same time declare that all is an illusion, nothing is real or as it seems. That takes the eastern religion gods out.
> That leaves me with the God of the bible and for theologic reasons takes me on to the New Testament. The cliff notes for morality in the New Testament is summed up very quickly by someone who claims to be the Logos/the word/ the rationale for the universe. He said” love God and love your fellow man as you love yourself, all the laws and the prophets hang on this”. How does one love God? He says by following his commandments. Why does he want you to follow his commandments? For the same reason your doctor wants you to fill your prescription (and I get that, I’m a physician). It’s not because I will throw a fit if you don’t do what I want, it’s because it’s my job to know what you need and it matters to me whether or not you get better.
> 
> I agree that pain and suffering are a problem. I know because my first born suffers from serious medical problems and has since birth. It doesn’t seem fair but that begs the moral question of fair that we are discussing and means I need a lot more information than I presently possess to really decide the fate of myself or my child and I’m not up to that task. Old Testament history is hard to deal with from the lens of our present culture that says we should answer to no one, no one knows more than me, and no one should ever feel pain, just put us in the Matrix and give us an alternative reality. However, these problems are really for the Christian NOT the atheist. As above, if there is no God I see no source for absolute morals and without absolute morals you can’t claim God is bad. You can’t deny absolute morals and then rage against God because he is immoral.
> 
> So what is my conclusion of absolute morals? Love God and love(agape, “do what’s best for”)  your fellow man as you love yourself. That’s why the soldier who dies for the village is a hero and does good even if he ends his own survival and even if he doesn’t get to pass on his genes and even if in nature we see the deer run from a threat. It doesn't matter if he is a christian, and it doesn't matter whether he believes in good anymore than he has to believe in gravity to make it work. He has done good. It’s why rape is wrong no matter what your society says or how mighty you are or how it will help you spread your genes.



Again, well put and in depth as to why you believe there are absolute morals. 
You used one line in the New Testament to back it all up but skipped over hundred's of examples within the same book that show the exact opposite of what you are talking about. 
It is like telling me about of your favorite off road pick-up truck that you claim to have built from scratch while telling me what an awesome and reliable machine it is, how it performs, and you give me details about the engine, transmission, drivetrain, lift kit etc. You spare no detail. But you are telling me all this in your garage and the vehicle sitting in the garage is busted and broken unable to run, and it is a different make and model entirely from the one in the video, in fact it is a 1973 Beetle yet you are insisting THAT is the truck! 
Where's the truck? 
"Oh I don't keep it here. I keep it in a garage across town"
Lets go see it
"Oh uhh, did I say across town, I mean out of state"
I'm up for a road trip
"oh, umm, the truck is on tour with a  traveling off road show"

Just excuses with no real evidence

Your example of a God is nowhere to be found. The example of a God you are trying to pass off here as THE source of morality has been the worst offender of morality ever. And his handbook is loaded with himself and his chosen people tossing morals aside in order to accomplish whatever they want accomplished.
It is the typical Do as I say, not as I do religious nonsense.
If your God cannot lead by example then why call it God?

So far we have an in depth post about why you believe as you do.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> I would just like to throw something else out there that I don't think has been talked about yet in this thread.
> 
> To make a moral statement, "slavery is wrong" or "rape is wrong" is to imply an inherent meaning and value to the slave or the person being raped.
> 
> To make either statement, one must first establish that a human life has value and meaning. To say, "that person shouldn't be a slave" is to imply that person's life means more than being tortured and forced to do what another tells them to do.
> 
> So, before ANY moral judgement can be made, a person must first establish _objective_ value and meaning to human life.



Then why does your God condone slavery?


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> Again, well put and in depth as to why you believe there are absolute morals.
> You used one line in the New Testament to back it all up but skipped over hundred's of examples within the same book that show the exact opposite of what you are talking about.
> It is like telling me about of your favorite off road pick-up truck that you claim to have built from scratch while telling me what an awesome and reliable machine it is, how it performs, and you give me details about the engine, transmission, drivetrain, lift kit etc. You spare no detail. But you are telling me all this in your garage and the vehicle sitting in the garage is busted and broken unable to run, and it is a different make and model entirely from the one in the video, in fact it is a 1973 Beetle yet you are insisting THAT is the truck!
> 
> Your example of a God is nowhere to be found. The example of a God you are trying to pass off here as THE source of morality has been the worst offender of morality ever. And his handbook is loaded with himself and his chosen people tossing morals aside in order to accomplish whatever they want accomplished.
> It is the typical Do as I say, not as I do religious nonsense.
> If your God cannot lead by example then why call it God?
> 
> So far we have an in depth post about why you believe as you do.


Already addressed.


			
				outdooraddict said:
			
		

> Old Testament history is hard to deal with from the lens of our present culture that says we should answer to no one, no one knows more than me, and no one should ever feel pain, just put us in the Matrix and give us an alternative reality. However, these problems are really for the Christian NOT the atheist. As above, if there is no God I see no source for absolute morals and without absolute morals you can’t claim God is bad. You can’t deny absolute morals and then rage against God because he is immoral.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> Then why does your God condone slavery?


My God doesn't condone slavery.

Are you going to address anything in my post?


----------



## outdooraddict

bullethead said:


> Again, well put and in depth as to why you believe there are absolute morals.
> You used one line in the New Testament to back it all up but skipped over hundred's of examples within the same book that show the exact opposite of what you are talking about.
> It is like telling me about of your favorite off road pick-up truck that you claim to have built from scratch while telling me what an awesome and reliable machine it is, how it performs, and you give me details about the engine, transmission, drivetrain, lift kit etc. You spare no detail. But you are telling me all this in your garage and the vehicle sitting in the garage is busted and broken unable to run, and it is a different make and model entirely from the one in the video, in fact it is a 1973 Beetle yet you are insisting THAT is the truck!
> 
> Your example of a God is nowhere to be found. The example of a God you are trying to pass off here as THE source of morality has been the worst offender of morality ever. And his handbook is loaded with himself and his chosen people tossing morals aside in order to accomplish whatever they want accomplished.
> It is the typical Do as I say, not as I do religious nonsense.
> If your God cannot lead by example then why call it God?
> 
> So far we have an in depth post about why you believe as you do.



Yup. I tried not to turn to the bible at all except to point out Gen 1:1 as to why God is consistent with what we know by other means, and the basic tenets for my morality which you kept saying you wanted. Now you change the subject as many do and deny absolute bad and good (or fail to give the reason) then charge God with being bad.

I believe in gravity but if I jump out of an airplane (and I don't ever see that happening) it doesn't mean I don't really believe in gravity or the fragility of my bones, there might be another explanation.

However, that conversation can't happen or at least make sense if you don't believe in gravity to begin with.

You will have a hard time explaining your truck to me if I don't believe trucks exist or that the parts are real as opposed to your opinion of their existence.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> Already addressed.



That satisfies you maybe.
To me it says overlook that stuff and look at this other stuff.


----------



## outdooraddict

stringmusic said:


> Wow. One of the best post I've ever read in this forum.
> 
> Thanks for taking the time to write all that out.



Your welcome


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> Yup. I tried not to turn to the bible at all except to point out Gen 1:1 as to why God is consistent with what we know by other means, and the basic tenets for my morality which you kept saying you wanted. Now you change the subject as many do and deny absolute bad and good (or fail to give the reason) then charge God with being bad.
> 
> I believe in gravity but if I jump out of an airplane (and I don't ever see that happening) it doesn't mean I don't really believe in gravity or the fragility of my bones, there might be another explanation.
> 
> However, that conversation can't happen or at least make sense if you don't believe in gravity to begin with.
> 
> You will have a hard time explaining your truck to me if I don't believe trucks exist or that the parts are real as opposed to your opinion of their existence.



See I am open minded and all I require is proof.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> Already addressed.



Don't look behind the curtain.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> I would just like to throw something else out there that I don't think has been talked about yet in this thread.
> 
> To make a moral statement, "slavery is wrong" or "rape is wrong" is to imply an inherent meaning and value to the slave or the person being raped.
> 
> To make either statement, one must first establish that a human life has value and meaning. To say, "that person shouldn't be a slave" is to imply that person's life means more than being tortured and forced to do what another tells them to do.
> 
> So, before ANY moral judgement can be made, a person must first establish _objective_ value and meaning to human life.



A statement like that can be made based off of one's personal feelings and sympathy for another human.

What would have to be established first in order to say the opposite?


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> A statement like that can be made based off of one's personal feelings and sympathy for another human.
> 
> What would have to be established first in order to say the opposite?



Do humans have objective value?


----------



## bullethead

off to work, Ill jump back in later.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> Do humans have objective value?



String, no one has given us a legitimate example of a human that lives a life based off of and actually possesses and follows absolute moral values.

We can argue(and do) what we are supposed to have, who  has what, where it came from, but in the end examples rule. Provable examples rule.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> String, no one has given us a legitimate example of a human that lives a life based off of and actually possesses and follows absolute moral values.
> 
> We can argue(and do) what we are supposed to have, who  has what, where it came from, but in the end examples rule. Provable examples rule.



So, do humans have objective value?


----------



## ddd-shooter

bullethead said:


> String, no one has given us a legitimate example of a human that lives a life based off of and actually possesses and follows absolute moral values.
> 
> We can argue(and do) what we are supposed to have, who  has what, where it came from, but in the end examples rule. Provable examples rule.



Jesus.


----------



## David Parker




----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> So, do humans have objective value?



Give me a definition of what meaning you want to use here.


----------



## bullethead

ddd-shooter said:


> Jesus.



We have highlights of 3 years of his life. Nothing before and nothing in between these highlights. Within those highlights I believe there is some serious embellishments to the stories.
Jesus doesn't cut it because we don't really know anything about him. Your gonna have to find a few examples outside of your God. If your God has given over 7 billion people(alive right now) with all of these morals there has got to be a few that stand out.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> Give me a definition of what meaning you want to use here.



Look up the words "objective" and "value" and use those definitions.


----------



## outdooraddict

bullethead said:


> See I am open minded and all I require is proof.



...and a few presuppositions a priori that seem to require a source or validity or reason to trust them

The Logos/presuppositions:
The universe must exist
There must be an ultimate uncaused cause for things that exist
The cause for the existence of the universe must be outside of the universe
The universe must be rational
The universe must be approachable by your senses
You must be able to trust your senses
The universe must be approachable by your reasoning
You must be able to trust your reasoning
Rules of logic must apply in order to use reason
Rules of mathematics must exist in order to apply empiric observations
Rules must apply independent of experience (mathematics, 2+2=4 must be absolute and must exist before empiric science can work). 
Morality must exist (honesty in experimentation, reporting of findings, conclusions) 
Your thoughts must be trustworthy
Methods of communication must be trustworthy means for transferring concepts and sharing ideas between observers

You require an internal reliability to your thinking as opposed to the product of random changes that lead to a survival benefit; you need to be able to trust your senses; and you must live in an external logical and consistent universe for which rules/a logos exists in order to apply those senses and analyze the data.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> Look up the words "objective" and "value" and use those definitions.



post specifically what you want to use


----------



## stringmusic

outdooraddict said:


> ...and a few presuppositions a priori that seem to require a source or validity or reason to trust them
> 
> The Logos/presuppositions:
> The universe must exist
> There must be an ultimate uncaused cause for things that exist
> The cause for the existence of the universe must be outside of the universe
> The universe must be rational
> The universe must be approachable by your senses
> You must be able to trust your senses
> The universe must be approachable by your reasoning
> You must be able to trust your reasoning
> Rules of logic must apply in order to use reason
> Rules of mathematics must exist in order to apply empiric observations
> Rules must apply independent of experience (mathematics, 2+2=4 must be absolute and must exist before empiric science can work).
> Morality must exist (honesty in experimentation, reporting of findings, conclusions)
> Your thoughts must be trustworthy
> Methods of communication must be trustworthy means for transferring concepts and sharing ideas between observers
> 
> You require an internal reliability to your thinking as opposed to the product of random changes that lead to a survival benefit; you need to be able to trust your senses; and you must live in an external logical and consistent universe for which rules/a logos exists in order to apply those senses and analyze the data.



If I understand Bullet correctly, over the course of years of diologe with him in this forum, logic is not proof for him to believe, he's going to have to be able to see God.


----------



## outdooraddict

stringmusic said:


> If I understand Bullet correctly, over the course of years of diologe with him in this forum, logic is not proof for him to believe, he's going to have to be able to see God.



Like I see gravity and magnetic force


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> post specifically what you want to use



ob·jec·tive (b-jktv)
adj.
1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
3. 
a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
4. Medicine Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease by someone other than the person affected.
5. Grammar 
a. Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb.
b. Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.
n.
1. Something that actually exists.
2. Something worked toward or striven for; a goal. See Synonyms at intention.
3. Grammar 
a. The objective case.
b. A noun or pronoun in the objective case.
4. The lens or lens system in a microscope or other optical instrument that first receives light rays from the object and forms the image. Also called object glass, objective lens, object lens.

val·ue (vly)
n.
1. An amount, as of goods, services, or money, considered to be a fair and suitable equivalent for something else; a fair price or return.
2. Monetary or material worth: the fluctuating value of gold and silver.
3. Worth in usefulness or importance to the possessor; utility or merit: the value of an education.
4. A principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable: "The speech was a summons back to the patrician values of restraint and responsibility" (Jonathan Alter).
5. Precise meaning or import, as of a word.
6. Mathematics An assigned or calculated numerical quantity.
7. Music The relative duration of a tone or rest.
8. The relative darkness or lightness of a color. See Table at color.
9. Linguistics The sound quality of a letter or diphthong.
10. One of a series of specified values: issued a stamp of new value.


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> Like I see gravity and magnetic force



Is your God no better than gravity or a magnetic force?
Could your God show himself to me?


----------



## stringmusic

outdooraddict said:


> Like I see gravity and magnetic force


Oh no, he accepts those based on logic, just not God. He holds God to a higher standard.

I don't mean to speak for you here Bullet, but what I'm saying is the truth and I don't think you would have a problem with anything I'm saying.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> ob·jec·tive (b-jktv)
> adj.
> 1. Of or having to do with a material object.
> 2. Having actual existence or reality.
> 3.
> a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
> b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
> 4. Medicine Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease by someone other than the person affected.
> 5. Grammar
> a. Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb.
> b. Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.
> n.
> 1. Something that actually exists.
> 2. Something worked toward or striven for; a goal. See Synonyms at intention.
> 3. Grammar
> a. The objective case.
> b. A noun or pronoun in the objective case.
> 4. The lens or lens system in a microscope or other optical instrument that first receives light rays from the object and forms the image. Also called object glass, objective lens, object lens.
> 
> val·ue (vly)
> n.
> 1. An amount, as of goods, services, or money, considered to be a fair and suitable equivalent for something else; a fair price or return.
> 2. Monetary or material worth: the fluctuating value of gold and silver.
> 3. Worth in usefulness or importance to the possessor; utility or merit: the value of an education.
> 4. A principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable: "The speech was a summons back to the patrician values of restraint and responsibility" (Jonathan Alter).
> 5. Precise meaning or import, as of a word.
> 6. Mathematics An assigned or calculated numerical quantity.
> 7. Music The relative duration of a tone or rest.
> 8. The relative darkness or lightness of a color. See Table at color.
> 9. Linguistics The sound quality of a letter or diphthong.
> 10. One of a series of specified values: issued a stamp of new value.



Ok, 3b is out then?


----------



## David Parker




----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> Oh no, he accepts those based on logic, just not God. He holds God to a higher standard.
> 
> I don't mean to speak for you here Bullet, but what I'm saying is the truth and I don't think you would have a problem with anything I'm saying.



So far no I do not have a problem with anything that you have said.

I hear all the time that God is above our standards. I tend to think that something of his capabilities should be held to a higher standard than gravity or magnetic fields.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> Ok, 3b is out then?



You could use 3b if you'd like.


----------



## outdooraddict

bullethead said:


> Is your God no better than gravity or a magnetic force?
> Could your God show himself to me?



He's better, its just that the reasoning for belief in him is similar to the rationale for belief in the other forces. Ochkams razor and the best explanation for the things I observe, such the universe and its anthropic principle; and for the things I use, such as those a priori presuppositions.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> So far no I do not have a problem with anything that you have said.
> 
> I hear all the time that God is above our standards. I tend to think that something of his capabilities should be held to a higher standard than gravity or magnetic fields.


Valid point Bullet.

That's still not evidence against God existing in the first place though. You seem to have a problem with the way things are, that is, that you cannot see God. God is a Spirit, and He is invisible so by definition you cannot see Him.

God did reveal Himself through Christ's physical apperence on earth though, you were just born a little late and on the wrong continent to be able to actually see Him, you would have to take it on faith.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> Valid point Bullet.
> 
> That's still not evidence against God existing in the first place though. You seem to have a problem with the way things are, that is, that you cannot see God. God is a Spirit, and He is invisible so by definition you cannot see Him.
> 
> God did reveal Himself through Christ's physical apperence on earth though, you were just born a little late and on the wrong continent to be able to actually see Him, you would have to take it on faith.



You have to understand that I have not seen any evidence of God existing in the first place.

I do not think I am alone in my thoughts about not believing Christ had anything to do with God. If I was like one of four people left on the planet to think so...I might take a step back and re-think it. I just cannot use what is in the Bible as any sort of facts. I am sorry but I do not believe the stories that were written and assembled over 1500 years are the works of any sort of super being. I do not buy into that line of thought at all.
Again a God that needs man to take 1500 years to write his thoughts and laws is not my idea of a God.


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> He's better, its just that the reasoning for belief in him is similar to the rationale for belief in the other forces. Ochkams razor and the best explanation for the things I observe, such the universe and its anthropic principle; and for the things I use, such as those a priori presuppositions.



Ok, He's better. But I have to take your word on that. You see what I mean?
I don't see it. I don't know it. He has not revealed himself to me in any way other than a book written solely by man, different men, anonymous men, and it took over 1500 years to write and put together.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> You have to understand that I have not seen any evidence of God existing in the first place.
> 
> I do not think I am alone in my thoughts about not believing Christ had anything to do with God. If I was like one of four people left on the planet to think so...I might take a step back and re-think it. I just cannot use what is in the Bible as any sort of facts. I am sorry but I do not believe the stories that were written and assembled over 1500 years are the works of any sort of super being. I do not buy into that line of thought at all.
> Again a God that needs man to take 1500 years to write his thoughts and laws is not my idea of a God.


Your idea of God is irrelevant to the point.


----------



## outdooraddict

bullethead said:


> Ok, He's better. But I have to take your word on that. You see what I mean?
> I don't see it. I don't know it. He has not revealed himself to me in any way other than a book written solely by man, different men, anonymous men, and it took over 1500 years to write and put together.



I really don't see what you mean and I'm not trying to be difficult I just don't follow. Don't take my word for gravity or believe it just because a science book says its there. I present my beliefs and what I feel is the best explanation for all those things I referred to in the past. I really am happy to consider the other options but I really can't find them or especially a single quintessential force that could bring it all together. It's not just the question of morals but of existence itself, of why the universe is how it is with what the atheists (Dawkins, Gould? ) call the appearance of design, why those presuppositions exist to allow us to have these discussion reasonably. Its the search for the answers the Greeks wanted-origin, destiny, meaning, morality and purpose.  I am not willing to give up the questioning of what or why and I'm not willing to give up on God or gravity IF they are the best explanation. As with science nothing is proven, its just the search for the best explanation. Even if you see him you still need to know why you can trust your senses to give you the accurate information.


----------



## bullethead

So you want to know Do humans have Objective Having actual existence or reality. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic.  Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
ValueWorth in usefulness or importance to the possessor; utility or merit: A principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable:

I would have to say that humans have an actual existence and reality.
I would say humans are influenced by emotions and personal prejudices.
I would say I (as a human) tend to base my reality off of observable phenomena. I am not sure if that universal across all humans
I do believe humans place worth in usefulness and importance to the possessor, utility or merit.
I do think humans feel principles, standards and quality are worthwhile or desirable.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> Your idea of God is irrelevant to the point.



If you are telling me about a God and I do not believe that such a God exists, to me, the point is irrelevant to the idea of a God.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> So you want to know Do humans have Objective Having actual existence or reality. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic.  Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
> ValueWorth in usefulness or importance to the possessor; utility or merit: A principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable:
> 
> I would have to say that humans have an actual existence and reality.
> I would say humans are influenced by emotions and personal prejudices.
> I would say I (as a human) tend to base my reality off of observable phenomena. I am not sure if that universal across all humans
> I do believe humans place worth in usefulness and importance to the possessor, utility or merit.
> I do think humans feel principles, standards and quality are worthwhile or desirable.


Thanks.

Do humans have objective value?


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> I really don't see what you mean and I'm not trying to be difficult I just don't follow. Don't take my word for gravity or believe it just because a science book says its there.


I do not need to take your word about those. I can test them myself. I see proof of what they do. I have to take your word about the God because I cannot justify his existence through a book that this God did not write.


outdooraddict said:


> I present my beliefs and what I feel is the best explanation for all those things I referred to in the past. I really am happy to consider the other options but I really can't find them or especially a single quintessential force that could bring it all together. It's not just the question of morals but of existence itself, of why the universe is how it is with what the atheists (Dawkins, Gould? ) call the appearance of design, why those presuppositions exist to allow us to have these discussion reasonably. Its the search for the answers the Greeks wanted-origin, destiny, meaning, morality and purpose.  I am not willing to give up the questioning of what or why and I'm not willing to give up on God or gravity IF they are the best explanation. As with science nothing is proven, its just the search for the best explanation. Even if you see him you still need to know why you can trust your senses to give you the accurate information.



 Richard Dawkins: "The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose [i.e. no God], no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference." Dawkins concedes: "It is pretty hard to defend absolutist morals on grounds other than religious ones."


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> If you are telling me about a God and I do not believe that such a God exists, to me, the point is irrelevant to the idea of a God.



My point was if you observe how things in this universe work, and think to yourself "God would not do things this way because that doesn't fit my idea of a God, therefor 
God is not real" your logic is flawed.

It's like me saying, "gravity wouldn't work this way because that's not my idea of gravity, therefor, gravity isn't real" Yet if I jump off a tall building.....


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Do humans have objective value?




I would have to say that humans have an actual existence and reality.
I would say humans are influenced by emotions and personal prejudices.
I would say I (as a human) tend to base my reality off of observable phenomena. I am not sure if that universal across all humans
I do believe humans place worth in usefulness and importance to the possessor, utility or merit.
I do think humans feel principles, standards and quality are worthwhile or desirable.

Based off of the answers I have given you which were based off of the definitions you wanted used, I would have to say not all humans have Objective Value because they base many things off of Unobservable phenomena.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> I would have to say that humans have an actual existence and reality.
> I would say humans are influenced by emotions and personal prejudices.
> I would say I (as a human) tend to base my reality off of observable phenomena. I am not sure if that universal across all humans
> I do believe humans place worth in usefulness and importance to the possessor, utility or merit.
> I do think humans feel principles, standards and quality are worthwhile or desirable.
> 
> Based off of the answers I have given you which were based off of the definitions you wanted used, I would have to say not all humans have Objective Value because they base many things off of Unobservable phenomena.


So no, all humans do not have value because they base some of their beliefs on unobservable phenomena.

So is the opposite true as well, people that only base beliefs off of observable phenomena have value?


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> My point was if you observe how things in this universe work, and think to yourself "God would not do things this way because that doesn't fit my idea of a God, therefor
> God is not real" your logic is flawed.
> 
> It's like me saying, "gravity wouldn't work this way because that's not my idea of gravity, therefor, gravity isn't real" Yet if I jump off a tall building.....



I don't believe in the God you (and others)say exists.
In order to try to believe in that God I have to base my thoughts off of what I am constantly told what this God is capable of.
When I observe things that are not quite up to spec of what such a God is capable of (according to what his believers are telling me) then I have to question if this God exists or if what I am being told by his believers is not quite right.

 Here my usual logic. I am observing how things in this Universe work. I do not see any evidence of a God having a hand in it. Therefore I don't think God is real.
That is sound logic
BUT, in this case there is someone telling me a God is capable of anything. I am being told this God is above our highest standards that we hold to everything else. If this God wants to reveal himself to me then I would think that if this God exists, and is capable, It would do so beyond what gravity and a magnetic force is capable of. This God (in theory) should know exactly what it would take to convince me of his presence. 
My logic here is: 
Someone is telling me their God exists and is capable of anything. I see that they are then telling me their God's limit to reveal itself to me is that of gravity and magnetic forces. Therefore I do not believe their God exists if that is it's limits.
Logical.

I open the door to their God and get no results therefore I do not believe in their God.
Logical


----------



## outdooraddict

bullethead said:


> I do not need to take your word about those. I can test them myself. I see proof of what they do. I have to take your word about the God because I cannot justify his existence through a book that this God did not write.
> 
> 
> Richard Dawkins: "The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose [i.e. no God], no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference." Dawkins concedes: "It is pretty hard to defend absolutist morals on grounds other than religious ones."



That's my claim, that you do see "proof" of what is done, the same kind of proof as gravity or magnetic forces. It's not their visible presence but the effect that is displayed. You will say you don't see that effect despite all the presuppositions and issues I have previously raised but the *process* for believing is still much the same as gravity, at least the way I have digested the evidence for myself and reasoned what exists and why. One thing should be clear, I have never asked you to take my word for it, you have a _somebody given_ ability to reason for yourself (begging the question).

Dawkins couldn't have said it better.
 “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Richard Dawkin


----------



## drippin' rock

Why is gravity continually used as an example here?  There is a huge difference between gravity and a higher ethereal, without form, intelligent, self aware entity.

Gravity has been proven.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> So no, all humans do not have value because they base some of their beliefs on unobservable phenomena.
> 
> So is the opposite true as well, people that only base beliefs off of observable phenomena have value?



Are you trying to ask me if all humans are worth something to other humans? Do all humans have value?
OR
Do I believe all humans place Objective Value on things?


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> That's my claim, that you do see "proof" of what is done, the same kind of proof as gravity or magnetic forces. It's not their visible presence but the effect that is displayed. You will say you don't see that effect despite all the presuppositions and issues I have previously raised but the *process* for believing is still much the same as gravity, at least the way I have digested the evidence for myself and reasoned what exists and why. One thing should be clear, I have never asked you to take my word for it, you have a _somebody given_ ability to reason for yourself (begging the question).


Those things are enough for you to believe. I require more only because a God is supposed to me more capable than everything else. If a God does exist it could make things real easy for me to understand in a way unique to me.



outdooraddict said:


> Dawkins couldn't have said it better.
> “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Richard Dawkin



Yeah.


----------



## outdooraddict

bullethead said:


> Those things are enough for you to believe. I require more only because a God is supposed to me more capable than everything else. If a God does exist it could make things real easy for me to understand in a way unique to me.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.



Nah, my kids never see what I do for them, they don't want to. More than evidence, its will

Go Dawkins! He's one of yours.


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> Nah, my kids never see what I do for them, they don't want to. More than evidence, its will
> 
> Go Dawkins! He's one of yours.



study of things that GIVE the APPEARANCE......


----------



## bullethead

Not mine but explained better than I can put into words.
Myth:
Correct moral behavior requires following objective standards, not personal whims and passions. Only God can provide such objective standards.

Response:
How can we adopt a moral system without there being a God? If God does not exist, is there any basis for ever being moral? That's the fundamental issue when discussing atheistic and theistic morality — not whether atheistic morality exists at all but instead whether any atheistic morality can reasonably be adopted. Thus some religious theists argue that only the existence of objective standards which we are required to obey provide a secure basis for morality and moral behavior.

This question can actually be rephrased on a more fundamental level, usually referred to as "metaethics." People who espouse this myth usually subscribe to a metaethical perspective known as deontological ethics. In deontological systems, being morally good is defined as obeying certain moral rules. When you follow those rules and do your duty, then you are good — regardless of any other considerations like whether the consequences of that obedience lead to suffering or happiness. On the other hand, if you ignore or break any of those rules then you are not doing your duty and are morally bad — once again, regardless of any consequences.

If you assume that the only possible moral system that can exist is deontological in nature, we have to ask where those rules and where that duty can come from. If there is a God, the answer will seem obvious, but if there is no God, there wouldn't seem to be a source. If there is no source for the rules to obey (and, by extension, no eternal rewards or punishments for those who obey or disobey), then there would be no reason to obey any rules that might come along.

Given such premises, it will seem reasonable to conclude that if there is no God, then there is no reason to be moral. Must we, however, accept those premises? No. The premises are not unusual, but they are also not unassailable. There is no reason why we should assume that the only justified moral system which can exist is one which is based upon obedience to a set of absolute rules which we must accept as a matter of duty.

There are other metaethical perspectives which are at least as valid at a deontological one, with the two principle ones being virtue ethics and consequentialist ethics. A person might have good reasons for rejecting them and preferring deontological ethics, but even if that were the case it cannot demonstrate the need for belief in any gods. There are valid deontological systems of ethics which are atheistic in nature, lacking any gods to provide a foundation for the rules being obeyed.

Many prefer a deontological morality because in a deontological system, the reason for being moral is generally assumed to be objective and imposed from the outside — that's why being moral "matters." More than that, however, the question of why it should "matter" suggests some set of ultimate "reasons" that, presumably, only a deity can provide. This would be consistent with similar questions asked by many theists: why should love matter? Why should happiness matter? Why should anything at all matter if there isn't a God and a heaven?

The answers to all such questions are fairly similar. First, it need not be accepted that for anything to "matter," then there must be some outside force or entity to make it "matter." Second, it should be argued that if something is going to "matter," this can only occur in the context of some set of values we have. When we value a hot meal, having a hot meal "matters" to us regardless of any gods or spirits, or anything else. A hot meal may seem like a trivial example, but the same basic principle holds true for other things of much greater import as well — and the reason is that the very concept of "it matters" is dependent upon what we do and do not value on a very basic level.

Why should getting along matter? It matters if you value your own happiness and the happiness of others. The question is, do you really need some being (like a god) to require that you take the happiness of others into consideration? Do you need to be told to be kind to others? Are you only capable of caring about others when you are obeying orders to care about others and are threatened with punishment if you don't but promised with rewards if you do? If so, then perhaps you do need to believe in a god in order to be moral and for morality to "matter" and you really do need a god in order to be moral. I'm not sure that I would necessarily call that "morality," though.

Why is it an inferior form of morality? First, there is no real moral merit in following an order — anyone can follow an order while not all orders should be followed. Second, the ability to follow an order is more characteristic of robots and automatons, not free ethical individuals. If a person is to be lauded for their behavior, it should be because they choose the right path, not because they simply followed instructions correctly. Finally, a morality such as this can be the most arbitrary that exists. Decisions are completely separated from their consequences for others and the impact upon one's personality. Orders are followed simply because they are given — not because they reduce suffering, not because they increase happiness, and not because they are in any way virtuous.


----------



## outdooraddict

bullethead said:


> study of things that GIVE the APPEARANCE......



As others have questioned Dawkins, if it appears designed why would you none the less exclude this as one of the possibilities. I think some don't care if his fingerprints are on the weapon, "I won't consider him as one of the suspects because I don't want to, lets find somebody else"


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> As others have questioned Dawkins, if it appears designed why would you none the less exclude this as one of the possibilities. I think some don't care if his fingerprints are on the weapon, "I won't consider him as one of the suspects because I don't want to, lets find somebody else"



If you see a watch you must assume there is a watchmaker....and that the watchmaker has a father, and his father has a father....etc


----------



## ddd-shooter

bullethead said:


> Not mine but explained better than I can put into words.
> Myth:
> Correct moral behavior requires following objective standards, not personal whims and passions. Only God can provide such objective standards.
> 
> Response:
> How can we adopt a moral system without there being a God? If God does not exist, is there any basis for ever being moral? That's the fundamental issue when discussing atheistic and theistic morality — not whether atheistic morality exists at all but instead whether any atheistic morality can reasonably be adopted. Thus some religious theists argue that only the existence of objective standards which we are required to obey provide a secure basis for morality and moral behavior.
> 
> This question can actually be rephrased on a more fundamental level, usually referred to as "metaethics." People who espouse this myth usually subscribe to a metaethical perspective known as deontological ethics. In deontological systems, being morally good is defined as obeying certain moral rules. When you follow those rules and do your duty, then you are good — regardless of any other considerations like whether the consequences of that obedience lead to suffering or happiness. On the other hand, if you ignore or break any of those rules then you are not doing your duty and are morally bad — once again, regardless of any consequences.
> 
> If you assume that the only possible moral system that can exist is deontological in nature, we have to ask where those rules and where that duty can come from. If there is a God, the answer will seem obvious, but if there is no God, there wouldn't seem to be a source. If there is no source for the rules to obey (and, by extension, no eternal rewards or punishments for those who obey or disobey), then there would be no reason to obey any rules that might come along.
> 
> Given such premises, it will seem reasonable to conclude that if there is no God, then there is no reason to be moral. Must we, however, accept those premises? No. The premises are not unusual, but they are also not unassailable. There is no reason why we should assume that the only justified moral system which can exist is one which is based upon obedience to a set of absolute rules which we must accept as a matter of duty.
> 
> There are other metaethical perspectives which are at least as valid at a deontological one, with the two principle ones being virtue ethics and consequentialist ethics. A person might have good reasons for rejecting them and preferring deontological ethics, but even if that were the case it cannot demonstrate the need for belief in any gods. There are valid deontological systems of ethics which are atheistic in nature, lacking any gods to provide a foundation for the rules being obeyed.
> 
> Many prefer a deontological morality because in a deontological system, the reason for being moral is generally assumed to be objective and imposed from the outside — that's why being moral "matters." More than that, however, the question of why it should "matter" suggests some set of ultimate "reasons" that, presumably, only a deity can provide. This would be consistent with similar questions asked by many theists: why should love matter? Why should happiness matter? Why should anything at all matter if there isn't a God and a heaven?
> 
> The answers to all such questions are fairly similar. First, it need not be accepted that for anything to "matter," then there must be some outside force or entity to make it "matter." Second, it should be argued that if something is going to "matter," this can only occur in the context of some set of values we have. When we value a hot meal, having a hot meal "matters" to us regardless of any gods or spirits, or anything else. A hot meal may seem like a trivial example, but the same basic principle holds true for other things of much greater import as well — and the reason is that the very concept of "it matters" is dependent upon what we do and do not value on a very basic level.
> 
> Why should getting along matter? It matters if you value your own happiness and the happiness of others. The question is, do you really need some being (like a god) to require that you take the happiness of others into consideration? Do you need to be told to be kind to others? Are you only capable of caring about others when you are obeying orders to care about others and are threatened with punishment if you don't but promised with rewards if you do? If so, then perhaps you do need to believe in a god in order to be moral and for morality to "matter" and you really do need a god in order to be moral. I'm not sure that I would necessarily call that "morality," though.
> 
> Why is it an inferior form of morality? First, there is no real moral merit in following an order — anyone can follow an order while not all orders should be followed. Second, the ability to follow an order is more characteristic of robots and automatons, not free ethical individuals. If a person is to be lauded for their behavior, it should be because they choose the right path, not because they simply followed instructions correctly. Finally, a morality such as this can be the most arbitrary that exists. Decisions are completely separated from their consequences for others and the impact upon one's personality. Orders are followed simply because they are given — not because they reduce suffering, not because they increase happiness, and not because they are in any way virtuous.



Prove to me you have a choice in your behavior. 
Science will simply say behavior is when there are neurons firing and you are dancing to your genetic makeup.


----------



## outdooraddict

bullethead said:


> If you see a watch you must assume there is a watchmaker....and that the watchmaker has a father, and his father has a father....etc



All the way back to the uncaused cause. You can't traverse an infinity, the bucks gotta stop somewhere.


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> All the way back to the uncaused cause. You can't traverse an infinity, the bucks gotta stop somewhere.



The Cosmological Argument
everything needs a cause except my cause
But you are assuming the Universe was created. No one knows that.


----------



## bullethead

ddd-shooter said:


> Prove to me you have a choice in your behavior.
> Science will simply say behavior is when there are neurons firing and you are dancing to your genetic makeup.



I could type a profanity laced rant back at you or I can type this. Choice.


----------



## outdooraddict

bullethead said:


> The Cosmological Argument
> everything needs a cause except my cause
> But you are assuming the Universe was created. No one knows that.



Both science and logic agree it isn't and can't be eternal. Why is there something instead of nothing?

I didn't "need" my cause, I'm left with it. I don't start with the preconceived idea that I will not consider certain possibilities


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> Both science and logic agree it isn't and can't be eternal. Why is there something instead of nothing?
> 
> I didn't "need" my cause, I'm left with it. I don't start with the preconceived idea that I will not consider certain possibilities



Science can only be fairly certain of what there was going back so far. Science certainly does not agree that  there was "nothing" before the Big Bang. Science just does not know for sure what there was then, if anything.

Are you using science and logic to dismiss eternal things?


----------



## bullethead

"True Christians" no longer burn heretics at the stakes.

They no longer do this out of secular liberalism, NOT "objective morality".

Ergo, Christianity is but one example of a subjective morality!


----------



## outdooraddict

bullethead said:


> Science can only be fairly certain of what there was going back so far. Science certainly does not agree that  there was "nothing" before the Big Bang. Science just does not know for sure what there was then, if anything.
> 
> Are you using science and logic to dismiss eternal things?



Based on background radiation and red shifts to the distant celestial bodies, etc, science has a pretty good idea back to a least the first few milliseconds after creation. Before creation/big bang/point of singularity, science not only "doesn't know for sure" it can't know. There is no rational reason to expect that what we call the laws of nature would be present in whatever was before that creation point so there is no way to even assume from a scientific standpoint. There is no reason to believe that everything we find in the box is also outside the box.

I don't know what you mean be eternal? I don't believe in infinite, its a mathematically tool like Pi. Since time is a dimension of the universe, and as I just said, we don't know whats outside the box, I believe its reasonable that time doesn't exist (or space or matter) and everything is in a state of "now" whatever that means. Sometimes I think that is referred to as eternal but it's not the same as infinite.


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> Based on background radiation and red shifts to the distant celestial bodies, etc, science has a pretty good idea back to a least the first few milliseconds after creation. Before creation/big bang/point of singularity, science not only "doesn't know for sure" it can't know. There is no rational reason to expect that what we call the laws of nature would be present in whatever was before that creation point so there is no way to even assume from a scientific standpoint. There is no reason to believe that everything we find in the box is also outside the box.
> 
> I don't know what you mean be eternal? I don't believe in infinite, its a mathematically tool like Pi. Since time is a dimension of the universe, and as I just said, we don't know whats outside the box, I believe its reasonable that time doesn't exist (or space or matter) and everything is in a state of "now" whatever that means. Sometimes I think that is referred to as eternal but it's not the same as infinite.



http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Where universe from.htm


----------



## bullethead

-If one argues, as some deeply religious individuals do, that without God there can be no ultimate right and wrong - namely that God determines for us what is right and wrong - one can then ask the question: What if God decreed that rape and murder were morally acceptable ? Would that make them so ?

While some might answer yes, I think most believers would say no, God would not make such a decree. But why not ? Presumably because God would have some *reason* for not making such a decree. Again, presumably this is because *reason* suggests that rape and murder are not morally acceptable. But if God would have to appeal to *reason*, then why not eliminate the middleman entirely ?- Lawrence Krauss, A Universe From Nothing,


----------



## bullethead

http://www.wayneholland.org/wheredideverythingcomefrom.htm


----------



## outdooraddict

bullethead said:


> -If one argues, as some deeply religious individuals do, that without God there can be no ultimate right and wrong - namely that God determines for us what is right and wrong - one can then ask the question: What if God decreed that rape and murder were morally acceptable ? Would that make them so ?
> 
> While some might answer yes, I think most believers would say no, God would not make such a decree. But why not ? Presumably because God would have some *reason* for not making such a decree. Again, presumably this is because *reason* suggests that rape and murder are not morally acceptable. But if God would have to appeal to *reason*, then why not eliminate the middleman entirely ?- Lawrence Krauss, A Universe From Nothing,



The mistake ( Mr Krauss) would be in trying to say that God makes (makes up) morals (or answers to a set of morals but I've already addressed the problem of trying to find some other source). I believe that the most correct concept of God includes the fact the morals are a part of his nature not an arbitrary list he makes up. Therefore we can speak of a round square but it can't exist because it is contradictory. We can try to pull the "moralness" of God away from God himself but it's like pulling the squareness away from the square and trying to say what if it was arbitrarily round. Well if you find that, you haven't found the square I was referring to. If you find a god who thinks its ok to rape, that isn't consistent with the God I was talking about, don't stop and talk to that one keep moving.


----------



## hummdaddy

outdooraddict said:


> The mistake ( Mr Krauss) would be in trying to say that God makes (makes up) morals (or answers to a set of morals but I've already addressed the problem of trying to find some other source). I believe that the most correct concept of God includes the fact the morals are a part of his nature not an arbitrary list he makes up. Therefore we can speak of a round square but it can't exist because it is contradictory. We can try to pull the "moralness" of God away from God himself but it's like pulling the squareness away from the square and trying to say what if it was arbitrarily round. Well if you find that, you haven't found the square I was referring to. If you find a god who thinks its ok to rape, that isn't consistent with the God I was talking about, don't stop and talk to that one keep moving.



what faith are you?please tell us of your god so we can research


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> The mistake ( Mr Krauss) would be in trying to say that God makes (makes up) morals (or answers to a set of morals but I've already addressed the problem of trying to find some other source). I believe that the most correct concept of God includes the fact the morals are a part of his nature not an arbitrary list he makes up. Therefore we can speak of a round square but it can't exist because it is contradictory. We can try to pull the "moralness" of God away from God himself but it's like pulling the squareness away from the square and trying to say what if it was arbitrarily round. Well if you find that, you haven't found the square I was referring to. If you find a god who thinks its ok to rape, that isn't consistent with the God I was talking about, don't stop and talk to that one keep moving.


Well a belief in the most correct concept does not prove much does it.


----------



## outdooraddict

bullethead said:


> http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Where universe from.htm



I will try to finish this later. I only got as far as nothing being an" infinite void" and he already created a nutty definition. Nothing would seem to imply nonexistent. He is saying that before there was time, space and matter (universe) there was a void that is infinite (takes up an infinite space without borders?) and then he says that once he creates a definition nobody can change it that's the rule.

OMG, or what he will take his ball and go home?


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> I will try to finish this later. I only got as far as nothing being an" infinite void" and he already created a nutty definition. Nothing would seem to imply nonexistent. He is saying that before there was time, space and matter (universe) there was a void that is infinite (takes up an infinite space without borders?) and then he says that once he creates a definition nobody can change it that's the rule.
> 
> OMG, or what he will take his ball and go home?



I am just trying to get the minds going


----------



## outdooraddict

bullethead said:


> Well a belief in the most correct concept does not prove much does it.



Of course not, we've already been down that road. We are back to all the turf we already covered and its limitations. Nothing new there, only thing worth doing was to show why Krauss' premises were wrong.


----------



## outdooraddict

bullethead said:


> I am just trying to get the minds going



click the link he has to infinite, I'm no math major but this guy doesn't seem to even know some basics about mathematical truths!


----------



## outdooraddict

hummdaddy said:


> what faith are you?please tell us of your god so we can research



Here's my 2 cents worth on the definitions. Using the same definitions are critical to discussion.

*Truth*-matter of a proposition  (belief, thought, statement) corresponding to reality

*Belief*-An idea or concept you possess despite its truthfulness

*Knowledge*- A Belief that is True and based on adequate reason. It does not require 100% certainty or unanimous agreement.

*Faith*- a belief or knowledge that directs behavior. Many people saw the great tightrope walker Charles Blondin walk across the gorge below Niagara Falls on a tightrope, and knew (on the basis of the evidence of their own eyes) that he was capable of carrying a man on his back safely across. Only his manager Harry Colcord had enough faith to allow himself to be carried.

If these definitions are involved in your question, I've already laid out my beliefs, knowledge, and reasoning. As far as my behavior goes, I hope you've seen in me an attempt at respectful discourse and an avoidance of name calling or belittling, that would be behavior that is not consistent with my belief (it wouldn't mean my beliefs were wrong, just that my faith was subpar)


----------



## outdooraddict

bullethead said:


> Not mine but explained better than I can put into words.
> Myth:
> Correct moral behavior requires following objective standards, not personal whims and passions. Only God can provide such objective standards.
> 
> Response:
> How can we adopt a moral system without there being a God? If God does not exist, is there any basis for ever being moral? That's the fundamental issue when discussing atheistic and theistic morality — not whether atheistic morality exists at all but instead whether any atheistic morality can reasonably be adopted. Thus some religious theists argue that only the existence of objective standards which we are required to obey provide a secure basis for morality and moral behavior.
> 
> This question can actually be rephrased on a more fundamental level, usually referred to as "metaethics." People who espouse this myth usually subscribe to a metaethical perspective known as deontological ethics. In deontological systems, being morally good is defined as obeying certain moral rules. When you follow those rules and do your duty, then you are good — regardless of any other considerations like whether the consequences of that obedience lead to suffering or happiness. On the other hand, if you ignore or break any of those rules then you are not doing your duty and are morally bad — once again, regardless of any consequences.
> 
> If you assume that the only possible moral system that can exist is deontological in nature, we have to ask where those rules and where that duty can come from. If there is a God, the answer will seem obvious, but if there is no God, there wouldn't seem to be a source. If there is no source for the rules to obey (and, by extension, no eternal rewards or punishments for those who obey or disobey), then there would be no reason to obey any rules that might come along.
> 
> Given such premises, it will seem reasonable to conclude that if there is no God, then there is no reason to be moral. Must we, however, accept those premises? No. The premises are not unusual, but they are also not unassailable. There is no reason why we should assume that the only justified moral system which can exist is one which is based upon obedience to a set of absolute rules which we must accept as a matter of duty.
> 
> There are other metaethical perspectives which are at least as valid at a deontological one, with the two principle ones being virtue ethics and consequentialist ethics. A person might have good reasons for rejecting them and preferring deontological ethics, but even if that were the case it cannot demonstrate the need for belief in any gods. There are valid deontological systems of ethics which are atheistic in nature, lacking any gods to provide a foundation for the rules being obeyed.
> 
> Many prefer a deontological morality because in a deontological system, the reason for being moral is generally assumed to be objective and imposed from the outside — that's why being moral "matters." More than that, however, the question of why it should "matter" suggests some set of ultimate "reasons" that, presumably, only a deity can provide. This would be consistent with similar questions asked by many theists: why should love matter? Why should happiness matter? Why should anything at all matter if there isn't a God and a heaven?
> 
> The answers to all such questions are fairly similar. First, it need not be accepted that for anything to "matter," then there must be some outside force or entity to make it "matter." Second, it should be argued that if something is going to "matter," this can only occur in the context of some set of values we have. When we value a hot meal, having a hot meal "matters" to us regardless of any gods or spirits, or anything else. A hot meal may seem like a trivial example, but the same basic principle holds true for other things of much greater import as well — and the reason is that the very concept of "it matters" is dependent upon what we do and do not value on a very basic level.
> 
> Why should getting along matter? It matters if you value your own happiness and the happiness of others. The question is, do you really need some being (like a god) to require that you take the happiness of others into consideration? Do you need to be told to be kind to others? Are you only capable of caring about others when you are obeying orders to care about others and are threatened with punishment if you don't but promised with rewards if you do? If so, then perhaps you do need to believe in a god in order to be moral and for morality to "matter" and you really do need a god in order to be moral. I'm not sure that I would necessarily call that "morality," though.
> 
> Why is it an inferior form of morality? First, there is no real moral merit in following an order — anyone can follow an order while not all orders should be followed. Second, the ability to follow an order is more characteristic of robots and automatons, not free ethical individuals. If a person is to be lauded for their behavior, it should be because they choose the right path, not because they simply followed instructions correctly. Finally, a morality such as this can be the most arbitrary that exists. Decisions are completely separated from their consequences for others and the impact upon one's personality. Orders are followed simply because they are given — not because they reduce suffering, not because they increase happiness, and not because they are in any way virtuous.




I have to disagree that he put it very well (of course).

How can we adopt a moral system without there being a God? If God does not exist, is there any basis for ever being moral? That's the fundamental issue when discussing atheistic and theistic morality — not whether atheistic morality exists at all but instead whether any atheistic morality can reasonably be adopted. Thus some religious theists argue that only the existence of objective standards which we are required to obey provide a secure basis for morality and moral behavior.

This question can actually be rephrased on a more fundamental level, usually referred to as "metaethics." People who espouse this myth usually subscribe to a metaethical perspective known as deontological ethics. In deontological systems, being morally good is defined as obeying certain moral rules. When you follow those rules and do your duty, then you are good — regardless of any other considerations like whether the consequences of that obedience lead to suffering or happiness. On the other hand, if you ignore or break any of those rules then you are not doing your duty and are morally bad — once again, regardless of any consequences.

This confuses the moral act with the individual. At least in Christianity, the individual is not good but is expected to act in a moral way. 
These comments also ignore that more than one moral may be at play and when there is conflict, a decision regarding which moral supersedes must be made. If my mother needs help getting her car started but on the way I stop to help an injured motorist, I didn’t do bad because I didn’t help my mother, I chose the more pressing moral good

If you assume that the only possible moral system that can exist is deontological in nature, we have to ask where those rules and where that duty can come from. If there is a God, the answer will seem obvious, but if there is no God, there wouldn't seem to be a source. If there is no source for the rules to obey (and, by extension, no eternal rewards or punishments for those who obey or disobey), then there would be no reason to obey any rules that might come along.

Given such premises, it will seem reasonable to conclude that if there is no God, then there is no reason to be moral. Must we, however, accept those premises? No. The premises are not unusual, but they are also not unassailable. There is no reason why we should assume that the only justified moral system which can exist is one which is based upon obedience to a set of absolute rules which we must accept as a matter of duty.

There are other metaethical perspectives which are at least as valid at a deontological one, with the two principle ones being virtue ethics and consequentialist ethics. A person might have good reasons for rejecting them and preferring deontological ethics, but even if that were the case it cannot demonstrate the need for belief in any gods. There are valid deontological systems of ethics which are atheistic in nature, lacking any gods to provide a foundation for the rules being obeyed.

Many prefer a deontological morality because in a deontological system, the reason for being moral is generally assumed to be objective and imposed from the outside — that's why being moral "matters." More than that, however, the question of why it should "matter" suggests some set of ultimate "reasons" that, presumably, only a deity can provide. This would be consistent with similar questions asked by many theists: why should love matter? Why should happiness matter? Why should anything at all matter if there isn't a God and a heaven?

The answers to all such questions are fairly similar. First, it need not be accepted that for anything to "matter," then there must be some outside force or entity to make it "matter." Second, it should be argued that if something is going to "matter," this can only occur in the context of some set of values we have. When we value a hot meal, having a hot meal "matters" to us regardless of any gods or spirits, or anything else. A hot meal may seem like a trivial example, but the same basic principle holds true for other things of much greater import as well — and the reason is that the very concept of "it matters" is dependent upon what we do and do not value on a very basic level

This is an argument for relativism, not absolute morals. I wouldn't argue that a hot meal or anything else “matters” to you. The “ is dependent upon what we do and do not value on a very basic level” is a verification that he is speaking of relativism. I thought he was going to address another way of having absolute transcendent morals.

Why should getting along matter? It matters if you value your own happiness and the happiness of others. The question is, do you really need some being (like a god) to require that you take the happiness of others into consideration? Do you need to be told to be kind to others? Are you only capable of caring about others when you are obeying orders to care about others and are threatened with punishment if you don't but promised with rewards if you do? If so, then perhaps you do need to believe in a god in order to be moral and for morality to "matter" and you really do need a god in order to be moral. I'm not sure that I would necessarily call that "morality," though. 

Argues first from relativism then tells us HIS morals should apply. Why does HE get to decide what the morals are, and why everyone has to follow them. He hasn't gotten us anywhere. I could ask ” Isn’t it self-explanatory that kind people do not tell others how to behave?”

Why is it an inferior form of morality? First, there is no real moral merit in following an order — anyone can follow an order while not all orders should be followed. Second, the ability to follow an order is more characteristic of robots and automatons, not free ethical individuals. If a person is to be lauded for their behavior, it should be because they choose the right path, not because they simply followed instructions correctly. Finally, a morality such as this can be the most arbitrary that exists. Decisions are completely separated from their consequences for others and the impact upon one's personality. Orders are followed simply because they are given — not because they reduce suffering, not because they increase happiness, and not because they are in any way virtuous.

_First_-  Really! Doing “good” even if you don’t feel like it is not doing good? It seems to me the most merit would be when you follow a moral “order” or directive even if you don’t feel like it. 
_Second-_   he defines a robot as one who follows the moral order (principle) and a free ethical individual apparently is one who does not follow a moral order. He uses “right path” by again begging the question of the higher moral standard that will define it.
_Finally- _   The straw man. I've already argued for why morals aren't behaviors. He doesn't seem to know that an absolute morality could be based on loving the fellow man but still needs a source. Decisions on how to act then would be completely dependent on the consequences. Morals are not orders. Stop the car is not a moral, stop the car because that guy needs help is a moral. This guy assumes too much without defending it!


----------



## TripleXBullies

outdooraddict said:


> Actually it doesn't support that. It may actually support that each society feels their morals are the absolute ones and they want to inflict the other society with these rules. IF each society thought their own rules only applied to them they wouldn't go to war. But to my previous point that's why "society does morality" doesn't work.



It doesn't support that everyone believes it. It supports that it's true.


----------



## TripleXBullies

bullethead said:


> We will never know will we?



We do know. Was it morally acceptable for the allies to kill all of the Germans? I would say YES... because we had a reason that made sense to us. We justify it with our morals, so it's morally right.


----------



## TripleXBullies

ddd-shooter said:


> Jesus.



Was he immoral as a child or adolescent? Did he ever disobey Mary? Did he ever threaten Joseph when he wasn't allowed to stay out with late with his friends? Did he run off to a peep hole with his friends? Did he tease other children?


----------



## bigreddwon

TripleXBullies said:


> Was he immoral as a child or adolescent? Did he ever disobey Mary? Did he ever threaten Joseph when he wasn't allowed to stay out with late with his friends? Did he run off to a peep hole with his friends? Did he tease other children?



Killed his teacher. Killed children who ruined his playtime. He was a child with the power of life and death with a thought. He killed often enough to get his family kicked out of their village. 

Read some of the lost books of the bible. You'll understand why they 'got lost'. The original writers were telling a story. The framers of Christian church used the bible by cutting and pasting it to control the ignorant masses. They just deleted the parts that didn't fit the narrative they wanted. Hollywood does it every day. Those who think its a good book either don't understand it or haven't actually read it. It IS NOT a moral compass. It is NOT where people who actually have good morals, get them from.  At all.



Look at the multicolored tabs on that meme. Squint yer eyes to see the teeny tiny spots of pages WITHOUT tabs.?. Those are the cherry pickin pages the preacher reads from. That's what gives the ignorant masses the illusion that they follow a 'good' book. They follow a few high points in a book of mostly low points.


----------



## centerpin fan

bigreddwon said:


> Read some of the lost books of the bible. You'll understand why they 'got lost'.



This never fails to amuse me.  The "lost" books are 100% accurate, gospel truth, but the other books are lies and fairy tales made up decades after the fact by ignorant goat herders.


----------



## ddd-shooter

centerpin fan said:


> This never fails to amuse me.  The "lost" books are 100% accurate, gospel truth, but the other books are lies and fairy tales made up decades after the fact by ignorant goat herders.



Bingo


----------



## JFS

centerpin fan said:


> This never fails to amuse me.  The "lost" books are 100% accurate, gospel truth, but the other books are lies and fairy tales made up decades after the fact by ignorant goat herders.



Naw, they are all fairy tales told by ignorant goat herders.  I'd say forget them all.  You guys have the hypocrisy issue believing some are infallible and others are false, with only  some ancient political jockeying as the differentiater.


----------



## outdooraddict

TripleXBullies said:


> It doesn't support that everyone believes it. It supports that it's true.



True? For which society. Or does one society set an absolute for all other societies. Again we have to answer relative or absolute.


----------



## stringmusic

JFS said:


> Naw, they are all fairy tales told by ignorant goat herders.  I'd say forget them all.  You guys have the hypocrisy issue believing some are infallible and others are false, with only  some ancient political jockeying as the differentiater.


LOL, now they're all "ignorant goat herders", in the next thread they're the guys that are the genius writers of the bible that duped billions of people for thousands of years.


----------



## outdooraddict

JFS said:


> Naw, they are all fairy tales told by ignorant goat herders.  I'd say forget them all.  You guys have the hypocrisy issue believing some are infallible and others are false, with only  some ancient political jockeying as the differentiater.



I can only answer for myself but if you read my posts, I have never asked anyone to believe the bible, evaluating it is way down the road.

I haven't pulled "debate tactics" as was mentioned. The past 2-3 days here and a couple of days last Aug are the only times I have blogged. I'm sure most of you guys are much better at debate.

I have laid out, using rules of logic, these other answers don't logically work. Mainly people keep giving relativistic answers (societies decide, nature, evolution, etc) and claiming they have an absolute authority. Again, that is logically incosistent. See post 493. Also an atheistic try at absolute morals was made in post 570. However either you have an absolute authority/source OR everything is relative. Other gods were tried (see 489, 562) but either we believe in our scientific observations and logic or we don't.

If everything is relative, then everybody decides for themselves. If everybody decides for themselves, then don't say God is bad (absolute) or that the "christians" are bad or crusades, etc. You could logically say that you don't like it and that this is your personal preference but don't say they are "wrong". 

I am not defending christian who "judge" others, but again it is illogical for a relativist to "judge". If you haven't come up with an absolute source, then you can't judge another. It is the relativist who would logically need to be silent on right and wrong because it is the relativist, not the "absolutist", who doesn't really (if they are consistent) believe in absolute right and wrong.

On the other hand, if you do have an absolute source that gives you an absolute moral, please tell what that is. However, I don't know what else to say when somebody posts, " I don't care, society decides, its True", etc. I guess you can say whatever you want, I'm a relativist on that point, but the True thing continues to be make believe without reason and source.

I have already laid out the logical problems for all the absolute sources that have so far been laid out. I'm not saying someone doesn't have another source but so far no one has laid out a logically consistent one. I'm not saying believe the bible. I'm saying that if you keep telling each other they are wrong and you are right (absolute truths, absolute morals) put some candidates on the table and work through them.


----------



## hummdaddy

centerpin fan said:


> This never fails to amuse me.  The "lost" books are 100% accurate, gospel truth, but the other books are lies and fairy tales made up decades after the fact by ignorant goat herders.



are we talking about the writings about an actual man who walked the earth that it could happen to, or an invisible being weather i was to take it as truth...it also depends on how embellished the story is!!!


----------



## TripleXBullies

centerpin fan said:


> This never fails to amuse me.  The "lost" books are 100% accurate, gospel truth, but the other books are lies and fairy tales made up decades after the fact by ignorant goat herders.



So the ones that made it in the leather bound version are truth? We play your games from time to time to show how ridiculous it is. Take all the truth or cherry pick what you want to hear. If the bible is truth, which you say it is, then you should hold the rest of the books in the same light.... but you don't. You believe what you like and disregard the rest. 

I can go either way. Either I take it all and it's not what christianity cracks it up to be or it's all just stories.


----------



## TripleXBullies

dupe


----------



## TripleXBullies

outdooraddict said:


> True? For which society. Or does one society set an absolute for all other societies. Again we have to answer relative or absolute.



Morales aren't treated as if they are relative but they are. You have wars because of different opinions of morals... and the morals that remain dominant are the ones of the winners. It was perfectly moral hundreds of years ago for grown men to have intimate relationships with young boys in different parts of the world. For the most part, people didn't have a problem with that. It was morally acceptable. We know that not to be true. For whatever reason, it became frowned upon. I for one, agree that it is morally wrong.... I argue that MY morals are the right ones, because they are MINE.. It's the nature of morals..


----------



## TripleXBullies

stringmusic said:


> LOL, now they're all "ignorant goat herders", in the next thread they're the guys that are the genius writers of the bible that duped billions of people for thousands of years.



I don't think what became of it was ever their intention... but other people capitalized on what was able to get some hooks in and have developed it to where it is now.


----------



## TripleXBullies

outdooraddict said:


> If everything is relative, then everybody decides for themselves. If everybody decides for themselves, then don't say God is bad (absolute) or that the "christians" are bad or crusades, etc. You could logically say that you don't like it and that this is your personal preference but don't say they are "wrong".




I do think it's relative but I can also say that it's wrong because it's contradictory which means relative to itself. Your god supposedly laid out a long list of LOVE IS... and also tries to claim that he is love... when he has contradictory actions to his LOVE IS commandments all the time. That makes it wrong when compared to its own standards, not any standard or moral that I set with my relative abilities or relative to my own ideas.


----------



## bigreddwon

centerpin fan said:


> This never fails to amuse me.  The "lost" books are 100% accurate, gospel truth, but the other books are lies and fairy tales made up decades after the fact by ignorant goat herders.



Not at all.. Just pointing out that the fable you believe in, is incomplete. It's still made up, but your not even aware of the whole story as it was originally intended because it didn't jive with e churches dogma. 



ddd-shooter said:


> Bingo


 nope. Ya missed the point as well. Or ignored it more likely. 



JFS said:


> Naw, they are all fairy tales told by ignorant goat herders.  I'd say forget them all.  You guys have the hypocrisy issue believing some are infallible and others are false, with only  some ancient political jockeying as the differentiater.




Bingo.


----------



## bigreddwon

What was the verse in the bible about how god says to test other gods validity?


----------



## bigreddwon

Disgusting but true. I think hades will be safer for my kids.


----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## stringmusic

bigreddwon said:


> Disgusting but true. I think hades will be safer for my kids.



Are you arguing that he should have been sent to he11 that you don't believe in?


----------



## bigreddwon

stringmusic said:


> Are you arguing that he should have been sent to he11 that you don't believe in?



It's a fantasy bla bla bla.. 

Can you _imagine_ what _his_ version of heaven is like.  Eeeeeeeewwwww.   Glad I'm not gonna be in his hood.


----------



## stringmusic

bigreddwon said:


> It's a fantasy bla bla bla..
> 
> Can you _imagine_ what _his_ version of heaven is like.  Eeeeeeeewwwww.   Glad I'm not gonna be in his hood.



That's not a coherent answer to my question.

Most of your memes are straw man fallacies.


----------



## JFS

outdooraddict said:


> If everything is relative, then everybody decides for themselves. If everybody decides for themselves, then don't say God is bad (absolute) or that the "christians" are bad or crusades, etc. You could logically say that you don't like it and that this is your personal preference but don't say they are "wrong".



I don't agree with your semantics.  If I said "pizza tastes good but motor oil tastes bad" would that have meaning?  I am strictly stating a preference, there is no objective measure of taste.  But taste is tied to things that affect us, e.g. many things taste good because they have elements that nourish us, so it is preference, but not in a vacuum.  Likewise some tastes are bad as they indicate something that may hurt us.  Same as if I said being in a burning house is scary but it feels good to lay on a feather bed.  I'm only stating preference, but one with a common anchor.  

It is our common understanding of these terms that allows us to say something tastes good or bad, or feels good or bad, or, yes, is good or bad.  Perhaps just as statistical indicators of anchored preference, but still a meaningful statement.


----------



## outdooraddict

TripleXBullies said:


> I do think it's relative but I can also say that it's wrong because it's contradictory which means relative to itself. Your god supposedly laid out a long list of LOVE IS... and also tries to claim that he is love... when he has contradictory actions to his LOVE IS commandments all the time. That makes it wrong when compared to its own standards, not any standard or moral that I set with my relative abilities or relative to my own ideas.



My own personal opinion, that most rational problem I 've considered for myself and the most reasonable way of stating it that anybody has put out there. I have considered that point long and hard. I think that you are saying that morals are relative. When you say wrong, you don't mean immoral you mean illogical? God in the bible is all about love (esp New Testament) and at the same time God violates love because of examples I see mainly in the old testament. God is not bad (morally) he's inconsistent? Either god is inconsistent or at least one of our premises is wrong.

Since it's all about definitions by the way, do you believe "truth" (post 569) is absolute? What do you think love means as referred to in the bible usage or concept?


----------



## bigreddwon

stringmusic said:


> That's not a coherent answer to my question.
> 
> Most of your memes are straw man fallacies.



You do this constantly. It's so tiring. I said it was a fantasy. You know I do not believe it to be real. Go ahead, ask it in 4 more slightly different ways. It won't change the answer. No. Negative. Not real.  Opposite of real. Make believe. Get it?


----------



## stringmusic

bigreddwon said:


> You do this constantly. It's so tiring. I said it was a fantasy. You know I do not believe it to be real. Go ahead, ask it in 4 more slightly different ways. It won't change the answer. No. Negative. Not real.  Opposite of real. Make believe. Get it?


I didn't ask if anything was real in the first place, why would I ask in another way?

Go back and read the question again.


----------



## outdooraddict

JFS said:


> I don't agree with your semantics.  If I said "pizza tastes good but motor oil tastes bad" would that have meaning?  I am strictly stating a preference, there is no objective measure of taste.  But taste is tied to things that affect us, e.g. many things taste good because they have elements that nourish us, so it is preference, but not in a vacuum.  Likewise some tastes are bad as they indicate something that may hurt us.  Same as if I said being in a burning house is scary but it feels good to lay on a feather bed.  I'm only stating preference, but one with a common anchor.
> 
> It is our common understanding of these terms that allows us to say something tastes good or bad, or feels good or bad, or, yes, is good or bad.  Perhaps just as statistical indicators of anchored preference, but still a meaningful statement.



I totally agree with you, some things are relative (taste) and some are absolute (poisonous). I'm told some poisons taste sweet.

When the temperature in our house is 76 I say its hot, and my wife thinks it's freezing. One is absolute and one is relative.

If I don't like an act(distasteful) it is relative, but if I say its "wrong; I mean something else


----------



## bigreddwon

stringmusic said:


> I didn't ask if anything was real in the first place, why would I ask in another way?
> 
> Go back and read the question again.



You asked if I was arguing as to where he 'went' since I didn't believe. I said it was a fantasy. It was make believe. 

I showed it to shed light on an ugly part of your fantasy, a part that adds senselessness onto something that makes no sense from the get go. Why would anyone want to go, or have their kids go to place full of child predators, serial killers and other dirtbags who are NO different except they said 'sorry' to someone they didn't harm?  It's just about the most ridiculous concept I've ever read about.  Thought about. Or talked about. Silliness. 

Don't think that by putting up the meme or talking about this means I feel any of its real. Just going along for the sake of debate.


----------



## stringmusic

bigreddwon said:


> You asked if I was arguing as to where he 'went' since I didn't believe. I said it was a fantasy. It was make believe.
> 
> I showed it to shed light on an ugly part of your fantasy, a part that adds senselessness onto something that makes no sense from the get go. Why would anyone want to go, or have their kids go to place full of child predators, serial killers and other dirtbags who are NO different except they said 'sorry' to someone they didn't harm?  It's just about the most ridiculous concept I've ever read about.  Thought about. Or talked about. Silliness.
> 
> Don't think that by putting up the meme or talking about this means I feel any of its real. Just going along for the sake of debate.



Should he have been sent to he11?


----------



## JFS

outdooraddict said:


> but if I say its "wrong; I mean something else



I'm sure you do, but you would be wrong  

Oh, and 



> If you haven't come up with an absolute source, then you can't judge another.



I'm pretty agnostic, but I still enjoyed the Hooters Swimsuit Competition last night and think I would make a fine judge.  Of course, even that is apparently relative as my wife disagrees.


----------



## outdooraddict

JFS said:


> I'm sure you do, but you would be wrong
> 
> Oh, and
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty agnostic, but I still enjoyed the Hooters Swimsuit Competition last night and think I would make a fine judge.  Of course, that's apparently relative as my wife disagrees.



wrong morally or logically?

My wife disagrees too LOL, that's what happens when relative preferences slam into absolutes (wives)


----------



## TripleXBullies

outdooraddict said:


> My own personal opinion, that most rational problem I 've considered for myself and the most reasonable way of stating it that anybody has put out there. I have considered that point long and hard. I think that you are saying that morals are relative. When you say wrong, you don't mean immoral you mean illogical? God in the bible is all about love (esp New Testament) and at the same time God violates love because of examples I see mainly in the old testament. God is not bad (morally) he's inconsistent? Either god is inconsistent or at least one of our premises is wrong.
> 
> Since it's all about definitions by the way, do you believe "truth" (post 569) is absolute? What do you think love means as referred to in the bible usage or concept?



there are a bunch of LOVE IS statements in the bible. I am just going on what it says. My definition isn't important. I'm going by what the bible says love is and the bible says your god is, things the bible says your god does and things the bible says your god feels.


----------



## JFS

outdooraddict said:


> wrong morally or logically?



I'll go with logically (for now ).  IMHO, your ontology is inverted.  A word or concept may have objective meaning if you can empirically or logically demonstrate the proof.  Even that can be tricky.  Something that is poisonous can have differential impacts on some (are peanuts "poisonous"?), and they say that everything in a big enough dose will kill you.  But I get the meaning of your example.

That doesn't help you with "right and wrong".  Any benchmark is just a preference the same as any meaning that you may just originally ascribe to the word.  So instead of an objective meaning, you posit an objective source.  But without a way to test that you aren't in any better position than having a subjective benchmark and the word again become meaningless.


----------



## outdooraddict

TripleXBullies said:


> there are a bunch of LOVE IS statements in the bible. I am just going on what it says. My definition isn't important. I'm going by what the bible says love is and the bible says your god is, things the bible says your god does and things the bible says your god feels.



Thanks, that's what I was asking, what the bible refers to. Its not a trick question, I'm thinking this out too. If the bible is logically inconsistent in this lovey thingy we have to figure out what the word means before we can say it's inconsistent.


----------



## outdooraddict

outdooraddict said:


> I have to disagree that he put it very well (of course).
> 
> How can we adopt a moral system without there being a God? If God does not exist, is there any basis for ever being moral? That's the fundamental issue when discussing atheistic and theistic morality — not whether atheistic morality exists at all but instead whether any atheistic morality can reasonably be adopted. Thus some religious theists argue that only the existence of objective standards which we are required to obey provide a secure basis for morality and moral behavior.
> 
> This question can actually be rephrased on a more fundamental level, usually referred to as "metaethics." People who espouse this myth usually subscribe to a metaethical perspective known as deontological ethics. In deontological systems, being morally good is defined as obeying certain moral rules. When you follow those rules and do your duty, then you are good — regardless of any other considerations like whether the consequences of that obedience lead to suffering or happiness. On the other hand, if you ignore or break any of those rules then you are not doing your duty and are morally bad — once again, regardless of any consequences.
> 
> This confuses the moral act with the individual. At least in Christianity, the individual is not good but is expected to act in a moral way.
> These comments also ignore that more than one moral may be at play and when there is conflict, a decision regarding which moral supersedes must be made. If my mother needs help getting her car started but on the way I stop to help an injured motorist, I didn’t do bad because I didn’t help my mother, I chose the more pressing moral good
> 
> If you assume that the only possible moral system that can exist is deontological in nature, we have to ask where those rules and where that duty can come from. If there is a God, the answer will seem obvious, but if there is no God, there wouldn't seem to be a source. If there is no source for the rules to obey (and, by extension, no eternal rewards or punishments for those who obey or disobey), then there would be no reason to obey any rules that might come along.
> 
> Given such premises, it will seem reasonable to conclude that if there is no God, then there is no reason to be moral. Must we, however, accept those premises? No. The premises are not unusual, but they are also not unassailable. There is no reason why we should assume that the only justified moral system which can exist is one which is based upon obedience to a set of absolute rules which we must accept as a matter of duty.
> 
> There are other metaethical perspectives which are at least as valid at a deontological one, with the two principle ones being virtue ethics and consequentialist ethics. A person might have good reasons for rejecting them and preferring deontological ethics, but even if that were the case it cannot demonstrate the need for belief in any gods. There are valid deontological systems of ethics which are atheistic in nature, lacking any gods to provide a foundation for the rules being obeyed.
> 
> Many prefer a deontological morality because in a deontological system, the reason for being moral is generally assumed to be objective and imposed from the outside — that's why being moral "matters." More than that, however, the question of why it should "matter" suggests some set of ultimate "reasons" that, presumably, only a deity can provide. This would be consistent with similar questions asked by many theists: why should love matter? Why should happiness matter? Why should anything at all matter if there isn't a God and a heaven?
> 
> The answers to all such questions are fairly similar. First, it need not be accepted that for anything to "matter," then there must be some outside force or entity to make it "matter." Second, it should be argued that if something is going to "matter," this can only occur in the context of some set of values we have. When we value a hot meal, having a hot meal "matters" to us regardless of any gods or spirits, or anything else. A hot meal may seem like a trivial example, but the same basic principle holds true for other things of much greater import as well — and the reason is that the very concept of "it matters" is dependent upon what we do and do not value on a very basic level
> 
> This is an argument for relativism, not absolute morals. I wouldn't argue that a hot meal or anything else “matters” to you. The “ is dependent upon what we do and do not value on a very basic level” is a verification that he is speaking of relativism. I thought he was going to address another way of having absolute transcendent morals.
> 
> Why should getting along matter? It matters if you value your own happiness and the happiness of others. The question is, do you really need some being (like a god) to require that you take the happiness of others into consideration? Do you need to be told to be kind to others? Are you only capable of caring about others when you are obeying orders to care about others and are threatened with punishment if you don't but promised with rewards if you do? If so, then perhaps you do need to believe in a god in order to be moral and for morality to "matter" and you really do need a god in order to be moral. I'm not sure that I would necessarily call that "morality," though.
> 
> Argues first from relativism then tells us HIS morals should apply. Why does HE get to decide what the morals are, and why everyone has to follow them. He hasn't gotten us anywhere. I could ask ” Isn’t it self-explanatory that kind people do not tell others how to behave?”
> 
> Why is it an inferior form of morality? First, there is no real moral merit in following an order — anyone can follow an order while not all orders should be followed. Second, the ability to follow an order is more characteristic of robots and automatons, not free ethical individuals. If a person is to be lauded for their behavior, it should be because they choose the right path, not because they simply followed instructions correctly. Finally, a morality such as this can be the most arbitrary that exists. Decisions are completely separated from their consequences for others and the impact upon one's personality. Orders are followed simply because they are given — not because they reduce suffering, not because they increase happiness, and not because they are in any way virtuous.
> 
> First-Really! Doing “good” even if you don’t feel like it is not doing good? It seems to me the most merit would be when you follow a moral “order” or directive even if you don’t feel like it.
> Second- he defines a robot as one who follows the moral order (principle) and a free ethical individual apparently is one who does not follow a moral order. He uses “right path” by again begging the question of the higher moral standard that will define it.
> Finally- The straw man. I've already argued for why morals aren't behaviors. He doesn't seem to know that an absolute morality could be based on loving the fellow man but still needs a source. Decisions on how to act then would be completely dependent on the consequences. Morals are not orders. Stop the car is not a moral, stop the car because that guy needs help is a moral. This guy assumes too much without defending it!



One more thing just dawned on me. I thought the atheists hated the "free will" issues and always complained that God should have made robots incapable of doing wrong. I wonder why this guy had a change of heart?


----------



## bigreddwon

stringmusic said:


> Should he have been sent to he11?



I think a better question is if he doesn't deserve to be there who does?


----------



## TripleXBullies

outdooraddict said:


> Thanks, that's what I was asking, what the bible refers to. Its not a trick question, I'm thinking this out too. If the bible is logically inconsistent in this lovey thingy we have to figure out what the word means before we can say it's inconsistent.



It's a mathematical property... God is love. Love is X, X, X, X... So god should also be X, X, X, X, X... When there are countless examples how your god is not those things.


----------



## outdooraddict

JFS said:


> I'll go with logically (for now ).  IMHO, your ontology is inverted.  A word or concept may have objective meaning if you can empirically or logically demonstrate the proof.  Even that can be tricky.  Something that is poisonous can have differential impacts on some (are peanuts "poisonous"?), and they say that everything in a big enough dose will kill you.  But I get the meaning of your example.
> 
> That doesn't help you with "right and wrong".  Any benchmark is just a preference the same as any meaning that you may just originally ascribe to the word.  So instead of an objective meaning, you posit an objective source.  But without a way to test that you aren't in any better position than having a subjective benchmark and the word again become meaningless.




But....and again it's not a trick. You and I are implying a source, the bible, for the definition of the word LOVE and we are requiring a single consistent definition. Otherwise we cant' say God speaks of Love and then violates it. Logically, of course we must set the definition first or how are we going to say God was inconsistent? The ontology is reasonable. If at the ice cream store I say I love chocolate the most and at home I tell my wife I love her the most, I am neither lying nor logically inconsistent. I have simply shifted the definition of love.


----------



## outdooraddict

TripleXBullies said:


> It's a mathematical property... God is love. Love is X, X, X, X... So god should also be X, X, X, X, X... When there are countless examples how your god is not those things.



But to your other point, Its NOT mathematical, the concept of love can mean different things. The number 4 is not a real item it is an absolute concept. That's why we can use math to perform science. Science presumes math a priori. It's why you can measure a temperature or a weight and use that to test other things. If I experiment and record it was "hot and heavy" that's useless. Words that do not have a mathematical or other absolute definition need to be clarified. I don't know of any word beyond love that has more definitions applied to it.


----------



## JFS

outdooraddict said:


> But....and again it's not a trick. You and I are implying a source, the bible, for the definition of the word LOVE and we are requiring a single consistent definition. Otherwise we cant' say God speaks of Love and then violates it. Logically, of course we must set the definition first or how are we going to say God was inconsistent? The ontology is reasonable. If at the ice cream store I say I love chocolate the most and at home I tell my wife I love her the most, I am neither lying nor logically inconsistent. I have simply shifted the definition of love.



I don't follow you.  There is no objective definition of love.  This is probably a better example of my common consensus than your divine absolute.


----------



## TripleXBullies

outdooraddict said:


> But to your other point, Its NOT mathematical, the concept of love can mean different things. The number 4 is not a real item it is an absolute concept. That's why we can use math to perform science. Science presumes math a priori. It's why you can measure a temperature or a weight and use that to test other things. If I experiment and record it was "hot and heavy" that's useless. Words that do not have a mathematical or other absolute definition need to be clarified. I don't know of any word beyond love that has more definitions applied to it.



By using the commutative property I'm getting rid of the word love completely. This is a straw man - compliments of string and sfd... God is love. Love is X, Love is X, Love is X. Then you can say God is X, X, X, X... and then there are examples that he is not. And you can try to argue your way out of patience, slow to anger, keeps no records of wrongs if you want.


----------



## outdooraddict

JFS said:


> I don't follow you.  There is no objective definition of love.  This is probably a better example of my common consensus than your divine absolute.



I guess I'm not being clear. Of course there's no absolute definition of love, that is exactly what I said (and meant if I need to clarify). If I use a term, I must make sure you understand the definition I mean and don't make up your own. Otherwise we can't communicate and my wife calls me a liar because I told her I love her the most but I also said I love chocolate the most. If the definition is not consistent then communication is impossible. You will say God violated love and someone else will say no he didn't and you will BOTH be right. However, if you don't have any consistent interpretable definitions then why do you blog? We not only don't but can't have any idea what you mean anyway.


----------



## outdooraddict

TripleXBullies said:


> By using the commutative property I'm getting rid of the word love completely. This is a straw man - compliments of string and sfd... God is love. Love is X, Love is X, Love is X. Then you can say God is X, X, X, X... and then there are examples that he is not. And you can try to argue your way out of patience, slow to anger, keeps no records of wrongs if you want.



Love is X, Y, Z, A, etc. You can get rid of the word but not the definition, not all different definitions can be X that is a  mathematical principle. I think you did finally start to answer the original question I had by coming up with whether we are talking about X or Y or Z. Why was it pulling teeth?


----------



## JFS

outdooraddict said:


> If the definition is not consistent then communication is impossible.



Well, "wrong" may have a common definition- a violation of social rules- that allows us to communicate.  But that doesn't mean we agree on what is wrong or why it is wrong.  

Is it wrong to eat someone after they die?  It's a strong taboo for us.  But for another society that has harsh winters where people die of starvation, they may say it is not wrong if the risk of starvation outweighs the risk of spreading disease.  In fact it may be wrong to not do it, i.e. wasting scarce food.   You may view it as an anathema to be eaten, others may view it as an honor to nourish their loved ones after death.   We can still call it "wrong" as it breaks our social rules.  But our "wrong" is not an absolute.

My example is not absurd.  From Herodotus:



> When Darius was king, he summoned the Greeks who were with him and asked them for what price they would eat their fathers' dead bodies. They answered that they wouldn’t do it for any amount of money.  Then Darius summoned those Indians who are called Callatiae, who eat their parents, and asked them (the Greeks being present and understanding through interpreters what was said) what would make them willing to burn their fathers at death. The Indians cried aloud, that he should not speak of so horrible an act. So firmly rooted are these beliefs; and it is, I think, rightly said in Pindar's poem that custom is king of all.
> 
> http://www.luc.edu/faculty/ldossey/Herodotus.htm



Yet Greeks, Persians and Indians may all speak of right and wrong.  Disagreeing as the scope of each doesn't make communication impossible.


----------



## outdooraddict

outdooraddict said:


> Love is X, Y, Z, A, etc. You can get rid of the word but not the definition, not all different definitions can be X that is a  mathematical principle. I think you did finally start to answer the original question I had by coming up with whether we are talking about X or Y or Z. Why was it pulling teeth?



Better said it's a logical principle. IF X=Y then everything about X must also be true about Y. You can't change your definition of love when dealing with God and then say he violated principle X by doing Y if they aren't the same.


----------



## TripleXBullies

outdooraddict said:


> Love is X, Y, Z, A, etc. You can get rid of the word but not the definition, not all different definitions can be X that is a  mathematical principle. I think you did finally start to answer the original question I had by coming up with whether we are talking about X or Y or Z. Why was it pulling teeth?



I'm sorry that I didn't use different variables, Love is X, Y, Z.. You know the chapter I'm talking about. You don't need to me to tell you.


----------



## outdooraddict

JFS said:


> Well, "wrong" may have a common definition- a violation of social rules- that allows us to communicate.  But that doesn't mean we agree on what is wrong or why it is wrong.
> 
> Is it wrong to eat someone after they die?  It's a strong taboo for us.  But for another society that has harsh winters where people die of starvation, they may say it is not wrong if the risk of starvation outweighs the risk of spreading disease.  In fact it may be wrong to not do it, i.e. wasting scarce food.   You may view it as an anathema to be eaten, others may view it as an honor to nourish their loved ones after death.   We can still call it "wrong" as it breaks our social rules.  But our "wrong" is not an absolute.
> 
> My example is not absurd.  From Herodotus:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet Greeks, Persians and Indians may all speak of right and wrong.  Disagreeing as the scope of each doesn't make communication impossible.


 
I think we may be going down the same road again. Yes if you look up "wrong" you will find SEVERAL definitions.

wrong - adjective
1.
not in accordance with what is morally right or good: a wrong deed.
2.
deviating from truth or fact; erroneous: a wrong answer.
3.
not correct in action, judgment, opinion, method, etc., as a person; in error: You are wrong to blame him.
4.
not proper or usual; not in accordance with requirements or recommended practice: the wrong way to hold a golf club.
5.
out of order; awry; amiss: Something is wrong with the machine.

You could also use it as a verb- He wronged me.

Therefore you must define the term or we can't communicate!


----------



## TripleXBullies

outdooraddict said:


> Better said it's a logical principle. IF X=Y then everything about X must also be true about Y. You can't change your definition of love when dealing with God and then say he violated principle X by doing Y if they aren't the same.



We can get rid of the variables.. I was just using them to save typing. You know the chapters I'm talking about.


----------



## outdooraddict

TripleXBullies said:


> I'm sorry that I didn't use different variables, Love is X, Y, Z.. You know the chapter I'm talking about. You don't need to me to tell you.



Yes I do need you to. If you or I say God isn't love then we must explain what we mean. But yes the point you make is heavy.


----------



## hummdaddy

bigreddwon said:


> I think a better question is if he doesn't deserve to be there who does?



me and you of coarse


----------



## JFS

outdooraddict said:


> Therefore you must define the term or we can't communicate!



Wrong definition (pun intended).  We already agreed we are debating definition 1.  Defining that doesn't resolve what it means to be morally right or good.


----------



## outdooraddict

JFS said:


> Wrong definition (pun intended).  We already agreed we are debating definition 1.  Defining that doesn't resolve what it means to be morally right or good.



I'm still not tooootally sure what you mean. I couldn't get from the context which was your issue- the importance of establishing definitions or the idea of what moral rightness and wrongness are. Since on this blog tons of work have already been done on the later I thought you meant the former. See how important clarifying terms is.

If youre saying society does morals I will pull down my opinion again.


----------



## outdooraddict

outdooraddict said:


> You don't know my moral codes and I don't know what you mean by overlapping ideologies or why it is a problem.
> 
> You may confuse morals with cultural expression. I may feel immodesty is immoral but what was immodest 100 years ago (seeing a woman's ankle exposed under her dress) and today (probably gotta be topless and I'm not even sure about that) has a cultural reference. Vulgarity may be immoral and "bloody" was a horrible vulgar word in England a decade or 2 ago I've been told, but no problem now.
> 
> Absolute morals don't by definition change but culture relevance of expression may evolve.




I think you are confusing absolute morals with cultural relevance.


----------



## outdooraddict

outdooraddict said:


> Great so now, just as we did with the other gods, please point out which of these boil down to be the simplest quintessential ones that will explain all man’s questions or could be the source for these presuppositions (the Logos of the universe) instead of unintelligible randomness. The presuppositions can’t be from any gods within the universe because they must exist and form the logos at the point the universe begins in order for us to “know” anything- a priori knowledge.
> 
> *The Logos/presuppositions:*
> The universe must exist
> There must be an ultimate uncaused cause for things that exist
> The cause for the existence of the universe must be outside of the universe
> The universe must be rational
> The universe must be approachable by your senses
> You must be able to trust your senses
> The universe must be approachable by your reasoning
> You must be able to trust your reasoning
> Rules of logic must apply in order to use reason
> Rules of mathematics must exist in order to apply empiric observations
> Rules must apply independent of experience (mathematics, 2+2=4 must be absolute and must exist before empiric science can work).
> Morality must exist (honesty in experimentation, reporting of findings, conclusions)
> Your thoughts must be trustworthy
> Methods of communication must be trustworthy means for transferring concepts and sharing ideas between observers
> 
> It requires you to internally have a reliability to your thinking, not the product of random changes that lead to a survival benefit. Second, you be able to trust your senses(as Scrooge questioned Marley) , you could actually be living in the Matrix. Third, you must live in an external logical and consistent universe for which rules/a logos exists in order to apply those senses and analyze the data.
> 
> *Some of the questions:*
> Yoko Ono-What is real? Is anything real?
> Zhuangzi (369 BC) -One night I dreamed that i was a carefree butterfly, flying happily. After i woke up, i wondered how i could determine whether i was Zhuangzi who had just finished dreaming i was a butterfly, or a butterfly who had just started dreaming i was Zhuangzi
> The Greeks- why is there something instead of nothing, where do we find our origin, destiny, meaning, morality
> Why does the universe appear designed for life (anthropic principle)
> Why is there life in the universe
> 
> The god must be outside the universe (knocking out the Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and primitive tribe gods). The biblical God is outside of the universe, an uncaused cause, associated with a beginning point for the universe Gen 1:1 so he meets some of our needs.
> 
> You and I seem to think we can question and explore the universe so presuppositions must exist as opposed to being an illusion (knocking out the Eastern religion gods).
> How many of these Gods are left as possibilities as the source for these presuppositions or supply answers for these questions.
> 
> I’m not saying the God of the bible is the source, I’m just helping you thin down that list.



Here's my problem with trying to claim any God can work.


----------



## outdooraddict

outdooraddict said:


> Thank you and please indulge me one more time. I think the logic 101 is crucial or we can’t really have a meaningful conversation.  I really have to beat to death why these other ways of arriving at morality don’t work because it’s critical to getting to my reasons. I haven’t jumped to a conclusion of God as the moral source, I’ve ruled out my other options.
> 
> It’s very important to establish the logical fallacies, circular reasoning and inconsistencies that everyone has been putting out because I wanted to try all these other possibilities first. I prefer not to answer to a God or be subject to an absolute moral standard. Please forgive me but I must point out one more logical fallacy called distinction without a difference.  I think by saying not to put words in your mouth that you are saying you are not a moral relativist but then you said “That *doesn't work for me*. *I personally felt* the example was wrong as is slavery and rape. *I don't believe* everyone is right or everyone is wrong. They have the ability to *judge for themselves* and be judged by others. Ultimately it is *your own personal control* that either keeps you from doing something or your lack of that control to just say the heck with it and do it.”
> 
> These are statements of relativism!
> 
> I think the fundamental question, as I continue to bring us back to, is whether morals are absolute or relative. Everybody has tried to come up with a way to have absolute morals but none of it works.
> 
> I have already explained why I don’t see that society does morality gives you absolute morals and I have already pointed out the problems you end up with such as slave societies, Nazi societies, etc. If societies define morality then it is relative and not absolute so there is no way that someone “should” behave. The Nazis and Saddam’s henchmen would have been correct in claiming they did nothing wrong because they followed their own laws. Rape is only wrong if it isn’t acceptable in your society. If you are in a Muslim extremist society where a woman has little value then rape is fine. There is no absolute moral rule.
> 
> Evolution can’t do absolute morality. As I’ve said, naturalistic evolution is based on the occurrence of random events with those that confer a survival advantage “sticking” in the gene pool. There is no absolute moral rule. Rape is appropriate if the strongest individual with the best genes does the raping. In fact, the closest thing to an evolutionary moral would demand that the strongest rape in order to promote the good of the group as somebody tried to keep arguing for (even though natural selection only works at the individual level, The Selfish Gene- R Dawkins).
> 
> Nature and observation don’t provide us with absolute morality. As we have already discussed, some animals guard their young and some eat them. Some animals mate for life and others eat their mate. So observing nature gets us nowhere.
> 
> Some have advocated might make right morality. This in fact is not morality at all but anarchy and a lack of any morals to guide behavior. You are merely saying that if I can beat up a woman and rape her so what. As a statement of truth it is self-defeating because since it is a minority opinion and not held by force and might, it must not be true because only might makes it right. So this is not a position for an absolute morality or any morality and as a truth statement is self defeating.
> 
> An absolute morality would tell us how we “ought” to behave. It not only provides list A “good stuff” and list B “bad stuff”, but it has an expectation that you ought to choose good not bad, but why?
> 
> An absolute morality is not just about behavior. As I said before is it morally wrong to trip grandma? Well it depends on intent, maybe it was an accident and clumsy but not immoral. It also depends on purpose, if I did it on purpose was I trying to hurt grandma or stop her before she stepped in front of a bus? So, morality cannot be defined as a behavior.
> 
> The only choices left are a transcendent set of laws which logically require a source, or relativism.
> 
> Pragmatically, almost no one really believes in relativism. Some claim to but as has been said in the past, if you want to disprove a relativist steal their stereo. Immediately they believe in an absolute moral and feel the thief wronged them. They never say “well if you believe it’s ok to steal then that’s fine for you”. No one that I know who claims to be a relativist has been able to use this as a real directive for their own behavior. They usually say something like this “everybody should decide for themselves, you should stop telling people how to behave/you Christians shouldn’t judge people/nobody has the right to tell others how to act”. This is obviously self defeating because the moral relativist is the first to judge others like the Christian and is quick to tell others how to behave. Therefore, relativism does not seem to work and the loudest proponents for it violate it immediately.
> 
> That leaves a transcendent source.  Gods or some moral authority seems to be the logical source. As we discussed earlier, the God must be creative and must be outside of the creation or else he would be subject to the rules of the universe not the source for it and we would still be looking for an uncaused cause to explain why there was a universe or the laws, moral or otherwise, in it. Gen 1:1 describes one such possibility. Most all other gods are a part of the universe, part of the creation and therefore have removed themselves from the running. Greek and Roman gods may torture you into doing what they want but they do not provide us with an absolute moral code. Second to be absolute you certainly can’t be an “illusion”. You can’t simultaneously be the source for absolute morals and at the same time declare that all is an illusion, nothing is real or as it seems. That takes the eastern religion gods out.
> That leaves me with the God of the bible and for theologic reasons takes me on to the New Testament. The cliff notes for morality in the New Testament is summed up very quickly by someone who claims to be the Logos/the word/ the rationale for the universe. He said” love God and love your fellow man as you love yourself, all the laws and the prophets hang on this”. How does one love God? He says by following his commandments. Why does he want you to follow his commandments? For the same reason your doctor wants you to fill your prescription (and I get that, I’m a physician). It’s not because I will throw a fit if you don’t do what I want, it’s because it’s my job to know what you need and it matters to me whether or not you get better.
> 
> I agree that pain and suffering are a problem. I know because my first born suffers from serious medical problems and has since birth. It doesn’t seem fair but that begs the moral question of fair that we are discussing and means I need a lot more information than I presently possess to really decide the fate of myself or my child and I’m not up to that task. Old Testament history is hard to deal with from the lens of our present culture that says we should answer to no one, no one knows more than me, and no one should ever feel pain, just put us in the Matrix and give us an alternative reality. However, these problems are really for the Christian NOT the atheist. As above, if there is no God I see no source for absolute morals and without absolute morals you can’t claim God is bad. You can’t deny absolute morals and then rage against God because he is immoral.
> 
> So what is my conclusion of absolute morals? Love God and love(agape, “do what’s best for”)  your fellow man as you love yourself. That’s why the soldier who dies for the village is a hero and does good even if he ends his own survival and even if he doesn’t get to pass on his genes and even if in nature we see the deer run from a threat. It doesn't matter if he is a christian, and it doesn't matter whether he believes in good anymore than he has to believe in gravity to make it work. He has done good. It’s why rape is wrong no matter what your society says or how mighty you are or how it will help you spread your genes.



Here's my problem with skipping logic or reason to try and create some absolute source for morals if without logical justification.


----------



## JFS

outdooraddict said:


> If youre saying society does morals I will pull down my opinion again.



I am saying that.  Your longer discussions seem geared to explore the parameters of absolute morality.  Interesting, but don't IMHO drive the discussion since there really isn't any such thing.  



> Here's my problem with trying to claim any God can work.



Not saying any god can work, saying you don't need god at all.



> Here's my problem with skipping logic or reason to try and create some absolute source for morals if without logical justification.



Not trying to create an absolute source.

No god, no absolute source.  There is a spectrum of societal agreements that dictate what someone should do in a situation.  Those that relate to significant social or personal survival may be given more authority (morals) than those that just grease social interaction (manners). 

Morals can vary between societies and a society's morality can be malleable over time depending on what fits its needs.

An action is "right" or "wrong" to the extent it complies with the prevailing hierarchy of agreed rules.


----------



## outdooraddict

So what happens when societies collide? Might makes right?


----------



## ambush80

bigreddwon said:


> Disgusting but true. I think hades will be safer for my kids.




Yet any of the non-Christian children he raped and ate are in He11 because that's where the Bible says non-Christians go.

BTW.  I don't know if he ate any non-Christian children ( if you want to know, Google is your friend) but I suppose it's happened.


----------



## outdooraddict

JFS said:


> I am saying that.  Your longer discussions seem geared to explore the parameters of absolute morality.  Interesting, but don't IMHO drive the discussion since there really isn't any such thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Not saying any god can work, saying you don't need god at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Not trying to create an absolute source.
> 
> No god, no absolute source.  There is a spectrum of societal agreements that dictate what someone should do in a situation.  Those that relate to significant social or personal survival may be given more authority (morals) than those that just grease social interaction (manners).
> 
> Morals can vary between societies and a society's morality can be malleable over time depending on what fits its needs.
> 
> An action is "right" or "wrong" to the extent it complies with the prevailing hierarchy of agreed rules.



The idea that "society does morality" is a Utopian dream that does not work. For one thing, the idea of "a society" is faulty. There's no such thing. By the 1850s American society was fed up with the evils of slavery and felt it had to end. The southern society knew its standards and felt they needed slaves, and society accepted slavery as just fine. Within the slave society, slaves certainly weren't convinced, not aware that slavery was morally correct because they were in southern society but also that slavery was evil because they were in America. So much for "societal agreement".  Was slavery wrong? How many lives could have been saved at Gettysburg with your simple answer?

The American Revolution-Continental or English society?

Second, we have no idea how to act, and knowing how to behave is exactly what morals are supposed to tell us. The US entered WWII unaware that they were wrong because Hitler's society accepted Nazi-ism. They should have allowed the killing of the Jews because that was consistent with German society, at least unless we consider Jewish society which felt genocide was evil. When Hitler invaded France and Stalin invaded Poland, resistance fighters resisted, not knowing that they were now a part of Nazi or Communist society and so the resistance fighters were obviously wrong. However, they were a part of their native societies and so they were also right to fight.

At the Nuremberg trials, the Nazi leaders asked who were you to judge us, we were obeying the laws of our land, this was right by our societies standards. The Nazis should have been set free then and the Allies hung for daring to put their societies morals on Germany. Instead, they argued that there was a higher moral at play. Poor misguided Allies. Saddam Hussain's generals tried the same argument and nobody listened, not knowing that the slaughter of his citizens was ok because it was consistent with society, that is except for the Kurd society.

Some cultures today rape and enslave women because they feel women have no intrinsic value and the media runs stories on the horrors not knowing that you have the answer, which is that we need to butt out because who are we to tell another society what to do.

Society does morality does not work. It fails pragmatically. You have no idea which of the societies you coexist in trumps and you have no idea how to interact with another society. If the US is invaded, do we lay down and accept it because it's ok from the invading society's standards or fight because we should apply our moral standards to them.

Finally, it is a self defeating argument. If society does morals is right, then any other way of deciding morals is wrong. That seems to be your absolute rule, but you said there are no absolute morals. On the other hand if that moral is societal then to what society do you appeal, it doesn't seem consistent with this one. But even if it is, in another society they may not accept your moral so you would be wrong. It is self defeating.

How many of the above "good" things happened exactly because people did not follow your morality?

It's neither a logically consistent proposition or even an actionable guide. Morals tell us what we "ought" to do and society does morals certainly can't do that.

I know I'm back to saying we need definitions but I'm not sure what a moral is that can't tell us good and bad nor how to act.


By the way, I don't even know what this sentence means- _"There is a spectrum of societal agreements that dictate what someone should do in a situation. Those that relate to significant social or personal survival may be given more authority (morals) than those that just grease social interaction (manners). "_ Is this some type of absolute rule, your opinion, or do you have a society that you will appeal to as the source for this statement. It strikes me as lacking any reference at all.


----------



## Thanatos

Well the cream has certainly risen to the top in this thread. Good to see the vitriol, ignorance, and intolerance of Atheism on full display.

Belief systems are all the same aren't they


----------



## JFS

> The southern society knew its standards and felt they needed slaves, and society accepted slavery as just fine.
> 
> Hitler's society accepted Nazi-ism.
> 
> Some cultures today rape and enslave women because they feel women have no intrinsic value



Funny, when I see those statements they just illustrate the point.  Surely if there was a universal immutable morality we wouldn't have these discrepancies. 

As for the conflicts, if the Nazi's would have prevailed you could very well be arguing today that the there was a higher moral issue at play when the Nazis hung the immoral traitors who helped Jews escape and that the fact the people helping the Jews escape thought they were acting morally was of no consequence.    Each side in the Civil War had equal access to your universal morals, but they had different value systems. Why? Their societies had different needs and experiences.

As for how to resolve conflicts?  Conflicts are between people.  People will always have different views. It is not unusual for both sides to think they are right.  




> By the way, I don't even know what this sentence means- "There is a spectrum of societal agreements that dictate what someone should do in a situation. Those that relate to significant social or personal survival may be given more authority (morals) than those that just grease social interaction (manners). " Is this some type of absolute rule, your opinion, or do you have a society that you will appeal to as the source for this statement. It strikes me as lacking any reference at all.



It's not a rule, it's an observation or a description.  I would say it is true in every society, but the rules can differ between societies.  

Thanks for the pleasant conversation, I've enjoyed it.


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> The idea that "society does morality" is a Utopian dream that does not work. For one thing, the idea of "a society" is faulty. There's no such thing. By the 1850s American society was fed up with the evils of slavery and felt it had to end. The southern society knew its standards and felt they needed slaves, and society accepted slavery as just fine. Within the slave society, slaves certainly weren't convinced, not aware that slavery was morally correct because they were in southern society but also that slavery was evil because they were in America. So much for "societal agreement".  Was slavery wrong? How many lives could have been saved at Gettysburg with your simple answer?
> 
> The American Revolution-Continental or English society?
> 
> Second, we have no idea how to act, and knowing how to behave is exactly what morals are supposed to tell us. The US entered WWII unaware that they were wrong because Hitler's society accepted Nazi-ism. They should have allowed the killing of the Jews because that was consistent with German society, at least unless we consider Jewish society which felt genocide was evil. When Hitler invaded France and Stalin invaded Poland, resistance fighters resisted, not knowing that they were now a part of Nazi or Communist society and so the resistance fighters were obviously wrong. However, they were a part of their native societies and so they were also right to fight.
> 
> At the Nuremberg trials, the Nazi leaders asked who were you to judge us, we were obeying the laws of our land, this was right by our societies standards. The Nazis should have been set free then and the Allies hung for daring to put their societies morals on Germany. Instead, they argued that there was a higher moral at play. Poor misguided Allies. Saddam Hussain's generals tried the same argument and nobody listened, not knowing that the slaughter of his citizens was ok because it was consistent with society, that is except for the Kurd society.
> 
> Some cultures today rape and enslave women because they feel women have no intrinsic value and the media runs stories on the horrors not knowing that you have the answer, which is that we need to butt out because who are we to tell another society what to do.
> 
> Society does morality does not work. It fails pragmatically. You have no idea which of the societies you coexist in trumps and you have no idea how to interact with another society. If the US is invaded, do we lay down and accept it because it's ok from the invading society's standards or fight because we should apply our moral standards to them.
> 
> Finally, it is a self defeating argument. If society does morals is right, then any other way of deciding morals is wrong. That seems to be your absolute rule, but you said there are no absolute morals. On the other hand if that moral is societal then to what society do you appeal, it doesn't seem consistent with this one. But even if it is, in another society they may not accept your moral so you would be wrong. It is self defeating.
> 
> How many of the above "good" things happened exactly because people did not follow your morality?
> 
> It's neither a logically consistent proposition or even an actionable guide. Morals tell us what we "ought" to do and society does morals certainly can't do that.
> 
> I know I'm back to saying we need definitions but I'm not sure what a moral is that can't tell us good and bad nor how to act.
> 
> 
> By the way, I don't even know what this sentence means- _"There is a spectrum of societal agreements that dictate what someone should do in a situation. Those that relate to significant social or personal survival may be given more authority (morals) than those that just grease social interaction (manners). "_ Is this some type of absolute rule, your opinion, or do you have a society that you will appeal to as the source for this statement. It strikes me as lacking any reference at all.



When were these morals instilled into us? Which humans were given these morals?


----------



## outdooraddict

JFS said:


> Funny, when I see those statements they just illustrate the point.  Surely if there was a universal immutable morality we wouldn't have these discrepancies.
> 
> As for the conflicts, if the Nazi's would have prevailed you could very well be arguing today that the there was a higher moral issue at play when the Nazis hung the immoral traitors who helped Jews escape and that the fact the people helping the Jews escape thought they were acting morally was of no consequence.    Each side in the Civil War had equal access to your universal morals, but they had different value systems. Why? Their societies had different needs and experiences.
> 
> As for how to resolve conflicts?  Conflicts are between people.  People will always have different views. It is not unusual for both sides to think they are right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a rule, it's an observation or a description.  I would say it is true in every society, but the rules can differ between societies.
> 
> Thanks for the pleasant conversation, I've enjoyed it.



 Not following. Of course we would have discrepancies in behavior. Morals define how we should act. The have no ability to "make you behave". I thought we had already defined what morals do.


----------



## outdooraddict

bullethead said:


> When were these morals instilled into us? Which humans were given these morals?



As, above. 

Need clarification on instilled. I suppose one version of that is relativism since different individuals want to excuse their behavior in different ways ( society made me do it, its nature, its evolution, etc.) Absolute morals would be from a source beyond ourselves that says even if in my nature or my society I want or am allowed to murder, rape, or enslave, Its not about my opinion at the moment, how I "feel" at the moment or all those other appeals I just mentioned. It is absolutely wrong. 

For those who tried to define it by society, please help me with the scenarios I just outlined, how would it work?


----------



## JFS

outdooraddict said:


> Morals define how we should act. The have no ability to "make you behave".



Each of those were example of people behaving as they should under their morals.


----------



## hummdaddy

morals come from the brain(rationalizing,compassion,empathy,conscience) and how we have learned through our lives, and ancestors lives while evolving in our surroundings or societies....an absolute moral would too,but psycho's have no problem of a conscience or empathy for anything else...so there for there is no absolute moral ....


----------



## JFS

outdooraddict said:


> Absolute morals would be from a source beyond ourselves



You can imagine whatever you want, there just isn't any reason to think that's true.


----------



## bigreddwon

So true.


----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## bigreddwon

How's this make you _feel_?


----------



## bigreddwon

This is it.  This is what happens to most die hard bible thumpers. They believe what they were forced to believe and ya can make em see anything else.


----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## bigreddwon

So true


----------



## bigreddwon

Weird huh?


----------



## bigreddwon

Truth stings. 

Religion. Keeping the poor from killing the rich for a loooooong time.


----------



## outdooraddict

JFS said:


> Each of those were example of people behaving as they should under their morals.



Totally agree, those boil down to relativism. Everybody makes there own choices and nobody complains about the christians, Muslims, communists, etc. But....as I pointed out no relativist lives by their own moral rule, they immediately start picking on someone else, just review the memes that were posted above as proof that relativists don't have enough insight to see the their own contradictions. Sad really. We have lost the ability to reason.


----------



## JFS

outdooraddict said:


> Totally agree, those boil down to relativism. Everybody makes there own choices and nobody complains about the christians, Muslims, communists, etc. But....as I pointed out no relativist lives by their own moral rule, they immediately start picking on someone else, just review the memes that were posted above as proof that relativists don't have enough insight to see the their own contradictions. Sad really. We have lost the ability to reason.



I don't see the connection.  This may be a muddled conversation given it is mixed in with the "memes", but How do pithy memes demonstrate a systemic failure of descriptive moral relativism?


----------



## outdooraddict

The mantra of the relativist is "who are you to judge someone else or tell them how to live". It should be obvious that the memes judge and criticize another culture (Christian, bible believer, etc). How is it not obvious that this is contradictory and a violation of the relativists own "moral"?


----------



## outdooraddict

Even assuming you are correct or making some sort of point from a meme instead of trying a logical discussion, That's their culture who are you to judge!


----------



## JFS

outdooraddict said:


> The mantra of the relativist is "who are you to judge someone else or tell them how to live".



Pointing out that there is no absolute or universal morals doesn't mean we don't make judgments.


----------



## outdooraddict

JFS said:


> Pointing out that there is no absolute or universal morals doesn't mean we don't make judgments.



Relativists can't say others are wrong. That's what relativism means!


----------



## JFS

outdooraddict said:


> Relativists can't say others are wrong. That's what relativism means!



There are a wide range of philosophical views out there and no doubt you can find someone with those views.  But all I have advocated is that culture or society produces morals, not that we have to abandon ours just because others are different.  Using your previous examples, I would say slavery, anti-semitism, and misogyny are wrong and judge others who engage in those activities to be "wrong".


----------



## outdooraddict

But you can't judge them without an appeal to an absolute source! Otherwise you have to abandon the judgement. Right and wrong are either absolute or relative. Law of noncontradiction

You can't say everybody's answer is right on the math test and then mark some answers wrong. Either there is an absolute answer to 2+2 or everybody makes up there own and nobody is wrong.


----------



## outdooraddict

JFS said:


> There are a wide range of philosophical views out there and no doubt you can find someone with those views.  But all I have advocated is that culture or society produces morals, not that we have to abandon ours just because others are different.  Using your previous examples, I would say slavery, anti-semitism, and misogyny are wrong and judge others who engage in those activities to be "wrong".



I think you're trying to cheat. You don't want to say these things are ok yet you don't have a way from relativism to say they are absolutely wrong. That's the dilemma of relativism.


----------



## JFS

outdooraddict said:


> But you can't judge them without an appeal to an absolute source! Otherwise you have to abandon the judgement. Right and wrong are either absolute or relative. Law of noncontradiction




Let's look at it another way for a minute.  You say words or values have to have absolute meaning.  Let's take the word "beauty".    Is there a absolute definition of the word or value of beauty.  You've said we need a universal definition or we can't communicate, and that without a universal absolute we can't judge.  Please give me the universal, global, timeless definition of beauty. 

I would say the concept of justice is not universally defined.  Different societies may have different views, and any given society or culture may change its view over time.  It's an idea that people strive for even if not everyone agrees what it means at any given time.  My view may be different than the Taliban, we have different sources for our views.  The fact that we disagree doesn't mean I can't say killing someone for dancing is unjust. 

Same with morally "wrong".


----------



## JFS

outdooraddict said:


> I think you're trying to cheat. You don't want to say these things are ok yet you don't have a way from relativism to say they are absolutely wrong. That's the dilemma of relativism.



There are different versions of relativism.  



> Meta-Ethical Relativism: The truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not objective or universal but instead relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of people.
> 
> Normative Relativism: The prescriptive or normative position that as there is no universal moral standard by which to judge others, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when it runs counter to our personal or cultural moral standards.



I guess I would agree that you can't say that something is "absolutely" wrong, but that doesn't always mean morals can't exist for someone.  Just like the idea of beauty.  I am pretty sure your idea of beauty depends on the culture you grow up in, but you are still able to say something or someone is beautiful.    It is relative, but has its own relative truth and a is a viable concept.


----------



## hummdaddy

rambling mumbo jumbo,i told you where they come from,and you refuse it,because it's not what you want to hear....it's amazing what the brain can come up with!!!


----------



## outdooraddict

JFS said:


> Let's look at it another way for a minute.  You say words or values have to have absolute meaning.  Let's take the word "beauty".    Is there a absolute definition of the word or value of beauty.  You've said we need a universal definition or we can't communicate, and that without a universal absolute we can't judge.  Please give me the universal, global, timeless definition of beauty.
> 
> I would say the concept of justice is not universally defined.  Different societies may have different views, and any given society or culture may change its view over time.  It's an idea that people strive for even if not everyone agrees what it means at any given time.  My view may be different than the Taliban, we have different sources for our views.  The fact that we disagree doesn't mean I can't say killing someone for dancing is unjust.
> 
> Same with morally "wrong".



Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder IS relativism YES!

I agree that you are espousing relativism!!!! I'm saying you can't say something isn't beautiful if everybody decides for themselves. We are beating a dead horse  

You can't judge others if all is relative!!!


----------



## outdooraddict

hummdaddy said:


> rambling mumbo jumbo,i told you where they come from,and you refuse it,because it's not what you want to hear....it's amazing what the brain can come up with!!!




Random events that hopefully confer a survival advantage time will tell


----------



## JFS

outdooraddict said:


> I'm saying you can't say something isn't beautiful if everybody decides for themselves. We are beating a dead horse



OK, I was using that as more of a linguistic example but I'll settle for your conclusion.  The idea that there is a cosmic universal definition of what a beautiful woman is and that it is true for all times and all people is absurd to me.  Yet we use the word beautiful.   It has meaning.  Much more reasonable to me to recognize that different cultures have different standards, but those different standards don't preclude us from making our own judgments.


----------



## outdooraddict

I'm goin for hot mama number 1, teeth are highly over rated.


----------



## JFS

outdooraddict said:


> I'm goin for hot mama number 1, teeth are highly over rated.


----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## bigreddwon

Exactly...


----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## bigreddwon

Y'all can just stop this now.


----------



## bigreddwon

Makes perfect sense, as long as you ignore it.


----------



## bigreddwon

As silly as this meme is... It's spot on, 100% accurate.


----------



## bigreddwon

This thinking is rampant. Sad.


----------



## bigreddwon

Yup..


----------



## bigreddwon

People who follow this man are being willfully stuuuuuuuupid.


----------



## outdooraddict

Memes!


----------



## bigreddwon

outdooraddict said:


> Memes!



Yup... every single meme posted is 199% false! 


Rejoice for your faith overcame      reason, common sence, obvious facts and your own bible quotes. Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> As, above.
> 
> Need clarification on instilled. I suppose one version of that is relativism since different individuals want to excuse their behavior in different ways ( society made me do it, its nature, its evolution, etc.) Absolute morals would be from a source beyond ourselves that says even if in my nature or my society I want or am allowed to murder, rape, or enslave, Its not about my opinion at the moment, how I "feel" at the moment or all those other appeals I just mentioned. It is absolutely wrong.
> 
> For those who tried to define it by society, please help me with the scenarios I just outlined, how would it work?



At what point in human history were we given these absolute morals? Was it when we split from a common ancestor or when two people were in a garden?


----------



## outdooraddict

Absolute rules would need to exist simultaneous with the beginning of the universe for such things as science and reasoning, inductive and deductive reasoning to occur.


----------



## bigreddwon

outdooraddict said:


> Absolute rules would need to exist simultaneous with the beginning of the universe for such things as science and reasoning, inductive and deductive reasoning to occur.



You use volumes of type and three syllable words stacked up to say basically. .bla bla blab bla


----------



## outdooraddict

Cool  good  come  back  no  meme  for  you  this  time  I  see  how  nice  of  you


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> Absolute rules would need to exist simultaneous with the beginning of the universe for such things as science and reasoning, inductive and deductive reasoning to occur.



What I am saying is that the evidence doesn't support the claim.
We know these morals did not start with two people in a garden and we know humans were so primitive and animalistic for a couple million years that these "absolute" morals only were a concept once our minds were advanced enough to wrap our thoughts around them. I have a hard time believing that two neanderthals were about to bash each others skulls in and one had an overwhelming sense that someone in the sky "gave" him a better sense of morals than the other guy. I would tend to think that IF he pondered that at all that in that split second the other guy caved his head in and out went the idea all over the rocks. Someone thought of morals for sure, but I have a hard time believing it is any sort of higher power beyond humans. If the absolute morals existed the split second the Universe exploded into existence it sure took a heck of a long time for no universal agreement on it to be had.
This universal giver of all things is eerily absent except for humans arguing for him.


----------



## hummdaddy

bigreddwon said:


> You use volumes of type and three syllable words stacked up to say basically. .bla bla blab bla


----------



## outdooraddict

bullethead said:


> What I am saying is that the evidence doesn't support the claim.
> We know these morals did not start with two people in a garden and we know humans were so primitive and animalistic for a couple million years that these "absolute" morals only were a concept once our minds were advanced enough to wrap our thoughts around them. I have a hard time believing that two neanderthals were about to bash each others skulls in and one had an overwhelming sense that someone in the sky "gave" him a better sense of morals than the other guy. I would tend to think that IF he pondered that at all that in that split second the other guy caved his head in and out went the idea all over the rocks. Someone thought of morals for sure, but I have a hard time believing it is any sort of higher power beyond humans. If the absolute morals existed the split second the Universe exploded into existence it sure took a heck of a long time for no universal agreement on it to be had.
> This universal giver of all things is eerily absent except for humans arguing for him.



Thanks but again we are shifting from absolute to relative morals or post-modernism "the universe didn't exist until we observed it, morals didn't exist until we did right and wrong". As I said I would have to posit that all absolute truths occurred along with the occurrence of the universe. I wouldn't argue that mathematical principles didn't exist until the abacus or calculator or that rules of logic didn't exist until man could reason. Their existence allowed for man to calculate and think. Absolute morals (honesty) also allowed him to "do" science and rely on the results ( see Piltdown Man, The peppered moth from the Museum of Hoaxes website, Hwang Woo-suk's cloning research).


----------



## outdooraddict

hummdaddy said:


>



 I answered with one syllable words above, Hummdaddy clears it up with no syllables! Good work.


----------



## outdooraddict

bigreddwon said:


> You use volumes of type and three syllable words stacked up to say basically. .bla bla blab bla



From somebody who started a discussion based on MEMEs!


----------



## hummdaddy

outdooraddict said:


> I answered with one syllable words above, Hummdaddy clears it up with no syllables! Good work.



i already told you,you have been talking a bunch of mumbo jumbo,and i gave you the answer you needed...you just don't accept it as absolute truth...


----------



## outdooraddict

hummdaddy said:


> i already told you,you have been talking a bunch of mumbo jumbo,and i gave you the answer you needed...you just don't accept it as absolute truth...



Where does absolute truth come from mumbo jumbo man and  how is it that you "know" it?


----------



## hummdaddy

outdooraddict said:


> where does absolute truth come from mumbo jumbo man and  how is it that you "know" it?



because i am not ignorant to the facts i laid out to you!!!!


----------



## hummdaddy

http://amanwithaphd.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/morality-is-an-instinct-and-a-learned-behavior/
http://www1.umn.edu/ships/evolutionofmorality/text/19.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/31/health/psychology/31book.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Primatologists like Frans de Waal have long argued that the roots of human morality are evident in social animals like apes and monkeys. The animals’ feelings of empathy and expectations of reciprocity are essential behaviors for mammalian group living and can be regarded as a counterpart of human morality.


----------



## outdooraddict

hummdaddy said:


> because i am not ignorant to the facts i laid out to you!!!!



Gotcha. It's all settled then


----------



## outdooraddict

hummdaddy said:


> http://amanwithaphd.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/morality-is-an-instinct-and-a-learned-behavior/
> http://www1.umn.edu/ships/evolutionofmorality/text/19.htm
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/31/health/psychology/31book.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
> 
> Primatologists like Frans de Waal have long argued that the roots of human morality are evident in social animals like apes and monkeys. The animals’ feelings of empathy and expectations of reciprocity are essential behaviors for mammalian group living and can be regarded as a counterpart of human morality.


Objection your honor the witness has already answered the issues of behavior vs morals


----------



## hummdaddy

outdooraddict said:


> Gotcha. It's all settled then



morals come from the brain(rationalizing,compassion,empathy,conscience) and how we have learned through our lives, and ancestors lives while evolving in our surroundings or societies....an absolute moral would too,but psycho's have no problem of a conscience or empathy for anything else...so there for there is no absolute moral ....


RIGHT HERE ,IS YOUR ANSWER


----------



## outdooraddict

hummdaddy said:


> morals come from the brain(rationalizing,compassion,empathy,conscience) and how we have learned through our lives, and ancestors lives while evolving in our surroundings or societies....an absolute moral would too,but psycho's have no problem of a conscience or empathy for anything else...so there for there is no absolute moral ....
> 
> 
> RIGHT HERE ,IS YOUR ANSWER



I'm still stuck on your premises. Either you feel that typing post 688 is simply a mammalian behavior and therefore not an absolute truth OR you feel that there is absolute truth like you said in post 685 in which case you do not believe you are posting based simply because of your mammalian behavior. Which self defeating contradictory statement do you believe?


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> Thanks but again we are shifting from absolute to relative morals or post-modernism "the universe didn't exist until we observed it, morals didn't exist until we did right and wrong". As I said I would have to posit that all absolute truths occurred along with the occurrence of the universe. I wouldn't argue that mathematical principles didn't exist until the abacus or calculator or that rules of logic didn't exist until man could reason. Their existence allowed for man to calculate and think. Absolute morals (honesty) also allowed him to "do" science and rely on the results ( see Piltdown Man, The peppered moth from the Museum of Hoaxes website, Hwang Woo-suk's cloning research).



We are not shifting anything. Is it your position that these morals were around some 13 billion years before humans ?


----------



## outdooraddict

bullethead said:


> We are not shifting anything. Is it your position that these morals were around some 13 billion years before humans ?



Were mathematical rules present before there was a mind to calculate, were rules of logic present before man could reason?


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> Were mathematical rules present before there was a mind to calculate, were rules of logic present before man could reason?



I did not ask you to answer mine with another question. I am asking you directly.
Is it your position that these morals were around some 13 billion years before humans ?


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> Were mathematical rules present before there was a mind to calculate, were rules of logic present before man could reason?



Starting to all sound a little relative to me.


----------



## outdooraddict

Thought the question would give the answer. If rules of mathematics and logic are absolute then I don't see any other choice but that if there are also absolute rules of morality and if they originate from the same source then it seems that they would exist at the same time


----------



## outdooraddict

bullethead said:


> Starting to all sound a little relative to me.


???


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> Thought the question would give the answer. If rules of mathematics and logic are absolute then I don't see any other choice but that if there are also absolute rules of morality and if they originate from the same source then it seems that they would exist at the same time



So mathematics came from an absolute math teacher?

I think I am beginning to see that any absolute rules are just rules to the best that we can know them. No need to muddy up the waters with any sort of giver outside of this world.


----------



## outdooraddict

I still think an absolute rule requires an absolute source. If there isn't a source there isn't a right answer. If there isn't a right answer there is no way to reason calculate or behave.


----------



## outdooraddict

I haven't said teacher. People are so hostile to the thought of a god that they throw out the baby logic with the bath water. I'm open to other sources


----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> I haven't said teacher. People are so hostile to the thought of a god that they throw out the baby logic with the bath water. I'm open to other sources



Well I just cannot see anyone or anything putting all this effort into figuring all these intricate things out and actual life is so chaotic.
The evidence doesn't match the claims.


----------



## outdooraddict

bigreddwon said:


>



Is "you must have empathy" an absolute or just your opinion?


----------



## outdooraddict

bullethead said:


> Well I just cannot see anyone or anything putting all this effort into figuring all these intricate things out and actual life is so chaotic.
> The evidence doesn't match the claims.



What creates an expectation that things shouldn't be chaotic?  Somebody said that the problem isn't that the world does or doesn't make sense but that it almost makes sense


----------



## hummdaddy

make it stop


----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## bigreddwon

True


----------



## bigreddwon

Or burn you for eternity. ..


----------



## fish hawk

Meme sounds so gay......Why don't you man up and call your little cartoons what they really are???Lets call a spade a spade and quit trying to attach a cute little name to it.


----------



## bigreddwon

fish hawk said:


> Meme sounds so gay......Why don't you man up and call your little cartoons what they really are???Lets call a spade a spade and quit trying to attach a cute little name to it.



Man up huh? 

What wouldyou call them mr manly man? 

Oh, and which ones are your favorites?


----------



## fish hawk

bigreddwon said:


> Man up huh?
> 
> What wouldyou call them mr manly man?
> 
> Oh, and which ones are your favorites?



I can think of some things to call it,but..........in the meantime, say meme five times real fast!!!


----------



## bullethead

On one hand we have outdooraddict, well spoken and well schooled in the art of discussion and debating. OA brings a level of thought into conversations that is very welcomed.

One the other hand we have:


fish hawk said:


> Meme sounds so gay......Why don't you man up and call your little cartoons what they really are???Lets call a spade a spade and quit trying to attach a cute little name to it.


----------



## TripleXBullies

outdooraddict said:


> Thought the question would give the answer. If rules of mathematics and logic are absolute then I don't see any other choice but that if there are also absolute rules of morality and if they originate from the same source then it seems that they would exist at the same time



You've been talking a lot of about absolute morals.... you truly have a dizzying intellect.... Have I missed it, or have you yet to state your absolute morals? Wait, THE absolute morals. Let's hear them. Like mathematics were created at the time of creation, 1+1=2, you must have at least some examples of what we and the world would agree are absolute morals. Let's hear them and where they come from.


----------



## TripleXBullies

bigreddwon said:


> True



Ashamed... That's a good one... As soon as the rest of the world can make christians ashamed of their absolute morals, they change their absolute morals. Absolutely fascinating.


----------



## humdandy

Prayers sent.


----------



## centerpin fan

bigreddwon said:


> Oh, and which ones are your favorites?



Post 674.


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> I haven't said teacher. People are so hostile to the thought of a god that they throw out the baby logic with the bath water. I'm open to other sources



What are your thoughts on this source(as to who it is), and why?


----------



## JFS

TripleXBullies said:


> Let's hear them and where they come from.



That's the next part of the flaw the argument.  Not only are there not any, even if there were there is no way to prove what they are, so all you have is subjective debate about what people think they are or should be.  Which I guess puts you back to where I left it in 661.


----------



## outdooraddict

TripleXBullies said:


> You've been talking a lot of about absolute morals.... you truly have a dizzying intellect.... Have I missed it, or have you yet to state your absolute morals? Wait, THE absolute morals. Let's hear them. Like mathematics were created at the time of creation, 1+1=2, you must have at least some examples of what we and the world would agree are absolute morals. Let's hear them and where they come from.



I truuuuuly planned to step out at this point because nothing new is being said and people are back to hiding behind memes and insults (plus I will be traveling for the next week) but I will give you one more insight. Do morals exist and do I know of any?  Its not a moral I give you but one someone in these posts gave me:  "When Darius was king, he summoned the Greeks who were with him and asked them for what price they would eat their fathers' dead bodies. They answered that they wouldn’t do it for any amount of money. Then Darius summoned those Indians who are called Callatiae, who eat their parents, and asked them (the Greeks being present and understanding through interpreters what was said) what would make them willing to burn their fathers at death. The Indians cried aloud, that he should not speak of so horrible an act. So firmly rooted are these beliefs; and it is, I think, rightly said in Pindar's poem that custom is king of all."

The moral was the same-honor your father. The cultural expression and how they thought they would show honor was different but both societies held to a single moral. Long dress/short dress- the idea of modesty is relative to society, but "be modest" is an absolute moral. You can be immodest yes but that doesn't prove there isn't the moral.

Some say well if you had been born somewhere else you would believe in a different god so you must be wrong. That does not follow. If I were born in a primitive culture I might have believed thunder was the gods sparring but that doesn't mean that it isn't the sonic boom created by rapid expansion of air from changes induced by lightning, just because that's what people here believe. What thunder (absolutely) is doesn't require unanimous votes, it means everybody can't be right but it doesn't mean nobody is right.

I don't know what else to say. I laid out questions and rationale not insults, and I didn't start with God though so far I've been left with him as a possible answer for all those quesions or truths or presuppositions that require a source. I'm not a magical thinker, I don't believe that the universe or its rational thoughts could happen irrationally, magically, chaotically or randomly. 

You could have left me with relativism for morals, but nobody really wants that and I've already explained that you are self defeating to posit it and then judge God as bad or immoral. I do believe christians have done a lot of bad things but that's not the same thing as saying there are no morals. I do know people say "if you christians believed what you say you wouldn't make errors". I believe in math as absolute but still make errors.

Good luck, I hope you all find answers.


----------



## stringmusic

outdooraddict said:


> I truuuuuly planned to step out at this point because nothing new is being said and people are back to hiding behind memes and insults (plus I will be traveling for the next week) but I will give you one more insight. Do morals exist and do I know of any?  Its not a moral I give you but one someone in these posts gave me:  "When Darius was king, he summoned the Greeks who were with him and asked them for what price they would eat their fathers' dead bodies. They answered that they wouldn’t do it for any amount of money. Then Darius summoned those Indians who are called Callatiae, who eat their parents, and asked them (the Greeks being present and understanding through interpreters what was said) what would make them willing to burn their fathers at death. The Indians cried aloud, that he should not speak of so horrible an act. So firmly rooted are these beliefs; and it is, I think, rightly said in Pindar's poem that custom is king of all."
> 
> The moral was the same-honor your father. The cultural expression and how they thought they would show honor was different but both societies held to a single moral. Long dress/short dress- the idea of modesty is relative to society, but "be modest" is an absolute moral. You can be immodest yes but that doesn't prove there isn't the moral.
> 
> Some say well if you had been born somewhere else you would believe in a different god so you must be wrong. That does not follow. If I were born in a primitive culture I might have believed thunder was the gods sparring but that doesn't mean that it isn't the sonic boom created by rapid expansion of air from changes induced by lightning, just because that's what people here believe. What thunder (absolutely) is doesn't require unanimous votes, it means everybody can't be right but it doesn't mean nobody is right.
> 
> I don't know what else to say. I laid out questions and rationale not insults, and I didn't start with God though so far I've been left with him as a possible answer for all those quesions or truths or presuppositions that require a source. I'm not a magical thinker, I don't believe that the universe or its rational thoughts could happen irrationally, magically, chaotically or randomly.
> 
> You could have left me with relativism for morals, but nobody really wants that and I've already explained that you are self defeating to posit it and then judge God as bad or immoral. I do believe christians have done a lot of bad things but that's not the same thing as saying there are no morals. I do know people say "if you christians believed what you say you wouldn't make errors". I believe in math as absolute but still make errors.
> 
> Good luck, I hope you all find answers.



Well, I for one would appreciate you stepping back in the forum more often. I've really enjoyed reading this discussion and this thread, apart from the meme's.

Have a safe trip!


----------



## TripleXBullies

So, "be modest" is an absolute moral? And modesty can be defined however it may be. Honor your father isn't in quotes. But you're saying that is one of your two examples of absolute morals?


----------



## bullethead

There are certainly lots of well spoken, well thought out discussions that lead to why a person believes God is the final answer. There are a lot of good arguments that point to why things seem absolute. But when it comes down to the nitty gritty the one constant absence in all of this IS the God, giver, absolute, etc...


----------



## TripleXBullies

TripleXBullies said:


> So, "be modest" is an absolute moral? And modesty can be defined however it may be. Honor your father isn't in quotes. But you're saying that is one of your two examples of absolute morals?



But I guess both of these can be further boiled down to one... Be good. And you can define good however you want to. I can 100% buy that as absolute truth. Where that comes from is a different story... but congratulations, you've convinced me, there is at least one absolute moral.


----------



## JFS

stringmusic said:


> Well, I for one would appreciate you stepping back in the forum more often. I've really enjoyed reading this discussion and this thread, apart from the meme's.
> 
> Have a safe trip!



I agree.  Wish there was a way to separate the two strands.


----------



## bigreddwon

it's just that simple.


----------



## bigreddwon

Biiiiiiiiingo......


----------



## bigreddwon

Is this as accurate as it seems or am I missing something?


----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## David Parker

Thank goodness we got some meme's back up in here.  I'm as thought-provoking as can be but that was brutal.


----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## bigreddwon

True


----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## bigreddwon

Really? Twice.


----------



## bigreddwon

Yuup...


----------



## bigreddwon

As silly as it sounds when you read this meme, is it Wrong??


----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## bigreddwon

True statement.


----------



## bigreddwon

Every Christian should read the bible cover to cover.


----------



## bigreddwon

Made up character to sell a life after death insurance policy.


----------



## bigreddwon

It wasn't a sacrifice. It was a mild 3 day inconvienance.


----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## bigreddwon

Please let the Braves win this game o lawd!!


----------



## bigreddwon

Not religious. But still true!!


----------



## bigreddwon

Listen to that doubt. It's screaming truth from way down deep.


----------



## bigreddwon

True.


----------



## fish hawk

bullethead said:


> On one hand we have outdooraddict, well spoken and well schooled in the art of discussion and debating. OA brings a level of thought into conversations that is very welcomed.
> 
> One the other hand we have:



I mean how serious and thought provoking do you want me to get bullethead???Come on? It's a thread about memes they might provoke your query,but not mine........


----------



## fish hawk

Just so we all know!!!


----------



## fish hawk

bigreddwon said:


> Oh, and which ones are your favorites?



 Right hear are some of my favorites.


----------



## fish hawk

This could be fun.....I think i'm getting the hang of posting memes!!!


----------



## fish hawk

After a google search I find out that you can make up your own sayins/memes with the funny pics.......I might try that!!!!Your right bulletthead,memes are great visuals for the art of debate.


----------



## fish hawk

bullethead said:


> On one hand we have outdooraddict, well spoken and well schooled in the art of discussion and debating. :



Bulletthead:                                                                                 I think if I were a professor teaching debate and you were one of my students......I'd give you an A, you're very good at it.


----------



## bullethead

fish hawk said:


> I mean how serious and thought provoking do you want me to get bullethead???Come on? It's a thread about memes they might provoke your query,but not mine........



Just once in any thread would be a decent start.

and then you proceed to post memes....priceless


----------



## bullethead

fish hawk said:


> After a google search I find out that you can make up your own sayins/memes with the funny pics.......I might try that!!!!Your right bulletthead,memes are great visuals for the art of debate.





fish hawk said:


> Bulletthead:                                                                                 I think if I were a professor teaching debate and you were one of my students......I'd give you an A, you're very good at it.



1. The OP is not about random memes. You must have missed that professor.
2. If I happened to be one of your students there would be no wonder why I did so "well" in debating.


----------



## jmharris23

bigreddwon said:


> People who follow this man are being willfully stuuuuuuuupid.



This is one of the few you've posted that I totally agree with


----------



## TripleXBullies

So is he not a "good" christian?


----------



## fish hawk

bullethead said:


> 1. The OP is not about random memes. You must have missed that professor.
> 2. If I happened to be one of your students there would be no wonder why I did so "well" in debating.



Dang.....I didn't get the memo 
And just when I was starting to like posting memes you hit me with this..


----------



## bullethead

fish hawk said:


> Dang.....I didn't get the memo
> And just when I was starting to like posting memes you hit me with this..



10-4 Professor


----------



## drippin' rock

I've got a question for the meme naysayers. You dismiss this thread as folly because the statement or question is asked within a picture. Would this thread be taken seriously if the questions were asked without the pictures?  I think the real issue is most of the memes deal with the unanswerable parts of the bible; the parts that must be taken by faith. I think the real problem is the same one that accompanies most of these discussions.  Unless you have been indoctrinated into having faith, faith is not a good enough answer.


----------



## TripleXBullies

Or even if you have been....


----------



## centerpin fan

drippin' rock said:


> I think the real issue is most of the memes deal with the unanswerable parts of the bible ...



I think the issue is that there has been very little "discussion".  As soon as somebody attempts to discuss one, BRW just posts thirteen more.  It's "drive by" posting at its finest.


----------



## drippin' rock

I also think there can never be any real discussion here. Take the memes that deal with the virgin birth. An atheist will say," yeah, right". A believer says," It's in the Bible, therefore it is true".  Discussion over.


----------



## TripleXBullies

That one is harder maybe but for a lot of the topics it's a context, interpretation, re-translation or literal vs not argument... some of which are better than others.


----------



## drippin' rock

But my point is for a bible believing Christian, there is no interpretation. The donkey did speak, Adam and Eve were the first people, and all the bad things in the bible happened to show God could use an imperfect world to achieve his purpose. Everything in the bible, no matter how twisted to our human, therefore less than perfect, minds was divinely inspired, therefore true.


----------



## 660griz

Like the title states, each one could be its own thread. This(thread) is kind of like a billboard on the interstate. You see it, you ponder upon it for a second and move on to the next.


----------



## ddd-shooter

Pick one. Start a thread


----------



## 660griz

ddd-shooter said:


> Pick one. Start a thread



I will. Probably number 665.


----------



## centerpin fan

660griz said:


> I will. Probably number 665.



That one has sixteen different points.  I hope you're gonna narrow it down.


----------



## 660griz

centerpin fan said:


> That one has sixteen different points.  I hope you're gonna narrow it down.



Sorry. I forgot my smiley face after my comment.


----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## bigreddwon

Very true.


----------



## bigreddwon

Thoughts?


----------



## drippin' rock

But it's not magic when Jesus does it.  It's miracles.


----------



## bigreddwon

Thoughts?


----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## bigreddwon

Very true.


----------



## bigreddwon

Would your child accept your religion if they knew nothing of it until they were old enough to have sex?


----------



## bigreddwon

Is this true?


----------



## bigreddwon

Pretty much.


----------



## ddd-shooter

bigreddwon said:


> Is this true?



Post 781:
Science: You are a random assembling of atoms and meaningless information. There is no difference in living or dying except in your own imagination. 

Religion: Origin, purpose, destiny.


----------



## hummdaddy

ddd-shooter said:


> Post 781:
> Science: You are a random assembling of atoms and meaningless information. There is no difference in living or dying except in your own imagination.
> 
> Religion: Origin, purpose, destiny.



meaningless information

no difference in living and dying


----------



## 660griz

ddd-shooter said:


> Religion: Origin, purpose, destiny.



And thus we have some reasons for the invention of religon. 
The folks that invented religion knew less about the world than an average teenager today. They had questions, where did I come from?, why am I poor?, why did my crops fail?, what happens when I die?, why can't I kill my neighbor and take his crops?, why did my only son die of that horrible disease?. What is my purpose and identity in life and an explanation or comfort if I fail? The leaders knew they needed to give these poor ignorant souls something to look forward to, something to control the evil minds, answers to all their questions. For the good of the tribe. It is because of man's insecurity and ego that religion was invented. 
Why are there so many religions? Aren't all religious folks just one deity shy of being an atheist?

John Shelby Spong, retired bishop of the Episcopal Church, USA has written:

"Religion is primarily a search for security and not a search for truth. Religion is what we so often use to bank the fires of our anxiety. That is why religion tends toward becoming excessive, neurotic, controlling and even evil. That is why a religious government is always a cruel government. People need to understand that questioning and doubting are healthy, human activities to be encouraged not to be feared. Certainty is a vice not a virtue. Insecurity is something to be grasped and treasured. A true and healthy religious system will encourage each of these activities. A sick and fearful religious system will seek to remove them."

David C. James, rector of St. John's Episcopal Church & Diocesan Mission Center in Olympia, WA, wrote:

Many times when we think we are worshipping God, we are actually comforting our very fragile egos. Iâ€™m not so naïve as to assume that we build temple and erect altars to ourselvesâ€¦directly. But our core need to been safe, secure and sound mandates that we construct reality systems that will support us.

There we have it. Man, is just too important to merely be born, live, and die. There has to be more. There has to be comfort when my conscious is hurting from stealing that diamond ring or torturing that puppy. Or losing a loved one. The pain is just too much. Some folks need comfort from an outside mythical being. I get it. Life is hard. Not everyone can do it. You have to be strong of mind or...have a God to help you through the rough patches. In that respect, religion, like the reason it was invented, serves a necessary purpose. 

Keep religion out of government and any other means it can be forced upon me and I don't have a problem.


----------



## 660griz

ddd-shooter said:


> There is no difference in living or dying except in your own imagination.



I can tell you are not a fan of science. Science has its own definition of living or dying. Regardless of the imagination.

I know, that was the best answer for you.


----------



## centerpin fan

660griz said:


> John Shelby Spong, retired bishop of the Episcopal Church, USA has written:
> 
> "Religion is primarily a search for security and not a search for truth. Religion is what we so often use to bank the fires of our anxiety. That is why religion tends toward becoming excessive, neurotic, controlling and even evil. That is why a religious government is always a cruel government. People need to understand that questioning and doubting are healthy, human activities to be encouraged not to be feared. Certainty is a vice not a virtue. Insecurity is something to be grasped and treasured. A true and healthy religious system will encourage each of these activities. A sick and fearful religious system will seek to remove them."
> 
> David C. James, rector of St. John's Episcopal Church & Diocesan Mission Center in Olympia, WA, wrote:
> 
> Many times when we think we are worshipping God, we are actually comforting our very fragile egos. I’m not so naïve as to assume that we build temple and erect altars to ourselves…directly. But our core need to been safe, secure and sound mandates that we construct reality systems that will support us.



This is why the Episcopal Church is dying.  The leaders don't believe in their own faith.


----------



## 660griz

centerpin fan said:


> This is why the Episcopal Church is dying.  The leaders don't believe in their own faith.



What about the decline in Presbyterians, Methodists, some Lutherans? Same reason? Or, decline across the board? Slower than average growth in southern baptist? Everybody starting to not believe?


----------



## centerpin fan

660griz said:


> What about the decline in Presbyterians, Methodists, some Lutherans? Same reason?



Yeah, pretty much.


----------



## bigreddwon

Maybe?


----------



## bigreddwon

Yuuuuup


----------



## bigreddwon

Hard to find one where he doesn't curse. He is right as usual.


----------



## bigreddwon

Yuup


----------



## TripleXBullies

bigreddwon said:


> Hard to find one where he doesn't curse. He is right as usual.



I love GC! That's who I pray to.


----------



## 660griz

TripleXBullies said:


> I love GC! That's who I pray to.



I have his "When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops?" book on my desk at all times. Good stuff.


----------



## bigreddwon

so true.


----------



## bigreddwon

Well??


----------



## bigreddwon

Rickys a good one. Always makes lots of sense.         





















..unless your a Christian,  then he is an 'idiot'....


----------



## StriperrHunterr

bigreddwon said:


> Well??



= misconception or misunderstanding of the laws we know behind the Big Bang.


----------



## ddd-shooter

660griz said:


> I can tell you are not a fan of science. Science has its own definition of living or dying. Regardless of the imagination.
> 
> I know, that was the best answer for you.



I love science. Always have. Dying is simply the transfer of energy and the emergence of our good friend, entropy.


----------



## ddd-shooter

660griz said:


> And thus we have some reasons for the invention of religon.
> The folks that invented religion knew less about the world than an average teenager today. They had questions, where did I come from?, why am I poor?, why did my crops fail?, what happens when I die?, why can't I kill my neighbor and take his crops?, why did my only son die of that horrible disease?. What is my purpose and identity in life and an explanation or comfort if I fail? The leaders knew they needed to give these poor ignorant souls something to look forward to, something to control the evil minds, answers to all their questions. For the good of the tribe. It is because of man's insecurity and ego that religion was invented.
> Why are there so many religions? Aren't all religious folks just one deity shy of being an atheist?
> 
> John Shelby Spong, retired bishop of the Episcopal Church, USA has written:
> 
> "Religion is primarily a search for security and not a search for truth. Religion is what we so often use to bank the fires of our anxiety. That is why religion tends toward becoming excessive, neurotic, controlling and even evil. That is why a religious government is always a cruel government. People need to understand that questioning and doubting are healthy, human activities to be encouraged not to be feared. Certainty is a vice not a virtue. Insecurity is something to be grasped and treasured. A true and healthy religious system will encourage each of these activities. A sick and fearful religious system will seek to remove them."
> 
> David C. James, rector of St. John's Episcopal Church & Diocesan Mission Center in Olympia, WA, wrote:
> 
> Many times when we think we are worshipping God, we are actually comforting our very fragile egos. I’m not so naïve as to assume that we build temple and erect altars to ourselves…directly. But our core need to been safe, secure and sound mandates that we construct reality systems that will support us.
> 
> There we have it. Man, is just too important to merely be born, live, and die. There has to be more. There has to be comfort when my conscious is hurting from stealing that diamond ring or torturing that puppy. Or losing a loved one. The pain is just too much. Some folks need comfort from an outside mythical being. I get it. Life is hard. Not everyone can do it. You have to be strong of mind or...have a God to help you through the rough patches. In that respect, religion, like the reason it was invented, serves a necessary purpose.
> 
> Keep religion out of government and any other means it can be forced upon me and I don't have a problem.



Good thing that one smart person in a sea of stupidity possessed that one genetic mutation to lead the rest of the imbeciles with a made up story. 
Otherwise, we would still be tree-swinging crap flingers.


----------



## 660griz

ddd-shooter said:


> Good thing that one smart person in a sea of stupidity possessed that one genetic mutation to lead the rest of the imbeciles with a made up story.
> Otherwise, we would still be tree-swinging crap flingers.



We did move out of the trees, stand upright in order to better sight game and predators but, we still have some crap flinger DNA.

Real News Headline:

*Feces-throwing inmates present a threat to B.C. jail guards*


----------



## bigreddwon

Look familiar?


----------



## bigreddwon

Thoughts?


----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## bigreddwon

Thoughts?


----------



## bigreddwon

Truth..


----------



## bigreddwon

http://malachitewitch.com/Pagan%20Symbols/fish_symbol.htm



> Often seen on the back of vehicles in america,  the sign of the vagina, has always amused me. The obvious shape of the two crescent moons, the female energy symbol duplicated, showing the Goddess as the source of all earth's waters.
> 
> Early christians claimed that their fish symbol was taken from the notion that ichthys (greek fish) was an acronym for jesus christ. However this pagan sign was actually the name of the ancient sea-goddess Atargatis, also known as Tirgata, Aphrodite, Salacia, Derceto, Pelagia or Delphine, whose name meant both womb and Dolphin; all appeared as mermaids. One could call jesus Ichthys perhaps, as his sea mother was Mary (Mari, Marina) with her distinguishable blue robe, being that of the ocean, and her pearl necklace being that of the surf.
> 
> The ancients stated that a woman's sexual secretions smelled like fish, which is why the Vesca Piscis - the Fish sign  was chosen as the symbol of the yoni (vagina).
> 
> Honouring this ancient worldwide synonym for the yoni, Fish were eaten on Friday, which was her official day, named after the Scandinavian Goddess Freya, the latin version being the Day of Venus. Which as a side note, is half of the reason why Friday is considered unlucky to christians, as this day honours the "woman".  The other half, by the way is the number 13...Friday the 13th, as there 13 moons in a year...which of course also honours the "woman" (double unlucky for christian men, Dang!)






This is one of the most blatant examples of folks not really looking into the religion they proclaim to 'know' and practice. I wonder how the Jesus fish thing got started. I like to think an Athiest started it.


----------



## JB0704

bigreddwon said:


> I wonder how the Jesus fish thing got started.



John 6:7-10

I think the other thing is probably a coincidence.


----------



## JB0704

bigreddwon said:


> Truth..



Bill Maher is the atheist equivalent of Pat Robertson.  Nowhere near as intelligent as he thinks he is, and constantly saying stupid things.


----------



## JFS

JB0704 said:


> Bill Maher is the atheist equivalent of Pat Robertson.



Oh come on, Religuous was pretty funny in some places.

I'd be willing to bet I can find more stupid Pat Robertson saying that you can for Maher.

PS- I'm not a big Maher fan and I can see how you could find him offensive, but I can't see how he's nearly as big an imbecile as Pat.


----------



## JB0704

JFS said:


> Oh come on, Religuous was pretty funny in some places.
> 
> I'd be willing to bet I can find more stupid Pat Robertson saying that you can for Maher.
> 
> PS- I'm not a big Maher fan and I can see how you could find him offensive, but I can't see how he's nearly as big an imbecile as Pat.



Oh....it was funny, I'll give you that.

My issue is the man uses an audience to confirm his commentary.  Kind-a like John Stewart, only not near as funny, and not near as intelligent (I actually like the Daily Show, even though my politics are very different than that show's).    

Then.....there was that issue of Maher calling the U.S. military cowards for shooting Patriot missiles from 100's of miles away, then going on an apology tour afterwards.  He has a big mouth, but when it gets him in trouble, he lacks the courage to stand behind it.  I didn't completely hate him until he started apologizing all over T.V.

I don't know why, but Maher just really bugs me.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> Oh....it was funny, I'll give you that.
> 
> My issue is the man uses an audience to confirm his commentary.  Kind-a like John Stewart, only not near as funny, and not near as intelligent (I actually like the Daily Show, even though my politics are very different than that show's).
> 
> Then.....there was that issue of Maher calling the U.S. military cowards for shooting Patriot missiles from 100's of miles away, then going on an apology tour afterwards.  He has a big mouth, but when it gets him in trouble, he lacks the courage to stand behind it.  I didn't completely hate him until he started apologizing all over T.V.
> 
> I don't know why, but Maher just really bugs me.



Maybe because he's so dogmatic to the agenda. He comes off just as self righteous as does someone preaching to me from their faith about how I should live my life, when I didn't ask for their input.


----------



## 660griz

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Maybe because he's so dogmatic to the agenda. He comes off just as self righteous as does someone preaching to me from their faith about how I should live my life, when I didn't ask for their input.



Exactly. There is just something about him. What we use to say is, "he has a hit-able head"


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> John 6:7-10
> 
> I think the other thing is probably a coincidence.



John 6:16-20 is also interesting.  Why did Jesus get in the boat instead of just walking along side it?  Is this real or metaphor?


----------



## JB0704

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Maybe because he's so dogmatic to the agenda.



Not sure, but....



			
				660griz said:
			
		

> "he has a hit-able head"



Yes.  The man is obnoxious.  There are very few people that I detest as much as Bill Maher.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> John 6:16-20 is also interesting.  Why did Jesus get in the boat instead of just walking along side it?  Is this real or metaphor?



Dunno.  One day, you and I might get to ask him


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> Dunno.  One day, you and I might get to ask him



It's too much for me to get over.  No matter how lovely the message of Grace and Salvation is, these 'miracles' just ruin it.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> It's too much for me to get over.  No matter how lovely the message of Grace and Salvation is, these 'miracles' just ruin it.



I understand.  As I often say in here, the first hurdle is believing such existence is possible.  If you can't believe the concept of a god to start with, of course the rest will sound crazy.  Very logical, and I think that's probably where Jefferson was going with his translation.


----------



## TripleXBullies

I just realized that you Christians that detest these memes... That say they are childish and so on..... While yes, there's evidence of your hypocrisy right here... There's more that is much more wide spread... You just choose to place your memes elsewhere....


----------



## TripleXBullies




----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> I understand.  As I often say in here, the first hurdle is believing such existence is possible.  If you can't believe the concept of a god to start with, of course the rest will sound crazy.  Very logical, and I think that's probably where Jefferson was going with his translation.



When I entertain the possibility of god(s) then the possibility of a talking donkey sound plausible.  It's an unsettling position to operate from.


----------



## drippin' rock

TripleXBullies said:


> I just realized that you Christians that detest these memes... That say they are childish and so on..... While yes, there's evidence of your hypocrisy right here... There's more that is much more wide spread... You just choose to place your memes elsewhere....



The difference is the ones in front of churches are saying things they want to hear.


----------



## TripleXBullies

Of course. It's still pretty much a meme...


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> When I entertain the possibility of god(s) then the possibility of a talking donkey sound plausible.  It's an unsettling position to operate from.



For you, sure.  100's of millions of people have spent their entire existence believing in God, and passednever really regretting it.   Unsettled would be a personal assessment of the situation.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> For you, sure.  100's of millions of people have spent their entire existence believing in God, and passednever really regretting it.   Unsettled would be a personal assessment of the situation.



I just think I'm 'over it'.  I regret the time I spent as a believer, living in fear.  Can't get that time back.


----------



## JFS

JB0704 said:


> Then.....there was that issue of Maher calling the U.S. military cowards for shooting Patriot missiles from 100's of miles away



I don't think he called out the military specifically, I think he said "we" collectively.  But you always get that in asymetric warfare.  We said the insurgents in Iraq were cowards for using IEDs.    Who is braver, the Marines who went door to door in Fallujah or the insurgents who planted bombs and detonate them with a cell phone from a safe distance?  It's sound military strategy but we are sometimes guilty of projecting cowardice when we are on the other side.

I'm not agreeing with or defending the statement, but it makes more sense than saying hurricanes hit the US because of gay people or abortion.


----------



## JB0704

JFS said:


> I'm not agreeing with or defending the statement, but it makes more sense than saying hurricanes hit the US because of gay people or abortion.



I think what bugged me the most about Maher wasn't what he said, it was his apology tour afterwards......showing that he was a coward by not being willing to stand behind his own stupid statement (and it was a very stupid thing to say at that moment in time.....right, wrong, whatever.....just plain dumb).


And, I have nothing to say in defense of Robertson's statements.  They are ridiculous, at best.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> I just think I'm 'over it'.  I regret the time I spent as a believer, living in fear.  Can't get that time back.



I understand.  If I ever lose my faith, I will probably regret the time I wasted in church.  But, I'm not there.  And I am not in fear, instead, I am in peace.  I don't sit and stare at the sky feeling miniscule.......how delicate is the balance between existence and nothing when the only thread holding us together is chance?


----------



## 660griz

JB0704 said:


> ....how delicate is the balance between existence and nothing when the only thread holding us together is chance?



That is exactly why we should live free and not cower in fear. 

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear. 
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787


----------



## JB0704

660griz said:


> That is exactly why we should live free and not cower in fear.



I do live free, and I don't cower in fear.  



660griz said:


> Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
> -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787



I like that quote, it's a good point.  I think everybody should go through a phase where they "question with boldness the existence of a god."  There is no reason not to do such a thing.


----------



## ted_BSR

ambush80 said:


> I just think I'm 'over it'.  I regret the time I spent as a believer, living in fear.  Can't get that time back.



If your life as a believer was full of fear, then you were doing it wrong.


----------



## ambush80

ted_BSR said:


> If your life as a believer was full of fear, then you were doing it wrong.



The fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom.


----------



## ted_BSR

ambush80 said:


> The fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom.



Chapter,verse and version please.


----------



## JFS

ted_BSR said:


> Chapter,verse and version please.



Proverbs 9:10.


----------



## 660griz

Don't forget Proverbs 10:27 
The fear of the Lord adds length to life,
    but the years of the wicked are cut short.

Yall best start fearin' or you aint living right.


----------



## 660griz

ted_BSR said:


> Chapter,verse and version please.



For future reference, copy, The fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom, paste into the Google search box and voila!.

As a matter of fact, just paste, The fear of the lord, and you can get quite a few. Apparently, it is mentioned over 300 times in the bible.


----------



## ambush80

ted_BSR said:


> Chapter,verse and version please.



Filibuster.  Weak, weak filibuster.



660griz said:


> For future reference, copy, The fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom, paste into the Google search box and voila!.
> 
> As a matter of fact, just paste, The fear of the lord, and you can get quite a few. Apparently, it is mentioned over 300 times in the bible.



God fearin'.


----------



## ted_BSR

ambush80 said:


> Filibuster.  Weak, weak filibuster.
> 
> 
> 
> God fearin'.



Here is an interesting translation. Different reference.


Psalm111
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
1.	I shall confess Lord Jehovah from my whole heart, among Kings who are upright in the assembly. 
2.	Great are the works of Lord Jehovah, and they are sought out by all who desire them. 
3.	His works are praiseworthy and great and his righteousness stands to eternity. 
4.	He gave memorial to his wonders; Lord Jehovah is merciful and cherishing. 
5.	He gives food to his worshipers and he remembers his covenant to eternity. 
6.	He showed power by his works to his people to give them the inheritance of the nations. 
7.	The work of his hands is truth and judgment and they stand to the eternity of eternities. 
8.	And all his commandments are sure and they are done in righteousness and in truth. 
9.	Lord Jehovah sent salvation to his people and he remembers his covenant to eternity; he is holy and his Name is awesome! 
10.	The beginning of wisdom is the awesomeness of Lord Jehovah, and his Servants have good understanding; his glory stands to eternity.


The Original Aramaic New Testament in Plain English- with Psalms & Proverbs
Copyright © 2007; 5th edition Copyright © 2010
All rights reserved. Used by Permission.

AramaicNT.com

Disclaimer: I did not seek or gain permission to use this.


----------



## TripleXBullies

Ah.... so you're saying it was translated wrong?


----------



## 660griz

So now, cherry picking versions too?

Revised standard Version- Fear
NIV- Fear
King James Version - Fear

Not sure about today's religious but, when I went to church we used the King James Version.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

660griz said:


> Don't forget Proverbs 10:27
> The fear of the Lord adds length to life,
> but the years of the wicked are cut short.
> 
> Yall best start fearin' or you aint living right.



That ain't what Billy Joel said. Only the good die young, remember?


----------



## 660griz

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That ain't what Billy Joel said. Only the good die young, remember?




"the sinners have much more fun"


----------



## StriperrHunterr

660griz said:


> "the sinners have much more fun"



I actually would prefer to laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints.


----------



## centerpin fan

660griz said:


> "the sinners have much more fun"



I have watched enough _Behind the Music_ and _Celebrity Rehab_ to doubt this.


----------



## 660griz

centerpin fan said:


> I have watched enough _Behind the Music_ and _Celebrity Rehab_ to doubt this.



Well, some folks can't do moderation. Why do you think we have so many devout christians later on in their lives? One extreme to another. 

Ever watch "Breaking Amish"?


----------



## bullethead

It seems the overwhelming majority of humans are all about one thing, themselves. They lie, cheat, steal, wheel and deal, sleep around, fight, cuss, drink, do drugs, covet and any and every other thing someone can think of. As a whole we are not especially pure, honest, or full of great qualities. This religion stuff is a way to make people feel guilty about doing what comes natural to them. Adding a God into the mix only makes the God seem incapable of creating a creature that he wanted made. Mankind has not been able to create a God that is above our qualities nor persuade very many to live life as the God commands be lived. It is a mess. But it comes back to the original point that SOMEONE is personally benefiting from it in some way so it follows true to human ways.


----------



## ted_BSR

TripleXBullies said:


> Ah.... so you're saying it was translated wrong?



Perhaps.


----------



## ted_BSR

660griz said:


> So now, cherry picking versions too?
> 
> Revised standard Version- Fear
> NIV- Fear
> King James Version - Fear
> 
> Not sure about today's religious but, when I went to church we used the King James Version.



The Old Testament (which includes Psalms and Proverbs) was written mostly in Hebrew. It is difficult to translate Hebrew into any form of English.
I do not wish to discuss "versions".


----------



## ted_BSR

bullethead said:


> It seems the overwhelming majority of humans are all about one thing, themselves. They lie, cheat, steal, wheel and deal, sleep around, fight, cuss, drink, do drugs, covet and any and every other thing someone can think of. As a whole we are not especially pure, honest, or full of great qualities. This religion stuff is a way to make people feel guilty about doing what comes natural to them. Adding a God into the mix only makes the God seem incapable of creating a creature that he wanted made. Mankind has not been able to create a God that is above our qualities nor persuade very many to live life as the God commands be lived. It is a mess. But it comes back to the original point that SOMEONE is personally benefiting from it in some way so it follows true to human ways.



I benefit from it BH.


----------



## bullethead

ted_BSR said:


> I benefit from it BH.



P.T. Barnum knew what he was talking about.


----------



## ted_BSR

bullethead said:


> P.T. Barnum knew what he was talking about.



That was pretty snide.


----------



## bigreddwon

People pray for their sports teams to win.


----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## bigreddwon

Thoughts?


----------



## bigreddwon

Some good questions.


----------



## bigreddwon

Thoughts?


----------



## centerpin fan




----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## bigreddwon

:d:d


----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## Dr. Strangelove




----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## JB0704

Dr. Strangelove said:


>



That'n was funny.


----------



## centerpin fan




----------



## TripleXBullies

Keep them coming.


----------



## NCHillbilly

I read this thread for the pictures. The typing in between, not so much.


----------



## bullethead

NCHillbilly said:


> I read this thread for the pictures. The typing in between, not so much.



NCHillbilly, is the beer in your Avatar your beer of choice? Just wondering because the brewery is about 15 miles from my house. I thought it was neat to see it in your picture.


----------



## NCHillbilly

bullethead said:


> NCHillbilly, is the beer in your Avatar your beer of choice? Just wondering because the brewery is about 15 miles from my house. I thought it was neat to see it in your picture.



Yep. Yuengling lager and Black and Tan are my two favorite beers. We have the Oskar Blues, Sierra Nevada, New Belgium, Pisgah, and several other breweries here in my area, but I like that Yankee beer a lot for some reason.  To keep this on a religious note, my dear, devout Baptist mom is properly horrified every time she sees me drinking one.


----------



## bullethead

Not only is it Yankee beer but Coal Crackin Yankee beer!
Up in these parts when you order a Lager...you get a Yuengling Lager. No questions asked.
My wife likes the Black and Tan but that is a bit too much for me.
Thanks for the chat.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> Not only is it Yankee beer but Coal Crackin Yankee beer!
> Up in these parts when you order a Lager...you get a Yuengling Lager. No questions asked.
> My wife likes the Black and Tan but that is a bit too much for me.
> Thanks for the chat.



It's extremely popular down here.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Yuengling is doggone hard to beat in terms of price, quality, and availability down here. I prefer lager myself, but B&T is nice to mix it up every now and again.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> It's extremely popular down here.



Yep.  I'm not a fan of the B&T, but the Lager is my primary beer.


----------



## WaltL1

Beer YUCK  Peace Tea Green Tea is where its at


----------



## bullethead

Glad to see that some of you men enjoy the Yuengling.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> Glad to see that some of you men enjoy the Yuengling.


Hey I see what you did there


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Hey I see what you did there



LOL
Didn't intend that....but now that you mention it....


----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## bigreddwon

Does this one make you think, or does it make you angry?


----------



## bigreddwon

He sure does work in mysterious ways don't he?


----------



## bigreddwon

This is one of my favorite ones. 
I'd be an AWESOME life after death salesman, eeeer, I mean con man. 

If it wasn't for those pesky morals.


----------



## Northwestretriever

What's the point of this thread?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Northwestretriever said:


> What's the point of this thread?



This is the driveler thread of the AAA subforum.


----------



## Northwestretriever

bigreddwon said:


> I'd like to start a thread with Athiest themed memes that each could be its own thread..seems like a fun idea. Lets see yours.
> 
> I suggest that if your faith is easily shaken, in turn causing you to get angry, leave this thread now. None of these memes are put in here to offend you. That's only a bonus. Wear your big boy pants if you decide to read this thread.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Northwestretriever said:


>




Actually Big Red doesn't debate _per se_.  Pretty much just sticks to memes.


----------



## drippin' rock

SemperFiDawg said:


> Actually Big Red doesn't debate _per se_.  Pretty much just sticks to memes.



I know, right??  He should have spent three days straight posting Apologist quotes without a response from anyone.  THAT woulda been fun....


----------



## bullethead

drippin' rock said:


> I know, right??  He should have spent three days straight posting Apologist quotes without a response from anyone.  THAT woulda been fun....


----------



## mtnwoman

660griz said:


> Thank You.



Maybe they could thank you for something....what do you do?  We at least have missionaries willing to die to feed them. Send them a deer burger why won'tcha? Speaking of doublemindedness here.


----------



## bullethead

mtnwoman said:


> Maybe they could thank you for something....what do you do?  We at least have missionaries willing to die to feed them. Send them a deer burger why won'tcha? Speaking of doublemindedness here.



How do you know what anyone besides yourself does?
Look in the mirror.


----------



## Israel

In posture impossible
to determine the heart 
from which such posture comes.

Is it in kneeling such pieties seen?
Is the camera angle right?
did you catch my eyes 
cut to heaven in both woe and wonder?

I have worked long and hard
upon that look, are you impressed?
The audience claps and gasps
such depth, such a perfect emote.

The mote? No, emote, I say
but I hear mote from you...
In my eye? of what? of what?
it must be out!
The audience must see me clearly!
Every nuance unblurred
by speck or mottle.

For I have knelt for show
and stood for nothing,
I have pleased and let
my camera rule me
that to myself I may seem whole.

But now all's lost
stuck in the eye of another.


----------



## Israel

If there be no like among us
then a something other 
fills the gap.

If I am not like you
nor you me,
then what upon what
will be built and shown?
Our effort to dislike?
Disown?

I say blue and you see red
at least to me that red I see
whose to know, who's to weigh?

Or are all our unions just for doubt
and for a quibbling moment's scurry
and off to dust again 
from which we show we never rose, at all?

Would dust in seconds chance strung
of days and years
seek to connect or shun 
and yet of all this dust sees
it does.

When this dust says
I fully love the maker of dust
of even that you are, 
but also says 
stand not so close
the fully love is shown as whole lie.

And you perhaps
in dusty work unseen
devoted, as it were
inside to holding truth 
against my lying dust
have been the best of light I may yet see.

for what's left of almost surety in you
that remainder uncertain 
may come closer to God 
in truth
than all my preaching.


----------



## 660griz

mtnwoman said:


> Maybe they could thank you for something....



Actually, they can. Not mythical lip service either. However, I don't look for, or expect, thanks.
I don't demand they worship me either.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

drippin' rock said:


> I know, right??  He should have spent three days straight posting Apologist quotes without a response from anyone.  THAT woulda been fun....



That reminds me.....


----------



## bigreddwon

SemperFiDawg said:


> Actually Big Red doesn't debate _per se_.  Pretty much just sticks to memes.



That's not true at all..


----------



## 660griz




----------



## JB0704

Griz, while awful, I got a cynical chuckle at that'n.


----------



## JB0704

bigreddwon said:


> That's not true at all..



Agreed.


.....and, sorry for bumping a 2 month old post.  Should'a caught this a while back.


----------



## ambush80

660griz said:


>



The way things worked back then it very well may have been Joseph's idea.  He wasn't supposed to have had relations with his new bride yet.


----------



## 660griz

ambush80 said:


> The way things worked back then it very well may have been Joseph's idea.  He wasn't supposed to have had relations with his new bride yet.



True but, he could have just married her right fast. 
Baby birth give or take a few weeks and nobody cares. Knocked up when you haven't had relations with your fiancé, or supposedly anyone...well, somebody got some 'splaining to do.


----------



## humdandy

Got any new ones?  I enjoy reading them!


----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## 660griz

bigreddwon said:


>



Two birds with one stone.


----------



## JB0704

bigreddwon said:


>



That'ns funny.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

I'll just leave this right here.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I'll just leave this right here.


As funny as that is, we've all heard that exact argument


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> As funny as that is, we've all heard that exact argument



The best jokes all have that kernel of truth.


----------



## bigreddwon

Republican Jesus is my favorite.


----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## bigreddwon




----------



## stringmusic

These memes would be much cooler if the arguments they're trying to perpetuate didn't fall apart so easily.


----------



## bigreddwon

stringmusic said:


> These memes would be much cooler if the arguments they're trying to perpetuate didn't fall apart so easily.



Pick one. Enlighten us.


----------



## stringmusic

bigreddwon said:


>



God has the power to restore life physically and spiritually, therefor the flood was not genocide because He didn't murder anyone, and certainly didn't murder innocent people.


----------



## stringmusic

Post #912.

Jesus is not a socialist.


----------



## stringmusic

Post 913

Bill is an angry atheist who wouldn't dare sit in a room and debate the likes of Ravi Zacherias or William lane Craig.


----------



## stringmusic

Post 854. 

The first sentence is not true in any way.


----------



## stringmusic

I could probably go through every one of them, they're all complete misrepresentations of the Christian faith made up by angry atheists to try and perpetuate they're hate for all things Christian.


----------



## WaltL1

stringmusic said:


> I could probably go through every one of them, they're all complete misrepresentations of the Christian faith made up by angry atheists to try and perpetuate they're hate for all things Christian.


Apply this to the Bill Nye quote. It isn't necessary to "make things up". 


> http://www.salon.com/2015/06/17/5_c...tian_fundamentalists_are_teaching_their_kids/


----------



## WaltL1

stringmusic said:


> God has the power to restore life physically and spiritually, therefor the flood was not genocide because He didn't murder anyone, and certainly didn't murder innocent people.





> Genocide -
> :  the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group



Note the definition of genocide doesn't say anything about whether a group of people believe that a god that hasn't even been proven to exist could bring them back or not.

Note the use of the word destruction in the definition and the word destroyed in -


> So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth.



It was unarguably genocide. The only argument is whether you believe the genocide was justified or not.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> God has the power to restore life physically and spiritually, therefor the flood was not genocide because He didn't murder anyone, and certainly didn't murder innocent people.



Hmmm.
Talk about easily falling apart.
You introduced an entity that you have never met, certainly do not know, and cannot prove it exists, but you want us to go along with the outlandish claims on your word alone.
I can hear the pieces hitting the floor already.


----------



## NCHillbilly

stringmusic said:


> and certainly didn't murder innocent people.



Who created them to be the way they were? And then killed them for being like he made them?


----------



## smokey30725

NCHillbilly said:


> Who created them to be the way they were? And then killed them for being like he made them?



He created us in His image and then gave us free will to decide what to do with our lives. We can come to Him or reject Him. The bible states that He would have it that none should perish, but that decision lies with us, not Him.


----------



## bullethead

smokey30725 said:


> He created us in His image and then gave us free will to decide what to do with our lives. We can come to Him or reject Him. The bible states that He would have it that none should perish, but that decision lies with us, not Him.


Free Will doesn't jive with an Omniscient and Omnipotent god.
He would know for eternity beforehand what each person would do therefore no choice a human made would be a surprise to a god. He knew he would drown them before he ever created them. To a god the script was already written.
Free will is the excuse believers make in order to make it sound good in their own minds.


----------



## WaltL1

smokey30725 said:


> He created us in His image and then gave us free will to decide what to do with our lives. We can come to Him or reject Him. The bible states that He would have it that none should perish, but that decision lies with us, not Him.


Every single person but Noah and his family rejected Him? Even the kids that drowned like everybody else?
You gave the standard feel good answer that takes the responsibility off God and puts it on the people. Of course it makes no sense whatsoever.


----------



## NCHillbilly

Like I said, they were acting exactly as he designed them to.


----------



## bullethead

NCHillbilly said:


> Like I said, they were acting exactly as he designed them to.


Precisely.


----------



## smokey30725

WaltL1 said:


> Every single person but Noah and his family rejected Him? Even the kids that drowned like everybody else?
> You gave the standard feel good answer that takes the responsibility off God and puts it on the people. Of course it makes no sense whatsoever.



Noah warned people for over 100 years. It's not like the flood snuck up on people. As far as the children, if they had not reached the age of accountability, then their souls were saved. If they had and, like their parents, chose to reject what Noah was warning them of, then yes, that was on them.


----------



## bullethead

smokey30725 said:


> He created us in His image and then gave us free will to decide what to do with our lives. We can come to Him or reject Him. The bible states that He would have it that none should perish, but that decision lies with us, not Him.


So what you are saying is he GAVE humans the power to make their own choices but in the next breath he drowned those same people because they didn't choose the way he obviously wanted them to choose...yet all along he knew what choices they would make and created them full well knowing he will destroy them.


----------



## bullethead

smokey30725 said:


> Noah warned people for over 100 years. It's not like the flood snuck up on people. As far as the children, if they had not reached the age of accountability, then their souls were saved. If they had and, like their parents, chose to reject what Noah was warning them of, then yes, that was on them.



Please tell us HOW Noah warned anyone 100 miles away,let alone across every inhabited area of the entire world.

While you are on a roll explain, outside of the bible, how Noah lived so long.


----------



## WaltL1

smokey30725 said:


> Noah warned people for over 100 years. It's not like the flood snuck up on people. As far as the children, if they had not reached the age of accountability, then their souls were saved. If they had and, like their parents, chose to reject what Noah was warning them of, then yes, that was on them.





> As far as the children, if they had not reached the age of accountability, then their souls were saved


Maybe they would have rather lived? Did they get to use their so called free will in that decision?
Once again the focus is taken off that they were killed because they got the prize of having their souls saved.
When a child becomes seriously ill, Christians head for the hospital. The whole "their souls will be saved" takes a back seat to saving their life.


----------



## smokey30725

Yes, that is the fundamental principle of free will. We make our choice and have to live with the consequences. God knows what choices we are going to make and it grieves His heart when we go on a path of self destruction. It's merely a consequence of a sin-filled, fallen world.


----------



## bullethead

smokey30725 said:


> Yes, that is the fundamental principle of free will. We make our choice and have to live with the consequences. God knows what choices we are going to make and it grieves His heart when we go on a path of self destruction. It's merely a consequence of a sin-filled, fallen world.


Total
Utter
Nonsense
Your version of a god makes him out to be a socio/psychopath.


----------



## smokey30725

bullethead said:


> Please tell us HOW Noah warned anyone 100 miles away,let alone across every inhabited area of the entire world.
> 
> While you are on a roll explain, outside of the bible, how Noah lived so long.



Read it or mock it, but this is some good information on what you were asking.

http://www.presentruth.com/2009/12/what-did-noah-really-preach-about-for-120-years/


----------



## smokey30725

bullethead said:


> Total
> Utter
> Nonsense
> Your version of a god makes him out to be a socio/psychopath.



I disagree. When He states that He is going to do something, gives well over a century for people to come to Him and avoid the consequence, and people reject Him, I don't see how He did anything other than keep His word. Do you not think people bear any responsibility for their decisions? If I warn you that there is a man with a gun outside and to stay indoors, and you choose to go outside anyway, did you not choose to accept the consequences of your action?


----------



## WaltL1

smokey30725 said:


> Yes, that is the fundamental principle of free will. We make our choice and have to live with the consequences. God knows what choices we are going to make and it grieves His heart when we go on a path of self destruction. It's merely a consequence of a sin-filled, fallen world.


Back to the children -
they cant vote. why?
they cant drive. why?
they cant decide to get married. why?
they cant buy guns. why?
they cant a million other things. why?
The answer to the "why" makes the whole live with the consequences excuse ridiculous.


----------



## smokey30725

WaltL1 said:


> Back to the children -
> they cant vote. why?
> they cant drive. why?
> they cant decide to get married. why?
> they cant buy guns. why?
> they cant a million other things. why?
> The answer to the "why" makes the whole live with the consequences excuse ridiculous.



That's exactly why Christians believe that there is an age of accountability. Children don't have the ability to decide some things until they are mature enough to realize the consequences. I'm not saying you have to believe it, but it is what the majority of Christianity believes. Here is the concept in a little more detail.

http://www.gotquestions.org/age-of-accountability.html


----------



## smokey30725

Have a good day guys. I have to head to the first of a few meetings but I do want to say that although we definitely differ on our views, this forum seems to stay a whole lot more respectful and "agree to disagree" than some of the others (cough, cough, political forum, cough). I would welcome any of you into my home and sit and discuss things like this in a civil manner.


----------



## WaltL1

smokey30725 said:


> That's exactly why Christians believe that there is an age of accountability. Children don't have the ability to decide some things until they are mature enough to realize the consequences. I'm not saying you have to believe it, but it is what the majority of Christianity believes. Here is the concept in a little more detail.
> 
> http://www.gotquestions.org/age-of-accountability.html


Lets skip the links and use our own brains.


> Children don't have the ability to decide some things until they are mature enough to realize the consequences.


Sooo were they left alive until they were mature enough to accept or reject God?


----------



## bullethead

smokey30725 said:


> I disagree. When He states that He is going to do something, gives well over a century for people to come to Him and avoid the consequence, and people reject Him, I don't see how He did anything other than keep His word. Do you not think people bear any responsibility for their decisions? If I warn you that there is a man with a gun outside and to stay indoors, and you choose to go outside anyway, did you not choose to accept the consequences of your action?


Who and how did he tell the rest of the world?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

bullethead said:


> Who and how did he tell the rest of the world?



You didn't see the movie?


----------



## NCHillbilly

If you came around every day warning me about a man with a gun outside, and it took him a hundred years to show up, I would have ceased to have listened to you by then. There are people every day who call themselves prophets, and claim to speak for God. I'm sure it was the same back in the days we're talking about. Did you believe what Jim Jones, David Koresh, The Comet People, or any of those folks were warning you about? No? People then probably weren't much different than we are.

If God comes out of the sky and tells me something, you better believe I'll listen and heed what he says. The flaky guy down the road building a big boat in his dry backyard, collecting pairs of skunks, possums, wharf rats and rattlesnakes; and preaching doom and gloom? Not so much.


----------



## 660griz

bullethead said:


> Who and how did he tell the rest of the world?



How did he disable all other boats in the world?
Assuming he did tell everyone in the world,(Facebook?), where were they going to go? A big, stinky, crammed boat with Noah? 

Where  in the Bible does it say Noah, or God, warned anyone of the upcoming flood?
I think this is another case of folks reading into what they want to from a kind, loving God.

God never told Noah the invite was for everybody. The Bible specifically states in Genesis 6:17-18, “Behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish. But I will establish My covenant with you; and you shall enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife, and your sons’ wives with you.” That seems to be pretty clear that God’s plan was to save eight people, and eight people only.

2. The Bible says nothing about Noah warning anybody about the flood. The only thing that even comes close is in II Peter 2:5 where the Bible calls Noah a “preacher of righteousness.” Noah was 500 years old before God said anything to him about a flood, so this isn’t proof that he warned anybody about the flood.

Some would argue that God always allows for people to be saved from judgment. The biblical teaching on CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored would indicate otherwise. A concrete biblical example would be the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. The angels came to get Lot out of Sodom. Genesis 19:12 says that the invitation was for Lot and his family only. The people in these cities were never warned. In the same way, it is possible that the people in Noah’s day were not warned of the judgment to come.


----------



## bullethead

smokey30725 said:


> Read it or mock it, but this is some good information on what you were asking.
> 
> http://www.presentruth.com/2009/12/what-did-noah-really-preach-about-for-120-years/



The article lost it's credibility immediately after I read "The Facts".


----------



## bullethead

660griz said:


> How did he disable all other boats in the world?
> Assuming he did tell everyone in the world,(Facebook?), where were they going to go? A big, stinky, crammed boat with Noah?
> 
> Where  in the Bible does it say Noah, or God, warned anyone of the upcoming flood?
> I think this is another case of folks reading into what they want to from a kind, loving God.
> 
> God never told Noah the invite was for everybody. The Bible specifically states in Genesis 6:17-18, “Behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish. But I will establish My covenant with you; and you shall enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife, and your sons’ wives with you.” That seems to be pretty clear that God’s plan was to save eight people, and eight people only.
> 
> 2. The Bible says nothing about Noah warning anybody about the flood. The only thing that even comes close is in II Peter 2:5 where the Bible calls Noah a “preacher of righteousness.” Noah was 500 years old before God said anything to him about a flood, so this isn’t proof that he warned anybody about the flood.
> 
> Some would argue that God always allows for people to be saved from judgment. The biblical teaching on CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored would indicate otherwise. A concrete biblical example would be the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. The angels came to get Lot out of Sodom. Genesis 19:12 says that the invitation was for Lot and his family only. The people in these cities were never warned. In the same way, it is possible that the people in Noah’s day were not warned of the judgment to come.


Bottom of the 9th, bases loaded, walk off grand slam.


----------



## welderguy

Well it's pretty obvious we see the destruction, but the real question is are we able to see the grace?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Well it's pretty obvious we see the destruction, but the real question is are we able to see the grace?



To me grace and destruction are not separate conditions. Grace doesn't outweigh destruction. 

If a human murders 30 people, and then tries to go be a missionary to help war orphans, he's still a murderer.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Well it's pretty obvious we see the destruction, but the real question is are we able to see the grace?


No.
That's like saying Hitler should be applauded for doing his part to help keep the earth from getting over populated.


----------



## EverGreen1231

660griz said:


> How did he disable all other boats in the world?
> Assuming he did tell everyone in the world,(Facebook?), where were they going to go? A big, stinky, crammed boat with Noah?
> 
> Where  in the Bible does it say Noah, or God, warned anyone of the upcoming flood?
> I think this is another case of folks reading into what they want to from a kind, loving God.
> 
> God never told Noah the invite was for everybody. The Bible specifically states in Genesis 6:17-18, “Behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish. But I will establish My covenant with you; and you shall enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife, and your sons’ wives with you.” That seems to be pretty clear that God’s plan was to save eight people, and eight people only.
> 
> 2. The Bible says nothing about Noah warning anybody about the flood. The only thing that even comes close is in II Peter 2:5 where the Bible calls Noah a “preacher of righteousness.” Noah was 500 years old before God said anything to him about a flood, so this isn’t proof that he warned anybody about the flood.
> 
> Some would argue that God always allows for people to be saved from judgment. The biblical teaching on CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored would indicate otherwise. A concrete biblical example would be the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. The angels came to get Lot out of Sodom. Genesis 19:12 says that the invitation was for Lot and his family only. The people in these cities were never warned. In the same way, it is possible that the people in Noah’s day were not warned of the judgment to come.



God saved the righteous. That's why none else was "invited" in either case. He did justly.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> To me grace and destruction are not separate conditions. Grace doesn't outweigh destruction.
> 
> If a human murders 30 people, and then tries to go be a missionary to help war orphans, he's still a murderer.



So, would you agree that everyone, including Noah and his family rightfully should have been destroyed?


----------



## WaltL1

EverGreen1231 said:


> God saved the righteous. That's why none else was "invited" in either case. He did justly.





> God saved the righteous.


Lets use a little common sense and apply this to modern times -
On this planet, today, there is ONE family that would be saved.
And it would just so happen that the ONLY righteous people on the entire planet all belonged to ONE family.
NO other righteous families. Not one other righteous person in any other family on the entire earth.
Come on think about it.
By the way as the story goes God said NOAH was righteous. Not his family.


> the Lord states that He will save Noah and his household due to Noah’s Righteous life.


It would appear the family got a free ride.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> So, would you agree that everyone, including Noah and his family rightfully should have been destroyed?



What did they do? What crime was committed?


----------



## EverGreen1231

WaltL1 said:


> Lets use a little common sense and apply this to modern times -
> On this planet, today, there is ONE family that would be saved.
> And it would just so happen that the ONLY righteous people on the entire planet all belonged to ONE family.
> NO other righteous families. Not one other righteous person in any other family on the entire earth.
> Come on think about it.
> By the way as the story goes God said NOAH was righteous. Not his family.



"Common sense" is not really all that sensible most of the time. It's based on false ideas and interpretations of things you can't find true explanations for, so you have infer something based upon some notion in other, unrelated fields.

And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.

And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> What did they do? What crime was committed?



You didn't answer my question.

But to answer yours,every sin they commited from the moment of their conception was their crime against a sovereign,righteous God.


----------



## bigreddwon

stringmusic said:


> God has the power to restore life physically and spiritually, therefor the flood was not genocide because He didn't murder anyone, and certainly didn't murder innocent people.



Is that really how you see it? Seriously?  

I'm blown away. As close to speechlees I get.. 



I read your reply several times. Here's my take.. 

Imagine if you will, a girl, snatched at 4 or 5 by a madman. A rapist, a pedophile, a person who enjoys the suffering of his victim.. He tortures and rapes her. Beats her for years. After decades of oppression, and violence, its all she knows. She says, when she is 'rescued' 20 years later that her captor was kind and loving and that she DESERVES the treatment she received, yaknow because he told her, constantly .. She can't think of why everyone is so concerned with abuse that never happened in her mind. She CALLS it love. I feel the same sorrow for her, that I do for you. It's painfully obvious how religion has harmed you. Deeply. To your core.


----------



## WaltL1

smokey30725 said:


> Read it or mock it, but this is some good information on what you were asking.
> 
> http://www.presentruth.com/2009/12/what-did-noah-really-preach-about-for-120-years/


I read it and there is some good info actually. You said -


> Noah warned people for over 100 years


And you used that to say that people used their free will to accept or deny God.
But your link says -


> While building the ark he was to preach that God would bring a flood of water upon the earth to destroy the wicked. Those who would believe the message, and would prepare for that event by repentance and reformation, should find pardon and be saved.


So Noah didn't go anywhere. The only people that would have heard his warning were those within actual ear shot.


> As he began to construct that immense boat on dry ground, multitudes came from every direction to see the strange sight and to hear the earnest, fervent words of the singular preacher. Every blow struck upon the ark was a witness to the people.


Note that it says multitudes of people came. Not all people. So clearly not everybody was there to get the warning from Noah.
And interestingly -


> While Noah was giving his warning message to the world, his works testified of his sincerity.


Says Noah gave his warning message to the world. But we know based on the above that he didn't go anywhere - 





> While building the ark he was to preach


So "the world" consisted of his particular location and those who could physically hear him.
The story is discrediting the story.............


----------



## EverGreen1231

bigreddwon said:


> Is that really how you see it? Seriously?
> 
> I'm blown away. As close to speechlees I get...



I wish you'd gotten closer. I would have stopped the train wreck of ignorance we see below.



bigreddwon said:


> I read your reply several times. Here's my take..
> 
> Imagine if you will, a girl, snatched at 4 or 5 by a madman. A rapist, a pedophile, a person who enjoys the suffering of his victim.. He tortures and rapes her. Beats her for years. After decades of oppression, and violence, its all she knows. She says, when she is 'rescued' 20 years later that her captor was kind and loving and that she DESERVES the treatment she received, yaknow because he told her, constantly .. She can't think of why everyone is so concerned with abuse that never happened in her mind. She CALLS it love. I feel the same sorrow for her, that I do for you. It's painfully obvious how religion has harmed you. Deeply. To your core.



Your hatred is disturbing, and it can't be healthy.


----------



## bigreddwon

EverGreen1231 said:


> I wish you'd gotten closer. I would have stopped the train wreck of ignorance we see below.
> 
> 
> 
> Your hatred is disturbing, and it can't be healthy.



With your own eyes you read words that describe sorrow and you still regurgitate it as hate.  Truly sad. (I mean sad sad, not sad hate, just to be overly clear)....


----------



## EverGreen1231

WaltL1 said:


> I read it and there is some good info actually. You said -
> 
> And you used that to say that people used their free will to accept or deny God.
> But your link says -
> 
> So Noah didn't go anywhere. The only people that would have heard his warning were those within actual ear shot.
> 
> Note that it says multitudes of people came. Not all people. So clearly not everybody was there to get the warning from Noah.
> And interestingly -
> 
> Says Noah gave his warning message to the world. But we know based on the above that he didn't go anywhere -
> So "the world" consisted of his particular location and those who could physically hear him.
> The story is discrediting the story.............



And God knows that _nobody_ else could speak in those days, and that _nobody_ would have repeated the story that "crack-pot" down the road told. It's amazing how you harp about being "sensible", accept in your own posts.


----------



## WaltL1

EverGreen1231 said:


> "Common sense" is not really all that sensible most of the time. It's based on false ideas and interpretations of things you can't find true explanations for, so you have infer something based upon some notion in other, unrelated fields.
> 
> And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.
> 
> And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.


Here's some common sense -


> And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth;


All those people paid with their lives for the mistake God admitted he made.
Nice.


> "Common sense" is not really all that sensible most of the time. It's based on false ideas and interpretations of things you can't find true explanations for, so you have infer something based upon some notion in other, unrelated fields.


You mean like "I don't know how we got here but everything we know of is made by something so it must have been God who made us and put us here?"


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> You didn't answer my question.
> 
> But to answer yours,every sin they commited from the moment of their conception was their crime against a sovereign,righteous God.



Because my answer is predicated on what they've done. 

"Every sin..." 

Do you have a list of their sins?


----------



## WaltL1

EverGreen1231 said:


> And God knows that _nobody_ else could speak in those days, and that _nobody_ would have repeated the story that "crack-pot" down the road told. It's amazing how you harp about being "sensible", accept in your own posts.


Sensibility tells me that the claim is that whole world was involved. Back then no Twitter, no Facebook no nothing. Word of mouth.
So why don't you tell me what you heard via word of mouth about the goings on in the Amazon today.


----------



## EverGreen1231

WaltL1 said:


> Here's some common sense -



Where?



WaltL1 said:


> All those people paid with their lives for the mistake God admitted he made.
> Nice.



You're not looking at it from the perspective of why God was grieved.



WaltL1 said:


> You mean like "I don't know how we got here but everything we know of is made by something so it must have been God who made us and put us here?"



No, I mean like "I don't know we got here, but I think it happened because some huge egg exploded and created a universe." 

I know how we got here 



WaltL1 said:


> Sensibility tells me that the claim is that whole world was involved. Back then no Twitter, no Facebook no nothing. Word of mouth.
> So why don't you tell me what you heard via word of mouth about the goings on in the Amazon today.



There's a lot wrong with your analogy, but I'll let that slide for the sake of time.

100 years: What major historical events have you learned about that happened in the past hundred years by word of mouth? If you went to school, the answer would be several. How many people do you think were learning who George Washington was in 1876...by word of mouth?


----------



## WaltL1

EverGreen1231 said:


> Where?
> 
> 
> 
> You're not looking at it from the perspective of why God was grieved.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I mean like "I don't know we got here, but I think it happened because some huge egg exploded and created a universe."
> 
> I know how we got here
> 
> 
> 
> There's a lot wrong with your analogy, but I'll let that slide for the sake of time.
> 
> 100 years: What major historical events have you learned about that happened in the past hundred years by word of mouth? If you went to school, the answer would be several. How many people do you think were learning who George Washington was in 1876...by word of mouth?





> You're not looking at it from the perspective of why God was grieved.


You mean Im not justifying their deaths by why God was grieved.
If your child grieves you, you can kill them or forgive them and maybe teach them. Which would you choose?


> No, I mean like "I don't know we got here, but I think it happened because some huge egg exploded and created a universe."


I never claimed to know how we got here.
But you do -


> I know how we got here


That's why my example applies and yours doesn't.


> 100 years


Why are you using 100 years?
The length of time it took Noah to build the ark is widely contested. And wouldn't you need to know how long it took somebody to get from the site of the ark build back to whatever furthest corner of the earth they came from?
You are assuming that even the remotest parts of the earth had somebody representing them to get the word back. You have to assume that or the story doesn't work.
But your assumption doesn't make it true.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> You didn't answer my question.
> 
> But to answer yours,every sin they commited from the moment of their conception was their crime against a sovereign,righteous God.


If God predestined them to sin who is responsible for it?
And shouldn't the responsible one be punished?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> If God predestined them to sin who is responsible for it?
> And shouldn't the responsible one be punished?



Forgoing that, I'm curious what specific sins they committed?

Not the, "To err is human," argument about how all humans are imperfect creatures and thus sinners, I'm looking for specificity so as to determine whether they deserved the punishment. 

That's how the criminal justice system works, and that's how my mind works. For there to be punishment there must first be specific offenses that are known.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Forgoing that, I'm curious what specific sins they committed?
> 
> Not the, "To err is human," argument about how all humans are imperfect creatures and thus sinners, I'm looking for specificity so as to determine whether they deserved the punishment.
> 
> That's how the criminal justice system works, and that's how my mind works. For there to be punishment there must first be specific offenses that are known.



Their sin nature was passed down through Adam's seed.All have sinned through Adam.As soon as a person is conceived in his mother's womb, bam!, he's got sin.It's the curse that we inherited because Adam would not obey.None of us would have.We are no better.God did not force Adam to disobey, but He knew he would(knowing and causing are two different things).


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Their sin nature was passed down through Adam's seed.All have sinned through Adam.As soon as a person is conceived in his mother's womb, bam!, he's got sin.It's the curse that we inherited because Adam would not obey.None of us would have.We are no better.God did not force Adam to disobey, but He knew he would(knowing and causing are two different things).



So they didn't personally give grievance. No charges filed then. 

It's not right, to me as a human, to hold all progeny guilty for the sins of the parents. If that were the case we'd be throwing murderer's children in jail, or summarily executing them with their parents. That's not something I can abide, and certainly doesn't speak to me about grace. 



> grace
> ɡrās/
> noun
> noun: grace; noun: grace period; plural noun: grace periods; noun: His Grace; noun: Her Grace; noun: Your Grace
> 
> 1.
> simple elegance or refinement of movement.
> "she moved through the water with effortless grace"
> synonyms:	elegance, poise, gracefulness, finesse; More
> suppleness, agility, nimbleness, light-footedness
> "the grace of a ballerina"
> antonyms:	inelegance, stiffness
> courteous goodwill.
> "at least he has the grace to admit his debt to her"
> synonyms:	courtesy, decency, (good) manners, politeness, decorum, respect, tact
> "he at least had the grace to look sheepish"
> antonyms:	effrontery
> an attractively polite manner of behaving.
> plural noun: graces
> "she has all the social graces"
> 2.
> (in Christian belief) the free and unmerited favor of God, as manifested in the salvation of sinners and the bestowal of blessings.
> a divinely given talent or blessing.
> plural noun: graces
> "the graces of the Holy Spirit"
> the condition or fact of being favored by someone.
> "he fell from grace because of drug use at the Olympics"
> synonyms:	favor, approval, approbation, acceptance, esteem, regard, respect; More
> goodwill
> "she fell from grace"
> favor, goodwill, generosity, kindness, indulgence;
> formalbenefaction
> "he lived there by grace of the king"
> antonyms:	disfavor
> 3.
> a period officially allowed for payment of a sum due or for compliance with a law or condition, especially an extended period granted as a special favor.
> "another three days' grace"
> synonyms:	deferment, deferral, postponement, suspension, adjournment, delay, pause; More
> respite, stay, moratorium, reprieve
> "they have five days' grace to decide"
> 4.
> a short prayer of thanks said before or after a meal.
> "before dinner the Reverend Newman said grace"
> synonyms:	blessing, prayer of thanks, thanksgiving, benediction
> "who would like to say this evening's grace?"
> 5.
> used as forms of description or address for a duke, duchess, or archbishop.
> "His Grace, the Duke of Atholl"
> 
> verb
> verb: grace; 3rd person present: graces; past tense: graced; past participle: graced; gerund or present participle: gracing
> 
> 1.
> do honor or credit to (someone or something) by one's presence.
> "she bowed out from the sport she has graced for two decades"
> synonyms:	dignify, distinguish, honor, favor; More



There's nothing favorable about holding me, personally, guilty for the sins of Adam, to my human mind.


----------



## 660griz

> Their sin nature was passed down through Adam's seed.


 Which he got from God.
Too bad God couldn't create something with free will that couldn't pick evil stuff. Like himself for example. Oh wait, we were created in his image.
That explains the flood. He makes mistakes too.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> So they didn't personally give grievance. No charges filed then.
> 
> It's not right, to me as a human, to hold all progeny guilty for the sins of the parents. If that were the case we'd be throwing murderer's children in jail, or summarily executing them with their parents. That's not something I can abide, and certainly doesn't speak to me about grace.
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing favorable about holding me, personally, guilty for the sins of Adam, to my human mind.



I wouldn't be so quick to think that you are so squeaky clean from sin.If you would admit it, you've sinned willfully and rebelliously numerous times in your life.That's enough to condemn you to he11 alone, regardless of the nature that was passed on to you through your father.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> I wouldn't be so quick to think that you are so squeaky clean from sin.If you would admit it, you've sinned willfully and rebelliously numerous times in your life.That's enough to condemn you to he11 alone, regardless of the nature that was passed on to you through your father.



My father is responsible for his sins, and I am responsible for mine. I'm sorry, but you're not going to convince me otherwise. Call it a "limit" of my worldly perspective, or whatever you want, but I'm not responsible to/for the acts of another where it comes to sin.


----------



## 660griz

Since I don't believe a God exist, I am free from sin. Woo hoo!
Yaaaaaa me!  Free at last.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

660griz said:


> Since I don't believe a God exist, I am free from sin. Woo hoo!
> Yaaaaaa me!  Free at last.



Sin = interpersonal transgression, and violations of my own morality to me. 

Equivocating for expedience's sake.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> My father is responsible for his sins, and I am responsible for mine. I'm sorry, but you're not going to convince me otherwise. Call it a "limit" of my worldly perspective, or whatever you want, but I'm not responsible to/for the acts of another where it comes to sin.



I didn't think you'd like my answer, but I figured I should tell you nonetheless.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> I didn't think you'd like my answer, but I figured I should tell you nonetheless.



Likewise.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Likewise.



So, you are acknowledging that you have sins of your own?
Or, do you take the same view as Gris?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> So, you are acknowledging that you have sins of your own?
> Or, do you take the same view as Gris?



I think I answered that earlier. 

It wouldn't be sins like you believe, most likely, but yes, I've done wrong and bad things before.


----------



## 660griz

Mine was based on:

sin/
noun
1.
an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law


----------



## StriperrHunterr

660griz said:


> Mine was based on:
> 
> sin/
> noun
> 1.
> an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law



And to that, I'm sin free since I don't subscribe to any divine law.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I think I answered that earlier.
> 
> It wouldn't be sins like you believe, most likely, but yes, I've done wrong and bad things before.


I was wondering if you were going to make that distinction before but I figured you were going along with "sins" for the sake of conversation.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Sin = interpersonal transgression, and violations of my own morality to me.
> 
> Equivocating for expedience's sake.



Ya'll made me think I hadn't posted it.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Ya'll made me think I hadn't posted it.


Oops I missed that!


----------



## welderguy

I don't get it.To me, sin is sin.What the difference between your sins and mine?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> I don't get it.To me, sin is sin.What the difference between your sins and mine?



Divine law vs personal law.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Divine law vs personal law.


Yep.
Welder -


> wrong -
> 1. Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous.
> a wrong answer.
> 2. Contrary to conscience, morality, or law.
> 3. Unfair; unjust.





> Sin -
> 1. an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Divine law vs personal law.



Well, if there's no divine law, only personal law, why did God destroy nearly all the population with a flood?

Someone explain why He would do such a thing?


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Well, if there's no divine law, only personal law, why did God destroy nearly all the population with a flood?
> 
> Someone explain why He would do such a thing?


That's an easy one for me.
Because if you believe the story he was -


> 2. Contrary to conscience, morality, or law.
> 3. Unfair; unjust.


Plays a big role in why I can not and will not worship him whether proven real or not.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> That's an easy one for me.
> Because if you believe the story he was -
> 
> Plays a big role in why I can not and will not worship him whether proven real or not.



So, you're not denying there was a flood, just that there's no divine law andthat the flood was unfair? correct?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Well, if there's no divine law, only personal law, why did God destroy nearly all the population with a flood?
> 
> Someone explain why He would do such a thing?



I don't believe He did. 

I believe that's a great parable, like Sodom and Gomorrah, about the penalties of breaking the laws of the Bible. It's self-reinforcing.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> So, you're not denying there was a flood, just that there's no divine law andthat the flood was unfair? correct?


There is zero credible evidence that a flood as described in the Bible ever happened.
There is a ton of evidence that a flood as described in the Bible is an impossibility based on what we know.
Until God has been proven to exist and the Bible proven to be true (which are not the same thing) there is no such thing as Divine Law because there is no Divine.
Unfair doesn't begin to describe it. Cheating at Monopoly is "unfair".
Genocide is the term that applies in our language. And genocide is not dependent on "who" its dependent on "what".


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> There is zero credible evidence that a flood as described in the Bible ever happened.
> There is a ton of evidence that a flood as described in the Bible is an impossibility based on what we know.
> Until God has been proven to exist and the Bible proven to be true (which are not the same thing) there is no such thing as Divine Law because there is no Divine.
> Unfair doesn't begin to describe it. Cheating at Monopoly is "unfair".
> Genocide is the term that applies in our language. And genocide is not dependent on "who" its dependent on "what".



There's some evidence that the Strait of Gibraltar was a land bridge at one point, and that the collapse of it, letting the Atlantic flood the lower elevation Mediterranean basin may have been the origin of the story. To someone in a small village on that coastline, suddenly inundated with an entire sea's worth of water, it may have surely felt like the world was flooding.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I don't believe He did.
> 
> I believe that's a great parable, like Sodom and Gomorrah, about the penalties of breaking the laws of the Bible. It's self-reinforcing.


I completely agree.
Nothing more than a self serving story designed to instill fear and control.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> There's some evidence that the Strait of Gibraltar was a land bridge at one point, and that the collapse of it, letting the Atlantic flood the lower elevation Mediterranean basin may have been the origin of the story. To someone in a small village on that coastline, suddenly inundated with an entire sea's worth of water, it may have surely felt like the world was flooding.


Entirely possible. That's why I was sure to use "as described in the Bible" meaning literally a world wide flood.
Or maybe "as translated from the Bible" might be the most accurate.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> Entirely possible. That's why I was sure to use "as described in the Bible" meaning literally a world wide flood.



I'm tracking. 

I'm a firm adherent to the informational horizon, though. We all have one, it's just that back in those days it was a lot closer to the physical horizon than what we have today. 

Events occurring outside of your horizon remain unknown to you forever, events on the inside, however, can seem like they shake the whole world. 

Serious question for everyone: What's the most incredible, non-African/ME regional, animal? This is an opinion question.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> There's some evidence that the Strait of Gibraltar was a land bridge at one point, and that the collapse of it, letting the Atlantic flood the lower elevation Mediterranean basin may have been the origin of the story. To someone in a small village on that coastline, suddenly inundated with an entire sea's worth of water, it may have surely felt like the world was flooding.


By the way post # 958 contains some niblets that might make going in that direction potentially plausible as it relates to the "world".


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I'm tracking.
> 
> I'm a firm adherent to the informational horizon, though. We all have one, it's just that back in those days it was a lot closer to the physical horizon than what we have today.
> 
> Events occurring outside of your horizon remain unknown to you forever, events on the inside, however, can seem like they shake the whole world.
> 
> Serious question for everyone: What's the most incredible, non-African/ME regional, animal? This is an opinion question.


Me


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> Me



You are pretty incredible.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> You are pretty incredible.


You either just burned me or you made a funny. Im not sure which and I don't think I want to know


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> You either just burned me or you made a funny. Im not sure which and I don't think I want to know



Yes.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Yes.


I'm good with that answer


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> Well, if there's no divine law, only personal law, why did God destroy nearly all the population with a flood?


 The real answer is, he didn't. That is about as possible as creating a man from dust and a woman from a rib and tell them to populate the world but, incest is bad. There is no God. The Bible was 'children,s' stories written to control a population with a risk/reward system. Folks living in whales or fish? Come on. 



> Someone explain why He would do such a thing?



I was discussing the flood just for the sake of debate. 
For the sake of discussion I'll believe there is a God. 
Now, if I believe the flood story, I suddenly don't like that God. A GOD should be able to just kill all the evil folks with a snap of a finger. Right? Why drown everyone and every creature? Oh yea, God moves in mysterious ways.


----------



## welderguy

660griz said:


> The real answer is, he didn't. That is about as possible as creating a man from dust and a woman from a rib and tell them to populate the world but, incest is bad. There is no God. The Bible was 'children,s' stories written to control a population with a risk/reward system. Folks living in whales or fish? Come on.
> 
> 
> 
> I was discussing the flood just for the sake of debate.
> For the sake of discussion I'll believe there is a God.
> Now, if I believe the flood story, I suddenly don't like that God. A GOD should be able to just kill all the evil folks with a snap of a finger. Right? Why drown everyone and every creature? Oh yea, God moves in mysterious ways.



It's not given to you to believe,therefore you can not believe.I understand completely where you are at.I was there once also.No worries.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> I'm good with that answer



 my friend. 

Hey guys, I know this is way OT, but I need help finding a home for the dog I posted or I won't be able to make it to the 7/3 gathering.


----------



## 660griz

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Hey guys, I know this is way OT, but I need help finding a home for the dog I posted or I won't be able to make it to the 7/3 gathering.



I will ask around the office. I am not sure how you feel about this or you may have already checked into it but, have you considered an adoption center / no kill shelter?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

660griz said:


> I will ask around the office. I am not sure how you feel about this or you may have already checked into it but, have you considered an adoption center / no kill shelter?



We have. GA requires, according to what they tell us, that they have 250ft of space for a dog her size, or as they say it, "We don't have room here..."

Thanks in advance.


----------



## WaltL1

660griz said:


> The real answer is, he didn't. That is about as possible as creating a man from dust and a woman from a rib and tell them to populate the world but, incest is bad. There is no God. The Bible was 'children,s' stories written to control a population with a risk/reward system. Folks living in whales or fish? Come on.
> 
> 
> 
> I was discussing the flood just for the sake of debate.
> For the sake of discussion I'll believe there is a God.
> Now, if I believe the flood story, I suddenly don't like that God. A GOD should be able to just kill all the evil folks with a snap of a finger. Right? Why drown everyone and every creature? Oh yea, God moves in mysterious ways.


Just falling over dead isn't nearly as scary as drowning.
Its not supposed to make sense its supposed to scare you.


----------



## 660griz

WaltL1 said:


> Just falling over dead isn't nearly as scary as drowning.
> Its not supposed to make sense its supposed to scare you.



Plus, that could be actual proof of God and just a bad weather event. 

We'll have none of that. Better to remain 'mysterious'.


----------



## welderguy

I fail to see how this negative discussion of the flood is helping Striperr find a home for his dog.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I fail to see how this negative discussion of the flood is helping Striperr find a home for his dog.


Fortunately for Striperrs dog, even though he exhibits behavior that doesn't allow Striperr to keep him, Striperr is compassionate, moral and loving enough to find him a new home.
He could just drown him or something and be done with it.
See, the two subjects can be combined.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Fortunately for Striperrs dog, even though he exhibits behavior that doesn't allow Striperr to keep him, Striperr is compassionate, moral and loving enough to find him a new home.
> He could just drown him or something and be done with it.
> See, the two subjects can be combined.



If he really loved him with an unconditional love, wouldn't he keep him and allow him to do whatever he wanted to do and never set boundaries.just warm fuzzy love.nothing else.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> If he really loved him with an unconditional love, wouldn't he keep him and allow him to do whatever he wanted to do and never set boundaries.just warm fuzzy love.nothing else.


Give that some thought.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Give that some thought.



I was being facetious.
That is in essence what you guys are implying God should be like toward His creation regardless of their behavior.correct?


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I was being facetious.
> That is in essence what you guys are implying God should be like toward His creation regardless of their behavior.correct?


Not sure where you got that from.
Something short of genocide would be good.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Not sure where you got that from.
> Something short of genocide would be good.



What about the last time you killed a turkey? Were you justified in killing it?
What about when you caught all those fish and had that big fishfry?
What about when you went to the grocery store and bought that steak?
Why did you choose that steak over the others? Were you justified in singling that one out from the others.

I'm pretty sure your answer is yes, you were justified. 
And you weren't even the creator of those things.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> What about the last time you killed a turkey? Were you justified in killing it?
> What about when you caught all those fish and had that big fishfry?
> What about when you went to the grocery store and bought that steak?
> Why did you choose that steak over the others? Were you justified in singling that one out from the others.
> 
> I'm pretty sure your answer is yes, you were justified.
> And you weren't even the creator of those things.


Are you actually comparing the killing of nearly the entire human race which includes women and children to a turkey or a fish?
Welder seriously just stop.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> I was being facetious.
> That is in essence what you guys are implying God should be like toward His creation regardless of their behavior.correct?



In keeping with the theme, and the ludicrous notion that I'm anything at all like a god let alone God, the situation would be equal if I killed all dogs for the behavior of Kaya. 

Your dog inherited her parent's sin, so they're just as guilty.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Are you actually comparing the killing of nearly the entire human race which includes women and children to a turkey or a fish?
> Welder seriously just stop.



What about abortion?


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> What about abortion?



God doesn't have a problem with it. He does it all the time. 
Next.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

660griz said:


> God doesn't have a problem with it. He does it all the time.
> Next.



You could consider all of humanity a late term in the case of the flood. Some later than others, some earlier, but I digress.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> I fail to see how this negative discussion of the flood is helping Striperr find a home for his dog.



I'm sorry, should I have posted that in the other thread we derailed to discuss the get together that has been tossed around?


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> What about abortion?


Which abortions? The ones that happened to any pregnant women in the flood?


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I'm sorry, should I have posted that in the other thread we derailed to discuss the get together that has been tossed around?



I went on Tuesday.  I caught 4 trout in about 3 hours but I was just goofing around showing my friend how to fish.  

That water is niiiiiice to wade in (once the stones get numb) with the hot weather.  There's plenty of room for all of us especially if we go during the week in the day time.  No need to get up early.  They bite all day long.  With the traffic in that area I would suggest a 10-11am till 3 or a 2-3 till passed 6pm.  Maybe wait out the traffic at a Public House.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Which abortions? The ones that happened to any pregnant women in the flood?





This comment gave me mixed emotions.  I don't know whether to laugh or cry.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> I went on Tuesday.  I caught 4 trout in about 3 hours but I was just goofing around showing my friend how to fish.
> 
> That water is niiiiiice to wade in (once the stones get numb) with the hot weather.  There's plenty of room for all of us especially if we go during the week in the day time.  No need to get up early.  They bite all day long.  With the traffic in that area I would suggest a 10-11am till 3 or a 2-3 till passed 6pm.  Maybe wait out the traffic at a Public House.



I could do the mid-day trip, but the later trip is out unless something changes.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> What about the last time you killed a turkey? Were you justified in killing it?
> What about when you caught all those fish and had that big fishfry?
> What about when you went to the grocery store and bought that steak?
> Why did you choose that steak over the others? Were you justified in singling that one out from the others.
> 
> I'm pretty sure your answer is yes, you were justified.
> And you weren't even the creator of those things.



What about that time that I took a minnow and stuck a hook through his eyes and when I was done with him i ripped him off it and threw him in the water?  How about that minnow that I smashed with a rock just because?

How about that dozen or so minnows I threw into the grass to suffocate because we were not supposed to throw extra bait in the pond?

I'm not sure what you're getting at with your question.


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> What about the last time you killed a turkey? Were you justified in killing it?
> What about when you caught all those fish and had that big fishfry?
> What about when you went to the grocery store and bought that steak?
> Why did you choose that steak over the others? Were you justified in singling that one out from the others.
> 
> I'm pretty sure your answer is yes, you were justified.
> And you weren't even the creator of those things.



Cuz we are predators. Just like cats, wolves, etc. Got to eat.
Sure didn't kill them cause they didn't believe in me or broke some imaginary rule.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

660griz said:


> Cuz we are predators. Just like cats, wolves, etc. Got to eat.
> Sure didn't kill them cause they didn't believe in me or broke some imaginary rule.



Like I tell my wife, that's like telling water to not be wet.


----------



## 660griz

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Like I tell my wife, that's like telling water to not be wet.



What is that saying again? Something like:
I have a place for all God's creatures. Right next to my mashed potatoes." Or, "if God didn't want me to eat meat, he wouldn't have made them taste so good."


----------



## StriperrHunterr

660griz said:


> What is that saying again? Something like:
> I have a place for all God's creatures. Right next to my mashed potatoes." Or, "if God didn't want me to eat meat, he wouldn't have made them taste so good."



Either work.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> What about that time that I took a minnow and stuck a hook through his eyes and when I was done with him i ripped him off it and threw him in the water?  How about that minnow that I smashed with a rock just because?
> 
> How about that dozen or so minnows I threw into the grass to suffocate because we were not supposed to throw extra bait in the pond?
> 
> I'm not sure what you're getting at with your question.QUOTE]
> Its just another completely nonsensical, completely see thru, lame attempt to divert away from what the story says God did.
> Its interesting to me that a comparison to us (humans) is used to attempt to justify what God did and then in the next thread, when it fits the subject, the claim will be made that we are nothing like God and there is no comparison.
> Just like with abortion. The willful killing of an unborn child by a human is abortion.
> The willful killing of an unborn child by God is, of course, not.
> Its obvious to me that the issue isn't with the killing of the unborn child its with who does it.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> What about that time that I took a minnow and stuck a hook through his eyes and when I was done with him i ripped him off it and threw him in the water?  How about that minnow that I smashed with a rock just because?
> 
> How about that dozen or so minnows I threw into the grass to suffocate because we were not supposed to throw extra bait in the pond?
> 
> I'm not sure what you're getting at with your question.



Sorry I had to leave all of a sudden.

My point is-Don't go acusing God and saying He's unjust for the same things you do and justify.Furthermore, there's a huge difference in what He's justified in doing and what we are justified in doing because He created us.The creator can un-create his creation and be just in it.Same as if you drew a picture and decided to wad it up and throw it in the trash(or light it on fire)


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> ambush80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about that time that I took a minnow and stuck a hook through his eyes and when I was done with him i ripped him off it and threw him in the water?  How about that minnow that I smashed with a rock just because?
> 
> How about that dozen or so minnows I threw into the grass to suffocate because we were not supposed to throw extra bait in the pond?
> 
> I'm not sure what you're getting at with your question.QUOTE]
> Its just another completely nonsensical, completely see thru, lame attempt to divert away from what the story says God did.
> Its interesting to me that a comparison to us (humans) is used to attempt to justify what God did and then in the next thread, when it fits the subject, the claim will be made that we are nothing like God and there is no comparison.
> Just like with abortion. The willful killing of an unborn child by a human is abortion.
> The willful killing of an unborn child by God is, of course, not.
> Its obvious to me that the issue isn't with the killing of the unborn child its with who does it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what it boils down to and it makes sense from their perspective.
> 
> The all powerful lord of the Universe could literally do whatever it wants (even make a burrito so hot he can't eat it...but he can).
> 
> I get that.
> 
> He could even inspire people to write down his thoughts in a weird book.  He could even say "no matter what I do, you must call it loving and righteous ".  He could do all those things.
> 
> I don't want to worship that kind of a guy or think that that kind of being would exist.  Apparently neither do you.  Why anyone would is beyond me and I have yet to hear a good reason.
Click to expand...


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Sorry I had to leave all of a sudden.
> 
> My point is-Don't go acusing God and saying He's unjust for the same things you do and justify.Furthermore, there's a huge difference in what He's justified in doing and what we are justified in doing because He created us.The creator can un-create his creation and be just in it.Same as if you drew a picture and decided to wad it up and throw it in the trash(or light it on fire)



That's trivializing all life to a piece of paper.


----------



## 660griz

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That's trivializing all life to a piece of paper.



And that is how their loving God thinks of them and they are just fine with that.


----------



## smokey30725

660griz said:


> And that is how their loving God thinks of them and they are just fine with that.



He saw fit to send His son to die for us. To me, that shows how much He thinks of us.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

smokey30725 said:


> He saw fit to send His son to die for us. To me, that shows how much He thinks of us.



A good counter point. Not sure it matters to those who were smited, or not elected, but a good point nonetheless.


----------



## welderguy

smokey30725 said:


> He saw fit to send His son to die for us. To me, that shows how much He thinks of us.



AMEN !!!

I was just about to say that myself.


----------



## ambush80

smokey30725 said:


> He saw fit to send His son to die for us. To me, that shows how much He thinks of us.



But His son was Himself and He didn't really die and He didn't save everyone from He11.  

I would go through the same torture as Jesus to save my daughter from He11 (the resurrection part three days later included of course).  I wouldn't make her have to worship me either.  I would just save her.  That's the kind of guy I am.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Sorry I had to leave all of a sudden.
> 
> My point is-Don't go acusing God and saying He's unjust for the same things you do and justify.Furthermore, there's a huge difference in what He's justified in doing and what we are justified in doing because He created us.The creator can un-create his creation and be just in it.Same as if you drew a picture and decided to wad it up and throw it in the trash(or light it on fire)





> My point is-Don't go acusing God and saying He's unjust for the same things you do and justify


Ive never once killed a single person never mind nearly an entire race because they didn't do what I wanted them to do.


> Same as if you drew a picture and decided to wad it up and throw it in the trash


I'll be honest its disgusting to me how you relegate human life to a piece of paper or a turkey or a fish for the sole purpose of defending your Gods supposed actions.
If you weren't indoctrinated you would probably be disgusted with yourself.


----------



## ambush80

I can't imagine putting anyone in He11 forever.  Not even Hitler.  That's just me.  I ain't no kind, loving God though.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Ive never once killed a single person never mind nearly an entire race because they didn't do what I wanted them to do.
> 
> I'll be honest its disgusting to me how you relegate human life to a piece of paper or a turkey or a fish for the sole purpose of defending your Gods supposed actions.
> If you weren't indoctrinated you would probably be disgusted with yourself.



It's beyond bizarre.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> But His son was Himself and He didn't really die and He didn't save everyone from He11.
> 
> I would go through the same torture as Jesus to save my daughter from He11 (the resurrection part three days later included of course).  I wouldn't make her have to worship me either.  I would just save her.  That's the kind of guy I am.





> But His son was Himself and He didn't really die and He didn't save everyone from He11.


You aren't supposed to pay attention to the details


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Ive never once killed a single person never mind nearly an entire race because they didn't do what I wanted them to do.
> 
> I'll be honest its disgusting to me how you relegate human life to a piece of paper or a turkey or a fish for the sole purpose of defending your Gods supposed actions.
> If you weren't indoctrinated you would probably be disgusted with yourself.



You're missing the whole point.Probably purposely.
My examples were purposely oversimplified as to try not to complicate things.It doesn't mean I equate the value of human life with animals or paper.I'm the one strictly opposed to abortion and am an advocate of capital punishment here.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> You're missing the whole point.Probably purposely.
> My examples were purposely oversimplified as to try not to complicate things.It doesn't mean I equate the value of human life with animals or paper.I'm the one strictly opposed to abortion and *am an advocate of capital punishment here*.



So you're a killer, then, even though you've been commanded not to be. 

Or are you okay with it only so long as someone else is doing the punishment?


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> I can't imagine putting anyone in He11 forever.  Not even Hitler.  That's just me.  I ain't no kind, loving God though.



You're not a sovereign creator either.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> You're missing the whole point.Probably purposely.
> My examples were purposely oversimplified as to try not to complicate things.It doesn't mean I equate the value of human life with animals or paper.I'm the one strictly opposed to abortion and am an advocate of capital punishment here.


The unfaceable fact to you here is that you are not.
The second you say its ok because God did it you placed who did it over the willful killing of an unborn child.
Strictly opposed means no exceptions. Sorry but you are stroking your ego/sense of goodness by avoiding the truth.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> So you're a killer, then, even though you've been commanded not to be.
> 
> Or are you okay with it only so long as someone else is doing the punishment?



Why am I a killer? Even If I was the one flipping the switch on the electric chair,that wouldn't make me a killer.

bizarre


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> The unfaceable fact to you here is that you are not.
> The second you say its ok because God did it you placed who did it over the willful killing of an unborn child.
> Strictly opposed means no exceptions. Sorry but you are stroking your ego/sense of goodness by avoiding the truth.



I'm not catching what you're saying here.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I'm not catching what you're saying here.


1. Abortion =the willful killing of an unborn child.
2. Strictly opposed = no exceptions
3. Its ok that God willfully killed unborn children = making an exception because it was God.
See number 2


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> 1. Abortion =the willful killing of an unborn child.
> 2. Strictly opposed = no exceptions
> 3. Its ok that God willfully killed unborn children = making an exception because it was God.
> See number 2



Oh,I see.

Let me clarify.
I am strictly opposed to humans killing unborn children.
It's OK for God to do WHATEVER HE WANTS TO DO because:
1)He's the creator
2)He's sovereign over His creation
3)He makes the rules
4)He doesn't have to answer to anyone or anything

None of the above applies to humans.Simple as that.Like it or not.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Oh,I see.
> 
> Let me clarify.
> I am strictly opposed to humans killing unborn children.
> It's OK for God to do WHATEVER HE WANTS TO DO because:
> 1)He's the creator
> 2)He's sovereign over His creation
> 3)He makes the rules
> 4)He doesn't have to answer to anyone or anything
> 
> None of the above applies to humans.Simple as that.Like it or not.


That's fine.
However that means you aren't opposed to abortion.
You are opposed to humans performing abortions.
Not abortions themselves.
The rest of your post explains why you feel its ok for God to perform abortions.
So basically you are pro-abortion.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> That's fine.
> However that means you aren't opposed to abortion.
> You are opposed to humans performing abortions.
> Not abortions themselves.
> The rest of your post explains why you feel its ok for God to perform abortions.
> So basically you are pro-abortion.



If you feel the need to split hairs and define it that way,then that's ok with me.As long as you keep the distinction between who's doing the aborting.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> If you feel the need to split hairs and define it that way,then that's ok with me.As long as you keep the distinction between who's doing the aborting.


Sure that's fair.
As long as you keep the distinction about what being opposed to abortion or not is.
And for the record I don't believe for a second that you think abortion is right.
I just question how you can work it out in your mind that its right when God does it.
See for me, when I believed, I saw the total hypocrisy in it. I couldn't pretend otherwise. It was an ingredient in why I left Christianity.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> You're not a sovereign creator either.



Good thing, huh?  Because no one would ever burn for eternity. I would never have come up with such an insane punishment.


----------



## rmp




----------



## rmp




----------



## ambush80

smokey30725 said:


> He saw fit to send His son to die for us. To me, that shows how much He thinks of us.





welderguy said:


> AMEN !!!
> 
> I was just about to say that myself.



Would you guys go through what Jesus did to save your children from He11, especially if you knew that you would be resurrected three days later (with the ability to fly)?


----------



## rmp




----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Well, if there's no divine law, only personal law, why did God destroy nearly all the population with a flood?
> 
> Someone explain why He would do such a thing?



He didn't. 
The ONLY place a worldwide flood happened was in the bible.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> Well, if there's no divine law, only personal law, why did God destroy nearly all the population with a flood?
> 
> Someone explain why He would do such a thing?



I honestly can't imagine killing the whole world with a flood except for a lucky 950 year old man, his family and some lucky animals even if I had the power to do it.

It's just not the kind of thing that I would do.


----------



## hobbs27

Don't know if you seen this one.


----------



## rmp

ambush80 said:


> Would you guys go through what Jesus did to save your children from He11, especially if you knew that you would be resurrected three days later (with the ability to fly)?



First, please excuse my intrusion. I had started a post but had to tend to some urgent issues with my wife.

Second, while it's obvious I'm not a believer, it hasn't always been the case. One of the first red flags in my mind as I was transitioning away from religion was the details of the "ultimate sacrifice".

God and jesus, being one in the same, BOTH know full well that jesus will be tortured, crucified, and resurrected. So the people who condemned jesus and "chose" Barrabas really had no choice.  It was part of the plan and thus, no free will. 

So god has his son (himself) destined to die for the mistakes he made in creating imperfect beings that he knew would fail. All to save them from the he11 he created. 
He has the son killed as planned.
Then, he has his son back three days later at his side as if nothing ever happened. 

Have son, no son for 3 whole days, have son again.
Talk about putting on a show.


----------



## bigreddwon

WaltL1 said:


> That's fine.
> However that means you aren't opposed to abortion.
> You are opposed to humans performing abortions.
> Not abortions themselves.
> The rest of your post explains why you feel its ok for God to perform abortions.
> So basically you are pro-abortion.





WaltL1 said:


> Sure that's fair.
> As long as you keep the distinction about what being opposed to abortion or not is.
> And for the record I don't believe for a second that you think abortion is right.
> I just question how you can work it out in your mind that its right when God does it.
> See for me, when I believed, I saw the total hypocrisy in it. I couldn't pretend otherwise. It was an ingredient in why I left Christianity.



Excellent posts.


----------



## ambush80

rmp said:


> First, please excuse my intrusion. I had started a post but had to tend to some urgent issues with my wife.
> 
> Second, while it's obvious I'm not a believer, it hasn't always been the case. One of the first red flags in my mind as I was transitioning away from religion was the details of the "ultimate sacrifice".
> 
> God and jesus, being one in the same, BOTH know full well that jesus will be tortured, crucified, and resurrected. So the people who condemned jesus and "chose" Barrabas really had no choice.  It was part of the plan and thus, no free will.
> 
> So god has his son (himself) destined to die for the mistakes he made in creating imperfect beings that he knew would fail. All to save them from the he11 he created.
> He has the son killed as planned.
> Then, he has his son back three days later at his side as if nothing ever happened.
> 
> Have son, no son for 3 whole days, have son again.
> Talk about putting on a show.



I wish someone could explain the mind job that has to happen to make that story appealing.

All I ever hear is "You can't understand it and I can't explain it."

I don't recon I'll get a response to my question.


----------



## WaltL1

rmp said:


> First, please excuse my intrusion. I had started a post but had to tend to some urgent issues with my wife.
> 
> Second, while it's obvious I'm not a believer, it hasn't always been the case. One of the first red flags in my mind as I was transitioning away from religion was the details of the "ultimate sacrifice".
> 
> God and jesus, being one in the same, BOTH know full well that jesus will be tortured, crucified, and resurrected. So the people who condemned jesus and "chose" Barrabas really had no choice.  It was part of the plan and thus, no free will.
> 
> So god has his son (himself) destined to die for the mistakes he made in creating imperfect beings that he knew would fail. All to save them from the he11 he created.
> He has the son killed as planned.
> Then, he has his son back three days later at his side as if nothing ever happened.
> 
> Have son, no son for 3 whole days, have son again.
> Talk about putting on a show.





> Second, while it's obvious I'm not a believer, it hasn't always been the case.


Same with the majority of those of us here.


> One of the first red flags in my mind


And this is the biggest reason why I participate here.
Putting aside whether god(s) actually exist or not, its really interesting to me that some of us see these red flags and some of us don't.
Are "we" making up these red flags? 
Are "they" ignoring these red flags?
And why?
Its interesting stuff from a psychological standpoint.
I hope you continue to participate.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> I wish someone could explain the mind job that has to happen to make that story appealing.
> 
> All I ever hear is "You can't understand it and I can't explain it."
> 
> I don't recon I'll get a response to my question.


Indoctrination.
Seems like a vague word but its actually a science. There are step by step processes in indoctrinating someone.
Everybody is indoctrinated to some degree.
Some stay indoctrinated, some don't.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Indoctrination.
> Seems like a vague word but its actually a science. There are step by step processes in indoctrinating someone.
> Everybody is indoctrinated to some degree.
> Some stay indoctrinated, some don't.



Faith or lack of is what either makes it stick or not.You either have it or you don't.And what makes faith so hard for those without it to understand is that there are different levels of faith.
You may look at one person who seems to have strong faith and he has a different way of explaining biblical principles than someone with weak faith.A person completely void of faith would observe that and say there's hypocricy and contradiction.But,those with faith know that faith grows like a tree,and it starts out small and with pruning and fertilizing and(in extreme cases,complete sawing down to the stump),the root(Jesus Christ living inside)will eventually grow into a great tree that even the birds can lodge in.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Faith or lack of is what either makes it stick or not.You either have it or you don't.And what makes faith so hard for those without it to understand is that there are different levels of faith.
> You may look at one person who seems to have strong faith and he has a different way of explaining biblical principles than someone with weak faith.A person completely void of faith would observe that and say there's hypocricy and contradiction.But,those with faith know that faith grows like a tree,and it starts out small and with pruning and fertilizing and(in extreme cases,complete sawing down to the stump),the root(Jesus Christ living inside)will eventually grow into a great tree that even the birds can lodge in.


Sure a strong level of faith can overcome any obstacle.
However that doesn't make it always a good thing. You just nullified any learning, education, proof, evidence, thoughts, feelings or anything else to the contrary.
Lots of examples where faith turns into stupidity at a point.
Your drug addicted child wants money. Promises it wont be spent on drugs. You have faith in him. It gets spent on drugs. Time after time. 
You will either learn your faith is misplaced based on new knowledge, proof or evidence or you will continue to give them money because you have faith it wont be spent on drugs.
If you choose to stop giving them money it doesn't mean you didn't have faith and it doesn't mean your faith wasn't strong enough.
It means you learned.
Faith doesn't always grow like a tree.
And Im not saying your faith is misguided.
Im saying your simplistic view isn't accurate.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Sure a strong level of faith can overcome any obstacle.
> However that doesn't make it always a good thing. You just nullified any learning, education, proof, evidence, thoughts, feelings or anything else to the contrary.
> Lots of examples where faith turns into stupidity at a point.
> Your drug addicted child wants money. Promises it wont be spent on drugs. You have faith in him. It gets spent on drugs. Time after time.
> You will either learn your faith is misplaced based on new knowledge, proof or evidence or you will continue to give them money because you have faith it wont be spent on drugs.
> If you choose to stop giving them money it doesn't mean you didn't have faith and it doesn't mean your faith wasn't strong enough.
> It means you learned.
> Faith doesn't always grow like a tree.
> And Im not saying your faith is misguided.
> Im saying your simplistic view isn't accurate.



I'm talking about faith in God who is steadfast, stable, and dependable.People do not always exhibit these qualities so the faith you speak of in a person is not faith at all.It's more like a hoping for a good outcome.True faith in God never turns to stupidity because it's given by God Himself.When people do stupid things, it's because they are acting apart from faith, which we are admonished not to do over and over again.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I'm talking about faith in God who is steadfast, stable, and dependable.People do not always exhibit these qualities so the faith you speak of in a person is not faith at all.It's more like a hoping for a good outcome.True faith in God never turns to stupidity because it's given by God Himself.When people do stupid things, it's because they are acting apart from faith, which we are admonished not to do over and over again.





> is not faith at all.It's more like a hoping





> Now faith is the substance of things hoped for


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I'm talking about faith in God who is steadfast, stable, and dependable.People do not always exhibit these qualities so the faith you speak of in a person is not faith at all.It's more like a hoping for a good outcome.True faith in God never turns to stupidity because it's given by God Himself.When people do stupid things, it's because they are acting apart from faith, which we are admonished not to do over and over again.


EVERY person that ever worshiped a deity tells us the same thing. Your faith in your god is not something unique in the history of god worship. Yours is no truer than theirs. You do not posses something that is any sort of unique proof.


----------



## rmp

Thanks for the responses. 
Walt. In my case, the red flags appeared when I started really thinking about my faith and what I'd been taught to believe. It wasn't intentional either.  I wasn't just sitting around one day and decided to dissect the bible.  Not at all. It was a long painful process. However, when you do apply logic to faith, the whole thing falls apart. Part of why childlike faith is so important in my opinion.  "anyone who will not receive the kingdom of god like a little child will never enter it."

The best way I can compare my experience would be the mental struggle I had trying to determine if Santa was real.  Definitely on a different scale, but similar nonetheless and a very real struggle in my young mind.  No one told me he wasn't real. I just started thinking about how unlikely it was for him to visit our home, all of our neighbors, their neighbors, and so on. Yet, anytime I saw him on a tv program, he always seemed so relaxed and never in a hurry. It just didn't add up for me. I wanted to be wrong because my parents, aunts, uncles, and family friends had told me all about him.  And how could they ALL deceive me?  I saw the gifts every Christmas morning so I had evidence. So many others believed too. It went round and round in my mind for what felt like the longest.  I finally just started talking about it with my mom and she confirmed my suspicions. 

In both cases, it's like I just grew up intellectually.  And that's not meant to be a slight to believers in either so please don't take it that way. It's how I decribe MY experiences.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Now faith is the substance of things hoped for



You confirmed what I said,without meaning to.
Because without faith,hope has no substance.It's just wishful thinking.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> EVERY person that ever worshiped a deity tells us the same thing. Your faith in your god is not something unique in the history of god worship. Yours is no truer than theirs. You do not posses something that is any sort of unique proof.



Does every person that ever worshipped a deity believe in Jesus Christ?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Does every person that ever worshipped a deity believe in Jesus Christ?


Who or what they believe in doesn't matter. It is all about the faith they have.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Who or what they believe in doesn't matter. It is all about the faith they have.



It really does matter because there is only one source of true faith.All others are counterfeit.

If they reject Jesus,they reject the Father also.If they claim that they worship a god and that they have faith from that god,but yet reject Jesus Christ,then they don't know the true God.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> You confirmed what I said,without meaning to.
> Because without faith,hope has no substance.It's just wishful thinking.


Uh no.
You said it wasn't faith, it was hope.
Go back and read it.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> It really does matter because there is only one source of true faith.All others are counterfeit.
> 
> If they reject Jesus,they reject the Father also.If they claim that they worship a god and that they have faith from that god,but yet reject Jesus Christ,then they don't know the true God.


I have come to the conclusion that it is useless for me to try to have a conversation with you.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Uh no.
> You said it wasn't faith, it was hope.
> Go back and read it.



Exactly.

I said,and I quote "the faith YOU SPEAK OF in a person is not faith at all.It's more like a hoping for a good outcome."

You can have hope without faith,but there's no substance to it.

But,if you have hope with God-given faith to back it up...now then you've got yourself something.Something that will move mountains(not necessarily literal mountains but then again you never know).


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Exactly.
> 
> I said,and I quote "the faith YOU SPEAK OF in a person is not faith at all.It's more like a hoping for a good outcome."
> 
> You can have hope without faith,but there's no substance to it.
> 
> But,if you have hope with God-given faith to back it up...now then you've got yourself something.Something that will move mountains(not necessarily literal mountains but then again you never know).


Faith is not a word that is specific to Christianity or God.
It can be and is used without either one.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> I have come to the conclusion that it is useless for me to try to have a conversation with you.



What would a conversation between you and I,that you agree upon,consist of?

I really don't understand what your problem with me is.
Before,it was that I quote too many scriptures.So,against my better judgement,I tried to accomodate by refraining from it.

Now,even though I'm only stating my personal views on these issues,you still have a problem.

So,tell me what you want from me.If it's to denounce my faith and reject God,it's simply not going to happen.But anything else could be considered.If it's strictly personal,then I can't help you there.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> It really does matter because there is only one source of true faith.All others are counterfeit.
> 
> If they reject Jesus,they reject the Father also.If they claim that they worship a god and that they have faith from that god,but yet reject Jesus Christ,then they don't know the true God.



Ok.  They feel the same about you.  How does someone like me know which of you is telling the truth?


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> Ok.  They feel the same about you.  How does someone like me know which of you is telling the truth?



Is someone like you really seeking the truth or are you really seeking to suppress the truth?


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> Is someone like you really seeking the truth or are you really seeking to suppress the truth?



After you answer my question, answer this one: how do you convince _yourself_ that what you believe is true?  What evidence or argument or proof made it for you?

Don't forget to answer the first question first.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> After you answer my question, answer this one: how do you convince _yourself_ that what you believe is true?  What evidence or argument or proof made it for you?
> 
> Don't forget to answer the first question first.



The answer to both your questions is the same.
Faith.

I know you hate that answer.

But I've said it before and I'll say it again and again and again: If you have not been given faith,you are clueless as to what people with faith mean when they speak about it.

Now...answer mine.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> What would a conversation between you and I,that you agree upon,consist of?
> 
> I really don't understand what your problem with me is.
> Before,it was that I quote too many scriptures.So,against my better judgement,I tried to accomodate by refraining from it.
> 
> Now,even though I'm only stating my personal views on these issues,you still have a problem.
> 
> So,tell me what you want from me.If it's to denounce my faith and reject God,it's simply not going to happen.But anything else could be considered.If it's strictly personal,then I can't help you there.


You are who you are. Your beliefs are your beliefs.
I do not want you to be anyone else or believe anything else.
We are different people with different mindsets that are just too far apart and because of that it is difficult for me to have a conversation with you without me getting frustrated. To me that is not an entertaining way to spend my time in here. 

No hard feelings.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> You are who you are. Your beliefs are your beliefs.
> I do not want you to be anyone else or believe anything else.
> We are different people with different mindsets that are just too far apart and because of that it is difficult for me to have a conversation with you without me getting frustrated. To me that is not an entertaining way to spend my time in here.
> 
> No hard feelings.



I understand.
I want you to know that I don't come in here trying to stir things up with people.Most times it always starts when others ask a question about something I've said.Then I try to honestly answer it according to my convictions.Then others chime in and want to pick apart bits of what I've said(sometimes not even in context).That's when things can kinda get distorted and semi-out of control.

But,it's all good.It really is.Even the most passionate arguments are good.At the end of the day,we are just people searching for true meaning in life.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> The answer to both your questions is the same.
> Faith.
> 
> I know you hate that answer.
> 
> But I've said it before and I'll say it again and again and again: If you have not been given faith,you are clueless as to what people with faith mean when they speak about it.
> 
> Now...answer mine.





> But I've said it before and I'll say it again and again and again: If you have not been given faith,you are clueless as to what people with faith mean when they speak about it.


Garbage.
We know EXACTLY what you mean by faith. Its you who turn the word faith, which has a definition, and change it into something that is more comfortable to you.
Your religion even tells you -


> Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.


Things HOPED FOR.
Things NOT SEEN.
Its telling you plain as day you cant prove it so you have to have hope and faith its true.
Yet you will turn right around and say -


> It really does matter because there is only one source of true faith.All others are counterfeit.
> If they reject Jesus,they reject the Father also.If they claim that they worship a god and that they have faith from that god,but yet reject Jesus Christ,then they don't know the true God.


Your faith is the exact same as their faith. You don't KNOW that you are right and they are wrong. And vice versa.
You can have hope and have faith that you will win the lottery.
But you don't get a cent until you can PROVE you have the winning ticket. And you cant claim that somebody else lost until there is a PROVEN winner.
The problem isn't that we don't understand what you mean by faith.
The problem is you change what faith is to suit your needs.
One more time -


> Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.


You can believe in the Christian God and be honest at the same time.
Many aren't.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Garbage.
> We know EXACTLY what you mean by faith. Its you who turn the word faith, which has a definition, and change it into something that is more comfortable to you.
> Your religion even tells you -
> 
> Things HOPED FOR.
> Things NOT SEEN.
> Its telling you plain as day you cant prove it so you have to have hope and faith its true.
> Yet you will turn right around and say -
> 
> Your faith is the exact same as their faith. You don't KNOW that you are right and they are wrong. And vice versa.
> You can have hope and have faith that you will win the lottery.
> But you don't get a cent until you can PROVE you have the winning ticket. And you cant claim that somebody else lost until there is a PROVEN winner.
> The problem isn't that we don't understand what you mean by faith.
> The problem is you change what faith is to suit your needs.
> One more time -
> 
> You can believe in the Christian God and be honest at the same time.
> Many aren't.



Are you saying that there's only one form of faith,and that every human being has this faith?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I understand.
> I want you to know that I don't come in here trying to stir things up with people.Most times it always starts when others ask a question about something I've said.Then I try to honestly answer it according to my convictions.Then others chime in and want to pick apart bits of what I've said(sometimes not even in context).That's when things can kinda get distorted and semi-out of control.
> 
> But,it's all good.It really is.Even the most passionate arguments are good.At the end of the day,we are just people searching for true meaning in life.


We can all answer with our convictions, that is what gets conversations going. Most in here use some sort of facts to back up their thoughts,convictions and beliefs. In short order it is easy to figure out who believes what. Constantly making a statement or claim without something to back it up gets very tiresome. I know you likey the Jesus. You have faith in Jesus. That does not negate everyone that has faith in other religions. Faith is not exclusive to Christianity. What makes for great conversation is the ability to back up what you say with examples that are provable or at least are thought provoking. 

I am interested in the conversations and people that can take those individual thoughts and expound on them to the point where it elevates the conversations to a higher level.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Are you saying that there's only one form of faith,and that every human being has this faith?


The word faith has a definition.
It can be applied to many, many circumstances. From God(s) to fishing to baking a cake.
Faith is what you have when you don't know yet what the outcome will be.
Every time I go fishing I have faith I will catch a fish. But I wont actually know until its proven true or false.
So I cant HONESTLY say I caught one until I do and I cant HONESTLY say my buddy is wrong if he says I wont.
The same as you cant HONESTLY say -


> It really does matter because there is only one source of true faith.All others are counterfeit.
> If they reject Jesus,they reject the Father also.If they claim that they worship a god and that they have faith from that god,but yet reject Jesus Christ,then they don't know the true God.


Another ingredient in why I rejected Christianity (religion). I was put in the position of believing exactly what you stated above.
And I knew it was dishonest. I didn't think it was dishonest. I didn't have a feeling it was dishonest. I didn't think it might be dishonest.
I KNEW it was dishonest because it HASNT BEEN PROVEN TO BE TRUE.
You literally believe that a person who may dedicate their entire life to worshipping the God they believe in, just the same way you do yours, that their source of belief is "counterfit".
And why do you believe that?
Not because its a fact. Not because its been proven true. Not because there is more evidence for your God than there is for their God.
You believe it because you were indoctrinated to.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> We can all answer with our convictions, that is what gets conversations going. Most in here use some sort of facts to back up their thoughts,convictions and beliefs. In short order it is easy to figure out who believes what. Constantly making a statement or claim without something to back it up gets very tiresome. I know you likey the Jesus. You have faith in Jesus. That does not negate everyone that has faith in other religions. Faith is not exclusive to Christianity. What makes for great conversation is the ability to back up what you say with examples that are provable or at least are thought provoking.
> 
> I am interested in the conversations and people that can take those individual thoughts and expound on them to the point where it elevates the conversations to a higher level.



The things that I consider to be facts,you consider to be fairy tales.

Sooo...that kinda limits the topics that I can converse with you about with any level of symbiosis.just saying.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> The word faith has a definition.
> It can be applied to many, many circumstances. From God(s) to fishing to baking a cake.
> Faith is what you have when you don't know yet what the outcome will be.
> Every time I go fishing I have faith I will catch a fish. But I wont actually know until its proven true or false.
> So I cant HONESTLY say I caught one until I do and I cant HONESTLY say my buddy is wrong if he says I wont.
> The same as you cant HONESTLY say -
> 
> Another ingredient in why I rejected Christianity (religion). I was put in the position of believing exactly what you stated above.
> And I knew it was dishonest. I didn't think it was dishonest. I didn't have a feeling it was dishonest. I didn't think it might be dishonest.
> I KNEW it was dishonest because it HASNT BEEN PROVEN TO BE TRUE.
> You literally believe that a person who may dedicate their entire life to worshipping the God they believe in, just the same way you do yours, that their source of belief is "counterfit".
> And why do you believe that?
> Not because its a fact. Not because its been proven true. Not because there is more evidence for your God than there is for their God.
> You believe it because you were indoctrinated to.



Walt,the scenario you described about the fishing trip was nothing more than hope.It wasn't based on anything solid.
I know you'll make the argument that,since I can't prove God to you, that He's not solid either.But,(without sugarcoating it)that's a good indication that you have never been given the faith that I'm talking about.And the fact that the "religion" you were introduced to as a youth had no lasting affect on you is another indicator.
God knows how to get your attention and when He does,it will have lasting affects on you.You won't be able to turn away.Not permanently.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> The things that I consider to be facts,you consider to be fairy tales.
> 
> Sooo...that kinda limits the topics that I can converse with you about with any level of symbiosis.just saying.


I know and that is why the conversation is not worth it.
Facts are verifiable.
It is because you claim them to be facts without any sort of verification is the problem.
You make claims but are unable to back them up.
Your facts are unverifiable by any other means except in your own mind.
I know what you believe. The conversations with believers that are able to take their beliefs and convey them to me in a way that is thought provoking or that is backed up with verifiable facts is what has me interested in the majority of conversation in here. 

If you can show me they are not fairy tales I would certainly be interested.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Walt,the scenario you described about the fishing trip was nothing more than hope.It wasn't based on anything solid.
> I know you'll make the argument that,since I can't prove God to you, that He's not solid either.But,(without sugarcoating it)that's a good indication that you have never been given the faith that I'm talking about.And the fact that the "religion" you were introduced to as a youth had no lasting affect on you is another indicator.
> God knows how to get your attention and when He does,it will have lasting affects on you.You won't be able to turn away.Not permanently.





> Walt,the scenario you described about the fishing trip was nothing more than hope.It wasn't based on anything solid.


Really? Would the fact that Ive fished for 50 years be solid experience? How about if Ive fished in the same lake or river numerous times and have come to learn where the fish hang out? Would that be something solid?
How about if caught fish numerous times in the same lake on the same lure and Im going to use that lure again? Is that solid? How about if I put all that knowledge and experience together? Would that be something solid?
All the rest of this -


> But,(without sugarcoating it)that's a good indication that you have never been given the faith that I'm talking about.And the fact that the "religion" you were introduced to as a youth had no lasting affect on you is another indicator.
> God knows how to get your attention and when He does,it will have lasting affects on you.You won't be able to turn away.Not permanently.


Only shows that you don't understand how someone can believe and then not believe. So you come up with the only explanation you can think of -
the faith you have is different from the faith they had.
Of course you couldn't possibly know that but it satisfies you so you are good with it.
Welder be honest, at least with yourself, you KNOW in the back of your mind that God's existence is not a fact. And I don't mean a fact to you, I mean a proven universal fact. Like its a fact that 1 + 1 = 2.
Now take that and apply it to this -


> But,(without sugarcoating it)that's a good indication that you have never been given the faith that I'm talking about.And the fact that the "religion" you were introduced to as a youth had no lasting affect on you is another indicator.
> God knows how to get your attention and when He does,it will have lasting affects on you.You won't be able to turn away.Not permanently


You just judged and determined that Ive never been given the "proper" faith, that the religion I was introduced to and taught by my parents, relatives, family and church was somehow lacking or deficient.
You just passed judgment on me and all those people including the church and Christianity.......
AND YOU KNOW THAT ITS NOT EVEN A FACT THAT GOD EXISTS.
That's the kind of dishonesty I mentioned earlier.
I didn't want to be that way so I rejected that which was teaching me to be dishonest. Religion.
And unfortunately religion, in this case Christianity, is the only thing telling us that God exists. So if religion goes, the belief that God exists has to go too. But if you have some proof outside of religion, Im all ears.
By the way, you keep trying to say that somehow the word faith only pertains to Christianity/religion. Look up the definition. You'll see that it doesnt.


----------



## smokey30725

bullethead said:


> I know and that is why the conversation is not worth it.
> Facts are verifiable.
> It is because you claim them to be facts without any sort of verification is the problem.
> You make claims but are unable to back them up.
> Your facts are unverifiable by any other means except in your own mind.
> I know what you believe. The conversations with believers that are able to take their beliefs and convey them to me in a way that is thought provoking or that is backed up with verifiable facts is what has me interested in the majority of conversation in here.
> 
> If you can show me they are not fairy tales I would certainly be interested.



I ask this question in all seriousness. What do you think of people who have sought out to be prayed for due to serious illness and the condition was completely healed? I remember last summer we had a woman at church who has experienced cancer in several areas and had been operated on and was cancer free up until a lump near her spine developed and began to grow. A biopsy was done and it proved to be malignant yet the risk of permanent damage was high due to it's proximity to the spinal cord. She found out on a Thursday and asked to be prayed for on Sunday and was anointed by one of the elders. She went back for a follow up a few days later and the lump was gone completely. She said the doctor couldn't explain it but she attributed it to a divine healing. I've known many people over the years who have had similar experiences and would like your take on it. Again, I ask in all seriousness because I have been called out multiple times by another member as an outright liar due to sharing similar experiences.


----------



## WaltL1

smokey30725 said:


> I ask this question in all seriousness. What do you think of people who have sought out to be prayed for due to serious illness and the condition was completely healed? I remember last summer we had a woman at church who has experienced cancer in several areas and had been operated on and was cancer free up until a lump near her spine developed and began to grow. A biopsy was done and it proved to be malignant yet the risk of permanent damage was high due to it's proximity to the spinal cord. She found out on a Thursday and asked to be prayed for on Sunday and was anointed by one of the elders. She went back for a follow up a few days later and the lump was gone completely. She said the doctor couldn't explain it but she attributed it to a divine healing. I've known many people over the years who have had similar experiences and would like your take on it. Again, I ask in all seriousness because I have been called out multiple times by another member as an outright liar due to sharing similar experiences.


If its ok if I jump in here I have a question?
What is it that you were accused of lying about? That the lump was gone? Or that the whole story is made up?


----------



## smokey30725

WaltL1 said:


> If its ok if I jump in here I have a question?
> What is it that you were accused of lying about? That the lump was gone? Or that the whole story is made up?



The incident involved a story about my son being laid hands on to seek healing from a condition he suffered from since birth. The other member called me a liar and that the story was a lie because a "faith healer" never healed anyone and I was grasping straws to win an internet argument. I don't harbor any ill will against him, in fact, we joke around quite a bit on the political forum.


----------



## smokey30725

I also got blasted for a story my father in law experienced where a friend of his who went blind as a child had hands laid on him in a service at his church and regained his sight, nearly verbatim of how it was recorded in the bible. The man's doctor was completely speechless as the man who regained his sight was an older man.


----------



## WaltL1

smokey30725 said:


> The incident involved a story about my son being laid hands on to seek healing from a condition he suffered from since birth. The other member called me a liar and that the story was a lie because a "faith healer" never healed anyone and I was grasping straws to win an internet argument. I don't harbor any ill will against him, in fact, we joke around quite a bit on the political forum.


Interesting.
I'll hold off with my opinion as you had addressed this to Bullet. Im pretty sure him and I would say basically the same thing anyway.
Although maybe you could have your accuser read up a bit about the placebo effect. My point being just because one might not believe a "faith healer" has any special powers doesn't mean that its impossible for them to get a positive result.


----------



## smokey30725

Faith is a very powerful tool. I could fill a book with all the wonderful stories like this that I have heard or witnessed over the years.


----------



## smokey30725

What's great about the lady with the growth by her spine and the man regaining his sight is that there is medical proof of tier condition before and after they were prayed over.


----------



## WaltL1

smokey30725 said:


> I also got blasted for a story my father in law experienced where a friend of his who went blind as a child had hands laid on him in a service at his church and regained his sight, nearly verbatim of how it was recorded in the bible. The man's doctor was completely speechless as the man who regained his sight was an older man.


That's one I would have to have some first hand experience to believe. But that doesn't make you a liar, that makes me a skeptic.


----------



## smokey30725

WaltL1 said:


> That's one I would have to have some first hand experience to believe. But that doesn't make you a liar, that makes me a skeptic.



Agreed. The lady who had the growth disappear still testifies about it to this day. It still amazes me when I hear the story, even though I was present during the service she was prayed over.


----------



## WaltL1

smokey30725 said:


> Faith is a very powerful tool. I could fill a book with all the wonderful stories like this that I have heard or witnessed over the years.


There is no question that there have been unexplainable cures/healings etc.
Would I personally attribute that to a "miracle"? No.
But I also couldn't tell you for a fact that it wasn't.


----------



## welderguy




----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


>


Just felt like dancing?


----------



## smokey30725

WaltL1 said:


> There is no question that there have been unexplainable cures/healings etc.
> Would I personally attribute that to a "miracle"? No.
> But I also couldn't tell you for a fact that it wasn't.



The result is positive either way! Thanks for some civil discussion. Gonna watch a movie with the wife now hat the kids are in their beds reading. Have a good evening guys. Catch you tomorrow. And before I go, if there is EVER anything I could pray for you guys for, never hesitate to PM me. You may not believe, but the offer always stands.


----------



## WaltL1

smokey30725 said:


> The result is positive either way! Thanks for some civil discussion. Gonna watch a movie with the wife now hat the kids are in their beds reading. Have a good evening guys. Catch you tomorrow. And before I go, if there is EVER anything I could pray for you guys for, never hesitate to PM me. You may not believe, but the offer always stands.


Enjoy your quiet time with the Mrs.
And the offer is appreciated.


----------



## bullethead

smokey30725 said:


> I ask this question in all seriousness. What do you think of people who have sought out to be prayed for due to serious illness and the condition was completely healed? I remember last summer we had a woman at church who has experienced cancer in several areas and had been operated on and was cancer free up until a lump near her spine developed and began to grow. A biopsy was done and it proved to be malignant yet the risk of permanent damage was high due to it's proximity to the spinal cord. She found out on a Thursday and asked to be prayed for on Sunday and was anointed by one of the elders. She went back for a follow up a few days later and the lump was gone completely. She said the doctor couldn't explain it but she attributed it to a divine healing. I've known many people over the years who have had similar experiences and would like your take on it. Again, I ask in all seriousness because I have been called out multiple times by another member as an outright liar due to sharing similar experiences.


I think nature and living organisms act in strange ways sometimes.
Having an illness,being prayed for, and having that illness go away would really hold some merit if it happened every single time to every single Christian that has ever been prayed for. 
But the reality is that is does not work that way. 
Some Christians cure seemingly miraculously and some do not.
Some Atheists cure and some do not.
Some Buddhists cure and some do not.
Humans of every race,creed and in every belief or non belief system heal when they typically should not. 
Some tribal members that worship nothing cure and some do not.
Some native Americans were cured by medicine men that danced around them chanting a ritual to the Sun or wind.
Some dogs (and every animal species)have cancerous tumors disappear. ..is it because of their strong faith?
How does the weed that I soaked with a pint of Roundup pull through when all of his buddies are dried up and brown? What denomination is the weed?

In all seriousness how do you explain all of the sick people that are prayed for by Christians ( or insert any religion known to mankind) that not only succumb to their illness or situation but suffer beyond what is considered humane? What about the pillars of health that drop over dead for no apparent reason?

Reality shows a MUCH larger set of examples that show people of every faith and non faith have similar experiences of healing and also show that no matter how hard someone's health is prayed for by numerous devout religious people they still die slow painful agonizing deaths. Are they miraculous, divine, anomalies or flukes???? Are they examples of life's ability to try to live with some successful and most unsuccessful?


----------



## bullethead

smokey30725 said:


> Faith is a very powerful tool. I could fill a book with all the wonderful stories like this that I have heard or witnessed over the years.


And I have shared in vivid details about how the most faithful person I ever knew literally was eaten alive by cancer.
I would venture that it is more likely than not that just about everyone that has ever been diagnosed with a serious life threatening illness has been prayed for by someone of strong faith. A very small percentage live most die.
What do your stories and my story actually prove?


----------



## smokey30725

bullethead said:


> And I have shared in vivid details about how the most faithful person I ever knew literally was eaten alive by cancer.
> I would venture that it is more likely than not that just about everyone that has ever been diagnosed with a serious life threatening illness has been prayed for by someone of strong faith. A very small percentage live most die.
> What do your stories and my story actually prove?



I too have seen strong people of faith suffer and not receive an earthly healing. I know part of my faith is accepting Matthew 5:45 where believers are told that it rains on the just and the unjust. In modern terms, it's the old conundrum of why do bad things happen to good people. My faith deals with that question by the understanding that we live in a fallen world. I cannot tell you why good people suffer and die while others live. That's something that I cannot understand while on this side of the afterlife, but the bible assures believers that the reward far exceeds the cost. I don't expect everyone to believe as I do. I am just trying to put into words why I believe the way I do. I am not saying that people who suffer for years on end don't have faith or the people who pray for them are frauds. I believe everything is part of the Lord's plan for us. That may sound silly, but it is my true, heart-felt belief. I don't participate in these discussions to try and sway a non-believer to my viewpoint, but feel like I should at least express it. In regards to my previous post about being blasted for saying my son was healed, the term "faith healer" was tossed around by the other member. I want to make sure that I convey that I in no way buy the antics of TV charlatans such as Robert Tilton and his ilk. They are nothing but wolves masquerading as shepherds. They will be judged for their actions. The healing I have witnessed or been a part of have been through the Lord acting through a church member or pastor. They will readily acknowledge that nothing comes from them and everything comes from God above. They would no more take credit for what happens than they would deny the power of God.


----------



## bullethead

smokey30725 said:


> I too have seen strong people of faith suffer and not receive an earthly healing. I know part of my faith is accepting Matthew 5:45 where believers are told that it rains on the just and the unjust. In modern terms, it's the old conundrum of why do bad things happen to good people. My faith deals with that question by the understanding that we live in a fallen world. I cannot tell you why good people suffer and die while others live. That's something that I cannot understand while on this side of the afterlife, but the bible assures believers that the reward far exceeds the cost. I don't expect everyone to believe as I do. I am just trying to put into words why I believe the way I do. I am not saying that people who suffer for years on end don't have faith or the people who pray for them are frauds. I believe everything is part of the Lord's plan for us. That may sound silly, but it is my true, heart-felt belief. I don't participate in these discussions to try and sway a non-believer to my viewpoint, but feel like I should at least express it. In regards to my previous post about being blasted for saying my son was healed, the term "faith healer" was tossed around by the other member. I want to make sure that I convey that I in no way buy the antics of TV charlatans such as Robert Tilton and his ilk. They are nothing but wolves masquerading as shepherds. They will be judged for their actions. The healing I have witnessed or been a part of have been through the Lord acting through a church member or pastor. They will readily acknowledge that nothing comes from them and everything comes from God above. They would no more take credit for what happens than they would deny the power of God.


How do you/they know what god stepped in to heal them?
I find it more miraculous that it just so happens that the people of one religious faith always give the very god they believe in all the credit for their good fortunes and dismiss the next person's god even though the next person will have everyone believe their god is responsible for their good fortunes.

Who is responsible when an atheist's tumor disappears?


----------



## smokey30725

bullethead said:


> How do you/they know what god stepped in to heal them?
> I find it more miraculous that it just so happens that the people of one religious faith always give the very god they believe in all the credit and dismiss the next person's god even though the next person will have everyone believe their god responsible.
> 
> Who is responsible when an atheist's tumor disappears?



In my opinion, atheists or people of another religion being healed would be an example of the grace of God being offered to all who will listen. As I stated in a previous post, the bible is clear that He would have that none should perish, but all would have eternal life. I've seen God work miracles in the lives of non-believers and that act is what led them to Him. Your experiences may have differed and I don't claim to know what they are. All I can speak from is my perspective and the things I know to be true.


----------



## smokey30725

Time to hit the hay. Bullethead, have a good one. I don't know if you are a dad, but it so, Happy Father's Day.


----------



## bullethead

smokey30725 said:


> In my opinion, atheists or people of another religion being healed would be an example of the grace of God being offered to all who will listen. As I stated in a previous post, the bible is clear that He would have that none should perish, but all would have eternal life. I've seen God work miracles in the lives of non-believers and that act is what led them to Him. Your experiences may have differed and I don't claim to know what they are. All I can speak from is my perspective and the things I know to be true.


The reality is that you actually do not know anything, you just give credit to a god you want to or need to believe in.

You refuse to even look at the bigger picture or consider anything else and especially the facts. 

The atheist is not listening so no grace is wanted or requested.
You just insert whatever helps make sense to you and ignore the facts.

Why do animals heal and beat the odds?


----------



## bullethead

smokey30725 said:


> Time to hit the hay. Bullethead, have a good one. I don't know if you are a dad, but it so, Happy Father's Day.


Thank you, I am a father of three Sons.
Happy Father's Day to you also.


----------



## BubbaFett

...


----------



## WaltL1

smokey30725 said:


> In my opinion, atheists or people of another religion being healed would be an example of the grace of God being offered to all who will listen. As I stated in a previous post, the bible is clear that He would have that none should perish, but all would have eternal life. I've seen God work miracles in the lives of non-believers and that act is what led them to Him. Your experiences may have differed and I don't claim to know what they are. All I can speak from is my perspective and the things I know to be true.





> In my opinion, atheists or people of another religion being healed would be an example of the grace of God being offered to all


Of course, from a different perspective, that's going to lead to the question -
So God saved these folks but is then going to condemn them to he11 at a later date for being Atheist or of a different religion?
We know you cant explain that and we don't expect you to. But we aren't making it up. Its part of the story that you guys claim to be written by God.


> the bible is clear that He would have that none should perish, but all would have eternal life.


You mean on the condition that all worship him.
If he truly wanted all to have eternal life out of the goodness of his heart, he would drop the "worship me" requirement.


----------



## JimD

This is a good discussion as I've been following it. I know that we as humans will never have all the answers to this. I believe a lot like smokey, and have experienced miracles as he has. I've also seen people of faith suffer and die and have also seen miracles even in death. I think this quote from Stonewall Jackson explains also what I believe about our lives:[M]y religious belief teaches me to feel as safe in battle as in bed. God has fixed the time for my death. I do not concern myself about that, but to be always ready, no matter when it may overtake me. That is the way all men should live, and then all would be equally brave.


----------



## bullethead

JimD said:


> This is a good discussion as I've been following it. I know that we as humans will never have all the answers to this. I believe a lot like smokey, and have experienced miracles as he has. I've also seen people of faith suffer and die and have also seen miracles even in death. I think this quote from Stonewall Jackson explains also what I believe about our lives:[M]y religious belief teaches me to feel as safe in battle as in bed. God has fixed the time for my death. I do not concern myself about that, but to be always ready, no matter when it may overtake me. That is the way all men should live, and then all would be equally brave.



I can see why believers would think a god had something to do with some healing but no one has shown any evidence of a higher power actually being involved at all.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Of course, from a different perspective, that's going to lead to the question -
> So God saved these folks but is then going to condemn them to he11 at a later date for being Atheist or of a different religion?
> We know you cant explain that and we don't expect you to. But we aren't making it up. Its part of the story that you guys claim to be written by God.
> 
> You mean on the condition that all worship him.
> If he truly wanted all to have eternal life out of the goodness of his heart, he would drop the "worship me" requirement.



I would like an attempt.  Why doesn't anyone try a reasoned explanation at a possibility?


----------



## ambush80

JimD said:


> This is a good discussion as I've been following it. I know that we as humans will never have all the answers to this. I believe a lot like smokey, and have experienced miracles as he has. I've also seen people of faith suffer and die and have also seen miracles even in death. I think this quote from Stonewall Jackson explains also what I believe about our lives:[M]y religious belief teaches me to feel as safe in battle as in bed. God has fixed the time for my death. I do not concern myself about that, but to be always ready, no matter when it may overtake me. That is the way all men should live, and then all would be equally brave.




Does it really make you brave or in another sense fight for your life? Or does it make it OK for you to "Go to your reward"?

What do you make of these people who think about the Earth being consumed by fire and look forward to it; "Come quickly, Lord"?  It's craving the apocalypse.


----------



## rmp

Call me the skeptic I am, but after 35+ years involved in churches (with the majority of the time as a believer) from northern California all the way to south Georgia, I've never seen a miracle in person. I've seen the laying of hands, anointing with oil, prayer ceremonies, you name it but never an unexplained healing. The world miracle was not thrown around loosely though. I do know of a lady diagnosed with terminal cancer that was prayed over multiple times, and given many treatments of Chemo, that was eventually declared cancer free in front of the church. It was deemed a miracle. Sadly, no sooner than the chemicals left her body, the cancer took over and she died a few months later.
The healing of a blind person is an extraordinary claim I'd need to see or discuss with the person healed.  I guess I was destined to be a skeptic.

Looking at it in my current state of mind, I don't understand why a believer would want their life prolonged instead of accepting the fact they have cancer.  Shouldn't they be rejoicing? They've been chosen by the almighty. My whole life I've heard, "I can't wait to be called home". Fighting for you life, pumped full of harmful chemicals, radiation, or an eternity pain-free hanging out with god.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> I would like an attempt.  Why doesn't anyone try a reasoned explanation at a possibility?


Because you are requiring a -


> reasoned explanation


There isn't one.


----------



## rmp

Have faith in doctors.


----------



## WaltL1

rmp said:


> Call me the skeptic I am, but after 35+ years involved in churches (with the majority of the time as a believer) from northern California all the way to south Georgia, I've never seen a miracle in person. I've seen the laying of hands, anointing with oil, prayer ceremonies, you name it but never an unexplained healing. The world miracle was not thrown around loosely though. I do know of a lady diagnosed with terminal cancer that was prayed over multiple times, and given many treatments of Chemo, that was eventually declared cancer free in front of the church. It was deemed a miracle. Sadly, no sooner than the chemicals left her body, the cancer took over and she died a few months later.
> The healing of a blind person is an extraordinary claim I'd need to see or discuss with the person healed.  I guess I was destined to be a skeptic.
> 
> Looking at it in my current state of mind, I don't understand why a believer would want their life prolonged instead of accepting the fact they have cancer.  Shouldn't they be rejoicing? They've been chosen by the almighty. My whole life I've heard, "I can't wait to be called home". Fighting for you life, pumped full of harmful chemicals, radiation, or an eternity pain-free hanging out with god.


That's an example of the hypocricy I couldn't ignore.
If a child gets a life threatening illness its claimed to be part of God's plan.
Which is then followed by a trip to the hospital to save the child and in effect, try to thwart God's plan.
And in the next breath claim a nonbeliever is going to
he11 for not following God.
Its baffling to me.
And I don't necessarily blame the Christian. They are caught in this circle of hypocrisy in which if they don't go along with it, then they are deemed not to be a "real" Christian.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> That's an example of the hypocricy I couldn't ignore.
> If a child gets a life threatening illness its claimed to be part of God's plan.
> Which is then followed by a trip to the hospital to save the child and in effect, try to thwart God's plan.
> And in the next breath claim a nonbeliever is going to
> he11 for not following God.
> Its baffling to me.
> And I don't necessarily blame the Christian. They are caught in this circle of hypocrisy in which if they don't go along with it, then they are deemed not to be a "real" Christian.



Paul said he was in a strait betwixt two.To live is Christ, but to die is gain.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Paul said he was in a strait betwixt two.To live is Christ, but to die is gain.


Don't care what Paul said.
I just gave you facts.
What Paul said or didn't say doesn't change that.
How about this -
YOU show where what I said is false.
And you provided the example I was talking about -


> but to die is gain


So why do Christians go to hospitals?
prefer to hold off on gaining until you have no choice?


----------



## JimD

Ambush, I just believe that when its your time, its your time. Talk to people whove been in combat and had friends killed next to them and nothing happened to them, or people being in a wreck where everyone died but them and they should have died. Of course I realize you would not attribute that to a miracle, but to me, its a combination of a "miracle" and it just not being your time to go. Just my thoughts. As far as "miracles", or at least what I would attribute to God, Ill give you an example. I was 19 and driving to college with my father in the passenger seat, and my room mate in the back. Its night, in the winter on the highway. They both are asleep and I also fall asleep. A hand smacks me in the chest, knocking me back in the seat. I wake up and look around and they are asleep. Scared the sh__t out of me, and I never told my dad about it to a year ago or so. Now Ive fallen asleep many times while driving, for a second or so and woken up, or have been startled and woken up, but never again had that happen. I mean I actually felt a hand mark on my chest. To me its a miracle, whether it was my guardian angel, or God, or whatever you would call it, and it wasnt my time to die.

Walt, to me, it just makes sense to go to a hospital if you are hurt. I would be an idiot to not seek help by medical staff for something. After all, I believe God gives us knowledge, so He gave us the knowledge to heal. It would be stupid to not seek help. Now as to your other point where Christians always say they know where their going and want to go to heaven, but they are afraid to die? I agree, that is a hypocrite and I remember being a little boy and hearing that in church and thinking if you really believe that, why are you afraid of dying? I mean Muslims are certainly not afraid to blow themselves up and get their 72 virgins. Tecumseh wrote a poem entitled "To Live As a Warrior", and the last paragraph is powerful. "When it comes your time to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with the fear of death, so that when it comes their time, they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way, sing your death song and die like a hero going home."


----------



## bullethead

JimD said:


> Ambush, I just believe that when its your time, its your time. Talk to people whove been in combat and had friends killed next to them and nothing happened to them, or people being in a wreck where everyone died but them and they should have died. Of course I realize you would not attribute that to a miracle, but to me, its a combination of a "miracle" and it just not being your time to go. Just my thoughts. As far as "miracles", or at least what I would attribute to God, Ill give you an example. I was 19 and driving to college with my father in the passenger seat, and my room mate in the back. Its night, in the winter on the highway. They both are asleep and I also fall asleep. A hand smacks me in the chest, knocking me back in the seat. I wake up and look around and they are asleep. Scared the sh__t out of me, and I never told my dad about it to a year ago or so. Now Ive fallen asleep many times while driving, for a second or so and woken up, or have been startled and woken up, but never again had that happen. I mean I actually felt a hand mark on my chest. To me its a miracle, whether it was my guardian angel, or God, or whatever you would call it, and it wasnt my time to die.
> 
> Walt, to me, it just makes sense to go to a hospital if you are hurt. I would be an idiot to not seek help by medical staff for something. After all, I believe God gives us knowledge, so He gave us the knowledge to heal. It would be stupid to not seek help. Now as to your other point where Christians always say they know where their going and want to go to heaven, but they are afraid to die? I agree, that is a hypocrite and I remember being a little boy and hearing that in church and thinking if you really believe that, why are you afraid of dying? I mean Muslims are certainly not afraid to blow themselves up and get their 72 virgins. Tecumseh wrote a poem entitled "To Live As a Warrior", and the last paragraph is powerful. "When it comes your time to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with the fear of death, so that when it comes their time, they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way, sing your death song and die like a hero going home."



What home was Tecumseh going to?


----------



## JimD

As far as I know, Native Americans believe in an afterlife, so to that place I assume. I, unlike most Christians, believe there will be all different kinds of people in "heaven" or the "happy hunting ground." I believe there will be Buddhist's, Taoist's, Hindu's, etc. there. When I read about all these different texts, they all have the same information essentially, or as Ive referred to Universal Truths, therefore, I believe they had to be inspired by a higher power/source/God. I know I am in the minority of "religious" people, who believe only "their" religion is "right" and will be in heaven. Gandhi has some really good thoughts about this.


----------



## bullethead

JimD said:


> As far as I know, Native Americans believe in an afterlife, so to that place I assume. I, unlike most Christians, believe there will be all different kinds of people in "heaven" or the "happy hunting ground." I believe there will be Buddhist's, Taoist's, Hindu's, etc. there. When I read about all these different texts, they all have the same information essentially, or as Ive referred to Universal Truths, therefore, I believe they had to be inspired by a higher power/source/God. I know I am in the minority of "religious" people, who believe only "their" religion is "right" and will be in heaven. Gandhi has some really good thoughts about this.


So in your opinion a person does not have to be a Christian or accept Jesus in order to get into Heaven. Am I correct?


----------



## JimD

Correct, that is what I believe. Im not saying Jesus isnt the Son of God, but Im not sure. I have read the entire Bible 3 times in 3 years and am reading it again for the 4th time this year. I was taught Jesus came to save us for our sins, BUT in the OT, God says many times that HE forgives sins. So, once again, what a religion says appears to be wrong, as I have read it with my own eyes. I see you are from PA. I am as well. NW PA.


----------



## WaltL1

JimD said:


> As far as I know, Native Americans believe in an afterlife, so to that place I assume. I, unlike most Christians, believe there will be all different kinds of people in "heaven" or the "happy hunting ground." I believe there will be Buddhist's, Taoist's, Hindu's, etc. there. When I read about all these different texts, they all have the same information essentially, or as Ive referred to Universal Truths, therefore, I believe they had to be inspired by a higher power/source/God. I know I am in the minority of "religious" people, who believe only "their" religion is "right" and will be in heaven. Gandhi has some really good thoughts about this.


So you basically believe there is "God" or "Creator" not Christian God etc.
Ive heard that before but only in the context of that one God is the Christian God and the rest of the folks don't realize they actually worship the Christian God but call him something else.


----------



## WaltL1

JimD said:


> Correct, that is what I believe. Im not saying Jesus isnt the Son of God, but Im not sure. I have read the entire Bible 3 times in 3 years and am reading it again for the 4th time this year. I was taught Jesus came to save us for our sins, BUT in the OT, God says many times that HE forgives sins. So, once again, what a religion says appears to be wrong, as I have read it with my own eyes. I see you are from PA. I am as well. NW PA.





> Jesus came to save us for our sins, BUT in the OT, God says many times that HE forgives sins


I think that gets covered under the Trinity belief where they are one in the same. 
Which of course not all Christians agree on either.


----------



## JimD

I kinda think that as Red Jacket stated in his Defense of Native American Religion, that maybe God reveals himself to different people, in different parts of the world in different ways. Take for instance some of the things you read in different religions. The Hindus say to "die while you are alive", the Buddhist's say to "kill the self", the Bible says to "be born again." I believe these are all the same concepts, although Christianity says to be born again means to ask Christ into your life, but the Bible doesnt specifically say that. To die while your alive and to kill the self means to put others before yourself and be EGO less, and maybe that is the same thing Jesus was talking about. In St Francis' prayer he also states "it is in dying to SELF, that we are born to eternal life." To me that is all the same thought, across three different religions. Rumi said "sell your cleverness and purchase bewilderment." Jesus said for us to be like children. To me, once again, these are the same thoughts, said many generations apart, by people from different relgions. They all had to be inspired by a higher power or source or God, IMHO.


----------



## rmp

JimD said:


> it just makes sense to go to a hospital if you are hurt. I would be an idiot to not seek help by medical staff for something. After all, I believe God gives us knowledge, so He gave us the knowledge to heal. It would be stupid to not seek help.



Where is this supported by scripture? I've never read anywhere in the bible about god sending someone to the doctor and he'll heal you there. "HE" is the Great Physician and he's healed many before.  Why stop now? Is he incapable now? He says he's present at all these gatherings so why does he now expect you to go to a doctor? 
Matthew 18:20
20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.


    Exodus 23:25  I will take sickness away from the middle of you.
    Psalms 103:3 Who forgives all your iniquities; who heals all your diseases;
    Psalms 107:20 He sent his word, and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions.
    Jeremiah 30:17 For I will restore health to you, and I will heal you of your wounds, said the LORD
    Matthew 4:23 And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.


----------



## JimD

I am not using scripture to back that up as I do not believe as you are implying. I have a brain and common sense and don't need to "pray" about say not jumping off of a building. I do believe God can do anything but don't try to justify everything with a scripture.


----------



## bullethead

JimD said:


> Correct, that is what I believe. Im not saying Jesus isnt the Son of God, but Im not sure. I have read the entire Bible 3 times in 3 years and am reading it again for the 4th time this year. I was taught Jesus came to save us for our sins, BUT in the OT, God says many times that HE forgives sins. So, once again, what a religion says appears to be wrong, as I have read it with my own eyes. I see you are from PA. I am as well. NW PA.


NE Pa. Schuylkill Co.
I gave up on accurate accounts and rules in the Bible. It is a mish mash of 1600years worth of writings that cover various religions and beliefs. Too many contradictions for me.


----------



## centerpin fan

rmp said:


> Where is this supported by scripture? I've never read anywhere in the bible about god sending someone to the doctor and he'll heal you there.



Is the phrase "emergency room" anywhere in scripture?  I'm not trying to be a smart aleck.  I'm just pointing out that if you got cholera or smallpox or syphilis or leprosy in the ancient world, what on earth could a doctor do for you?  The ancient Romans had a saying:  "After 20 years old, no need for a doctor."  For that time, they were absolutely correct.


----------



## centerpin fan

JimD said:


> I was taught Jesus came to save us for our sins, BUT in the OT, God says many times that HE forgives sins. So, once again, what a religion says appears to be wrong ...



There's not a contradiction between the two.


----------



## centerpin fan

FWIW, I just noticed this thread is > 1,000 posts.  I thought they got closed at 1,000 posts.


----------



## WaltL1

JimD said:


> I am not using scripture to back that up as I do not believe as you are implying. I have a brain and common sense and don't need to "pray" about say not jumping off of a building. I do believe God can do anything but don't try to justify everything with a scripture.


This might be a sensitive question so feel free to ignore if you want to -
You have referred to yourself as a Christian. However your beliefs seem to be, at least to me anyway, customized to your take on things/knowledge/experiences/research of other religions etc.
So is Christian just the most accurate description of all the choices for you or you truly see yourself as a "Christian" ?
And I truly am not implying anything, Im just wondering.


----------



## JimD

Walt, if you would look at some of my older posts, I've stated I guess I'm not a Christian anymore, at least by the modern standards. The Christian church and religion in general I have a lot of "issues" with. My faith in and love for God is very strong but there are many things I see that don't mesh. I don't believe its "wrong" to be religious necessarily, as many in my family are and are wonderful people. I have the best parents in the world who are religious, but they are also wise enough to know they and religion, does not have all the answers.


----------



## centerpin fan

WaltL1 said:


> You have referred to yourself as a Christian. However your beliefs seem to be, at least to me anyway, customized to your take on things/knowledge/experiences/research of other religions etc.



In other words, he's a typical American Christian.


----------



## WaltL1

centerpin fan said:


> Is the phrase "emergency room" anywhere in scripture?  I'm not trying to be a smart aleck.  I'm just pointing out that if you got cholera or smallpox or syphilis or leprosy in the ancient world, what on earth could a doctor do for you?  The ancient Romans had a saying:  "After 20 years old, no need for a doctor."  For that time, they were absolutely correct.


a woman into a pillar of salt, feeding 5000 with a few loaves of bread and a couple goldfish, ladders to heaven, talking donkey, staffs into snakes......
And NOW a dose of reality is the argument????


----------



## WaltL1

centerpin fan said:


> In other words, he's a typical American Christian.


It occurred to me I should have asked that question in a PM after I already posted it.
This is why.


----------



## rmp

centerpin fan said:


> Is the phrase "emergency room" anywhere in scripture?  I'm not trying to be a smart aleck.  I'm just pointing out that if you got cholera or smallpox or syphilis or leprosy in the ancient world, what on earth could a doctor do for you?  The ancient Romans had a saying:  "After 20 years old, no need for a doctor."  For that time, they were absolutely correct.



No worries but the question remains unanswered. HE is present when you lay hands and anoint with oil in the presence of two, three, or more yet most all still seek a physician.  If god really healed,  there would be no modern medicine. 



rmp said:


> "HE" is the Great Physician.
> Matthew 18:20
> 20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.



Maybe I'm not getting my point across very well.
I don't think the bibles cure for Leprosy amounts to much either.


----------



## JimD

Walt, its fine, I'm just searching for "truth"....whatever that is!


----------



## WaltL1

JimD said:


> Walt, if you would look at some of my older posts, I've stated I guess I'm not a Christian anymore, at least by the modern standards. The Christian church and religion in general I have a lot of "issues" with. My faith in and love for God is very strong but there are many things I see that don't mesh. I don't believe its "wrong" to be religious necessarily, as many in my family are and are wonderful people. I have the best parents in the world who are religious, but they are also wise enough to know they and religion, does not have all the answers.


I have no problem with your beliefs whatsoever.
Although Im Agnostic, your beliefs make a whole lot more sense to me than others Ive heard. 
I assure you that someone being religious or not is waaay down the list when it comes to what I think about them. The people that I think the most of in this world also happen to be religious.


----------



## centerpin fan

rmp said:


> No worries but the question remains unanswered. HE is present when you lay hands and anoint with oil in the presence of two, three, or more yet most all still seek a physician.  If god really healed,  there would be no modern medicine.



I was miraculously healed through prayer.  I don't want to go into the details on one of the internets, but I was.  

God can heal directly or He can also use men to heal.


----------



## rmp

centerpin fan said:


> I was miraculously healed through prayer.  I don't want to go into the details on one of the internets, but I was.


I'd love to hear about it sometime. It's very intriguing as I've never known anyone to really be healed by prayer or....



centerpin fan said:


> God can heal directly or He can also use men to heal.


...the laying of hands, oil, bird killing,etc.


----------



## rmp

JimD said:


> I am not using scripture to back that up as I do not believe as you are implying. I have a brain and common sense and don't need to "pray" about say not jumping off of a building.


Thank you for the reply. It's a example of the many, many views out there I enjoy thinking about and discussing.


----------



## JimD

rmp, Walt, centerpin, bullet, welder et al, I enjoy it as well. As Iron sharpens iron.


----------



## 660griz

If you get a terminal illness, it is God's will. You will die and go to a better place. Why pray? Do you know better than God? Do you not want to go to heaven? Why would you want to change God's plan?


----------



## EverGreen1231

660griz said:


> If you get a terminal illness, it is God's will. You will die and go to a better place. Why pray? Do you know better than God? Do you not want to go to heaven? Why would you want to change God's plan?



To stick around and bother you for awhile longer...


----------



## 660griz

EverGreen1231 said:


> To stick around and bother you for awhile longer...



  Thanks God.


----------



## welderguy

660griz said:


> If you get a terminal illness, it is God's will. You will die and go to a better place. Why pray? Do you know better than God? Do you not want to go to heaven? Why would you want to change God's plan?



Why pray? 
Because He tells us to.

Why does He tell us to, you then ask?
Because He wants us to recognize our need for Him in all things.

Sure, the outcome is predetermined.But, in the same sense, our praying is predetermined also.

You can't limit the one in your mind without limiting the other.

Ultimately,the answer to all of it is for His glory.The sickness, the praying, the healing, and the death.The bible tells us "The effectual, fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." How it availeth takes many various forms.He promises that good will come from it in some form but often it's not in the form we want.But we are selfish creatures aren't we?


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> Why pray?
> Because He tells us to.


 Yea. The bible says they will be answered too. Most of the time...Not so much.

"If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you."

"Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours."

"When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me."---Emo Philips


----------



## NCHillbilly

Well over a thousand posts, gotta close it out. You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here.


----------

