GOD

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

I always thought it was the bible that was against divorcing, it may also only be the interpretation of some people (I do not have a bible and the time to verify).

 

In the case it's the bible who states it, then irisheyes you have got a problem of coherence (as you say to believe in the god of the bible)...

 

In the case it is just the interpretation of some people then, I excuse myself.

 

Actually sanctus, you're right, on both counts. In almost every single situation, the Bible is VERY against divorce. There are a few exceptions,

 

Exceptions to specific tenets. Those are called CONTRADICTIONS.

 

Thanks for showing all of us somemore of the bibles contradictions.

 

Yes it does say that divorce is WRONG and OK. But it does put EXTREME requiremtns on it!

 

Deuteronomy 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

 

It requires!

 

1) the guy gets tired of his wife

2) he writes her a note

3) he kicks her out

 

WOW! Talk about a Sancity of Marriage Law!

 

But it can be even easier if your willing to throw some killing in first!

 

DT 21:10-13 With the Lord's approval, the Israelites are allowed to take "beautiful women" from the enemy camp to be their captive wives. If, after sexual relations, the husband has "no delight" in his wife, he can simply let her go.

 

Oh but, but, but, but, but, ....

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

PLEASE be kind...

 

Don't even do that to me again! It is too much temptation! :-)

 

To sum up, you had an early unhappy marriage to someone that became a drunk scoundrel. While the Atheist bashing part was interesting, the same anecdotal story, even more of them, can be substituted with storiesof the bad person being aChristian. I could throw mine in about my ex who physically abused me and our the kids. But I won't. Or we could talk about the woman that killed her 5 kids in the tub because your god told her to.

 

Yes I drink, guess all us Atheists are drunks eh! Actually I know quite a few that don't drink, smoke, eat meat, ... I drink 2-3 time a month with friends and we go to nice places, listen to live music and drink fine drinks. Ah life!

 

I just started questioning things again.

 

Here it starts getting interesting again. The full time frame is not given, but no one should go as long as it would seem you have without questioning things. I never stopped.

 

Somehow, the very best from both of us got mixed up and out she came - love and life, and everything perfect in this world.

 

Explain this to the millions that god is not so nice to. Those who's kids die before birth. Those kids that are born into horrible attrocities with death near, often with extensive suffering first.

 

Christians always want to give credit to their god for the good things, but feel the need to protect him for vblame for the significantly greater number of attrocities he would be equally responsible for.

 

The explanations that I took for granted (like the geologic column being accurate, and a VERY old earth based on evidence in the fossil record, and the theory of evolution) just didn't hold when I applied the same tests for proof as I had for Christianity and God.

 

Well of course they would not hold upt to fairytale evaluation! Evolution is required to stick to reality in the way it functions.

 

Notice how once more we get empty claims, but not the first bit of evidence! Just liek that incredible math formula that reolves the whole god thing once and for all. That disappeared with attempts to solve the massive contradictions in the bible.

 

I kept searching, and ended up back where I started- with God. This time though, there was no 'blind faith'.

 

See, here we go again. In the past, when it was convenient, Irisheyes fully admitted she had absolutely no proof fog her god. But when she wants to, she then lies about it. Just like the last time I posted her lies. She claimed to naot ahd said something, so I had to spend the time to go back and find it and show her what SHE posted.

 

You have specifcally stated that you believe even without proof and always will.

 

But now you want to claim that you have proof!

 

Give it up. Just admit reality and get ofver with it. If you want to blindly accept, do it. Quit trying to pretend you have proof until you are firced to admit again that you don't.

 

So yes, sanctus, the Bible does teach against divorce, in many different places.

 

"That's just one of those parts of the bible I like to pretend is not there!"

[IrishEyes]

Quoted by sanctus

What about if I don't believe in god? Then if you do something for god, you are not doing something altruistic as you do it for an entity that doesn't exist! Actually, what about IF I BELIEVE IN GOD? Then the only thing to which you can be altruistic is god, where is then the use to mankind of altruism? You may answer that if you do something for god it can as well be for a person and therefore you're altruistic: well no, that's a bit easy, who tells me that YOU (I only can explain what i mean by this YOU in the first person: this YOU is the I and not the ME) actually believe in god and it isn't something you (in the sens of the me) built up to be alright with yourself and therefore it's a selfish thing.

 

I'm interested in your answers.

 

sanctus, before i try to respond to this, can you help me out with something? Can you please clarify your questions, substituting your "I" , "me" and "you" with actual names (please feel free to use sanctus and Irisheyes, or bob and joe, or whatever)? i want to answer what you intend to ask, not what I think you might mean. I'm truly not trying to be a pain, but so many times people in this forum take my words out of context or try to twist or distort my explanations. I do NOT want to do this with you, as I believe your questions are valid. i would like the opportunity to respond to this, but i want to respond to the actual questions and comments as you intend them.

[IrishEyes]

From Freethinker...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So yes, sanctus, the Bible does teach against divorce, in many different places.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"That's just one of those parts of the bible I like to pretend is not there!"

 

Ok, show me where those words in quotation marks above are from me? Or is that all from you? Where did I say that I'm perfect? Where did I say that i have not sinned? Where? What's that 3 cent word you're always tossing around.....obfuscation? And it means what? 1 a : DARKEN b : to make obscure 2 : CONFUSE Or maybe it's actually your other pet phrase...ad hominem... 1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect 2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

 

I readily admitted that I made mistakes when i was younger. I gave a very personal account of what I did. My intent was not to give a minute-by-minute recounting of my life and thoughts, (hence- NO timeline), but rather a general overview that could serve as a point of reference. No, I did not include specific "proofs", as i have repeatedly posted or referred to them and i felt the repetition was unnecessary. Besides, you have already torn my beliefs to shreds many times, and thrown out my 'proofs' as invalid, as deemed by YOU. Why would I willingly subject myself to that again? I'm a Christian, not a martyr ;>)

 

As for the references to my abusive atheist husband... puh-leaze! My illustration was given as an example of HIS specific hypocrisy. I also stated that NOT ALL ATHEISTS ARE LIKE HIM. I was not bashing all atheists, and if I gave that impression I WAS VERY WRONG, and I truly do apologize. However, i feel certain that if you re-read my post in the spirit in which it was intended, you will see it was not a general attack on all atheists. Yes, i agree that there are many "Christians" that do horrible things. I have not intentionally disagreed with that. What I have and will continue to disagree with is making blanket generalizations.

 

You are also correct in that I have not refuted your examples of speciation. To be perfectly honest, I've gotten as far as printing them out. Between my children and trying to keep up with running my home and daily life, as well as trying to keep up with the stuff posted here, I haven't even seriously looked at them. I'm wrong in that, and you have every right to accuse me of not responding. I haven't. I will, at some point, but other things always seem to take precedence. And please let me point out that there are many things posted by both of us that are not specifically responded to. It happens, as we both have real lives outside of this forum.

 

And as for the math formula... that's a problem for me. I'm not a mathemetician. My husband has the very analytical mind, and was the one that worked the math. I think I already explained that. He has tried explaining it to me, but i don't fully grasp it (though I do get the basics), and he flatly refuses to log on here to explain it. Yes, that is an excuse, but tis also the truth. I will try my level best to post it, as it fascinates me, although it is well above my total comprehension. However, i'm sure that you would understand it fully.

[IrishEyes]

Yes I drink, guess all us Atheists are drunks eh! Actually I know quite a few that don't drink, smoke, eat meat, ... I drink 2-3 time a month with friends and we go to nice places, listen to live music and drink fine drinks. Ah life!

 

Freethinker, you are an adult. The laws in this country state that if you are over 21, you are legally allowed to buy and consume alcohol. You don't have to justify your drinking to me! Drinking is a personal choice. No, not all atheists are drunks. Again, if I inadvertantly implied this - I WAS WRONG. However, again, if you re-read my post, i don't think you will see that I ever made a blanket generalization that all atheists were drunks, perhaps because I do not believe it to be true.

 

Now if YOU believe it to be true... ;>)

[IrishEyes]

Don't even do that to me again! It is too much temptation! :-)

 

And yet you altruistically resisted that temptation so nicely... I mean, you didn't attack my personal account one single time, did you? Thanks so much for that!!!

[IrishEyes]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Somehow, the very best from both of us got mixed up and out she came - love and life, and everything perfect in this world.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Explain this to the millions that god is not so nice to. Those who's kids die before birth. Those kids that are born into horrible attrocities with death near, often with extensive suffering first.

Christians always want to give credit to their god for the good things, but feel the need to protect him for vblame for the significantly greater number of attrocities he would be equally responsible for.

 

Without specific knowledge of the child in question, or my other children, how can you make so presumptuous a claim? According to 'worldly' standards, my children are far from perfect. However, I love them. I don't love them in spite of their imperfections, faults, or 'atrocities'. I love them as the incredibly beautiful, wonderfully unique people that they are. Are they all free from physical 'disabilities'? According to worldly standards they are not. But I dare you to tell me that my children are not all PERFECTLY BEAUTIFUL!! Are all of the children that I have conceived and given birth to alive today? I only wish they were! However, do I blame God for this? No, I don't. I take personal responsbilty for mistakes that I know are mine and mine alone, and i freely admit that I do not know God's plan for everything. This does not release me from feeling pain at the loss of a child, or even sometimes feeling anger at God's decisions. I DON'T understand everything. But many times, in hindsight, things are much more evident than when directly in a situation. God does not need me to protect Him from blame.

[IrishEyes]

See, here we go again. In the past, when it was convenient, Irisheyes fully admitted she had absolutely no proof fog her god. But when she wants to, she then lies about it. Just like the last time I posted her lies. She claimed to naot ahd said something, so I had to spend the time to go back and find it and show her what SHE posted.

 

You have specifcally stated that you believe even without proof and always will.

 

But now you want to claim that you have proof!

 

Give it up. Just admit reality and get ofver with it. If you want to blindly accept, do it. Quit trying to pretend you have proof until you are firced to admit again that you don't.

 

Your leaps in logic truly amaze me.

 

Let me clarify things for you, just so you don't *intentionally?* twist my words again. This is getting tiring, but again...

 

I have already, and will continue to admit that I have nothing that you will accept as 'proof' of God, as i believe in Him.

 

I have what I consider to be very valid arguments (already posted and referenced here more than once) AGAINST evolution.

 

As I see things, there are two MAIN explanations for the existence of life on this planet: either man evolved or man was created.

 

I blindly accepted creation, God and religion as a child.

 

Due to many factors, including but not limited to rebellion, anger at God, and hypocrisy in my church, I turned my back on religion, and God, as a young adult.

 

I fully believed in evolution, and fought against creationism and Christianity, and everything else 'of God' at one time in my life.

 

Many things contributed to a re-examination of my atheistic beliefs.

 

When I applied the same methods of questioning evolution that I applied to questioning creationism, evolution had many unresolved issues. Again, I state some of those issues elsewhere here, but did not feel the need to re-post.

 

I seem to have come full circle, from a believer to a non-believer and back again. However, I questioned things this time around. Therefore, I do not consider that I have 'blind faith'.

 

Do I have faith? Yes, I readily admit to having faith. But I am not blinded to the hypocrisy in some religions, including the hypocrisy in many 'Christians'. I don't believe I have stated otherwise. Christianity is not perfect, as it is a religion, and man historically perverts religion for his own gain, or to suit his own purposes. I feel certain I have already said this. However, I differentiate between God and man's perverted view of God, aka 'religion'. Faith in one does not imply a blind faith adherence to the other.

 

If you still feel the need to personally attack me, please understand that I am going to try to ignore those attacks from now on, as the time required to refute your very mean-spirted personal attacks detracts from time i could be spending actually responding to other things. Hopefully, others will also see your attacks for what they are and understand when i no longer defend myself to you.

[IrishEyes]

As I see things, there are two MAIN explanations for the existence of life on this planet: either man evolved or man was created.

 

I meant to say "As I see things, there are two MAIN explanations for the existence of HUMAN life on this planet: either man evolved or man was created."

[sanctus]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

 

 

sanctus, before i try to respond to this, can you help me out with something? Can you please clarify your questions, substituting your "I" , "me" and "you" with actual names (please feel free to use sanctus and Irisheyes, or bob and joe, or whatever)? i want to answer what you intend to ask, not what I think you might mean. I'm truly not trying to be a pain, but so many times people in this forum take my words out of context or try to twist or distort my explanations. I do NOT want to do this with you, as I believe your questions are valid. i would like the opportunity to respond to this, but i want to respond to the actual questions and comments as you intend them.

 

 

Ok, the I and the ME were just involved in one of my questions, but I agree it includes my basic criticism to faith. It's quite hard to explain in english what I mean by the I and the ME, but I'll try:

 

Essentially it is impossible to define the I, one can just say what it isn't:

 

• is it your body? No, because if you lose many parts of it you are still there and because in seven years you got a completely new body (all the cels changed)
  • is it your beliefs, your religion yxour name?No, because you can change them but the I stays the same

 

If you observe yourself then it is the I that observe the ME, that means the ME is the way the I sees oneself. If you observe yourself then forexample you don't feel any more fear, you just keep calm and see the fear coming like black cloud over the ME.

 

But what this I is one can't say, but everybody knows: if you question yourself then it is the I questioning the ME.

 

Hope you understand what I mean....

 

So my question is: isn't it the "I" that made up god for making feel the "ME" better, to give him/her a reason to live that he/she didn't findelsewhere?

[sanctus]

I have to add: the I isn't something one has consciosness of all the time.

[IrishEyes]

Quoted by sanctus...

Ok, the I and the ME were just involved in one of my questions, but I agree it includes my basic criticism to faith. It's quite hard to explain in english what I mean by the I and the ME, but I'll try:

 

Essentially it is impossible to define the I, one can just say what it isn't:

 

is it your body? No, because if you lose many parts of it you are still there and because in seven years you got a completely new body (all the cels changed)

is it your beliefs, your religion yxour name?No, because you can change them but the I stays the same

 

If you observe yourself then it is the I that observe the ME, that means the ME is the way the I sees oneself. If you observe yourself then forexample you don't feel any more fear, you just keep calm and see the fear coming like black cloud over the ME.

 

But what this I is one can't say, but everybody knows: if you question yourself then it is the I questioning the ME.

 

Hope you understand what I mean....

 

So my question is: isn't it the "I" that made up god for making feel the "ME" better, to give him/her a reason to live that he/she didn't findelsewhere?

 

sanctus, you totally blow me away!! I will gladly admit that your questions are beyond my comprehension, and I will thank you for accepting my "I DOn't Know" as an honest answer.

 

Seriously, is the "I" comparable to the soul? That is partially what I am understanding the "I" as, using your explanation. Or is the "I" the mind? Not the actual brain, made of matter, but the MIND? and the "ME" would be your physical body?

 

If we use "my" words of 'mind' and 'body' as substitutions for "I" and "ME", then I understand a little more. Your question would then be : Isn't it the *mind* that made up god, making the *body* feel better, to give him/her a reason to live that he/she disn't find elsewhere?

 

That is an interesting question. While I don't agree with it, I don't want to summarily dismiss it as a lie. Are you suggesting that God started as an explanation by a man searching for a 'truth', and his *mind* invented God as an explanation for everything he didn't understand?

 

I could accept this but for a few different things. Mainly, if I were going to invent a god to answer my questions, i would invent one that actually answered all of my questions in a way that was accepted by everyone as valid, leaving NO room for doubt. while i might have invented a god with many supernatural powers, as i'm sure i would have wanted my god to be strong and powerful, i would not have invented the God of the Bible. I would have wanted my god to be totally accepting of me regardless of what i did, and i would have invented a god that had my same morals and values. in other words, i would have created a god with much more human characteristics. i would probably have invented a god that accepted sin, and that basically allowed me to get away with whatever i wanted to do. Does this make sense? I just don't believe that man came up with the idea of Jehovah, as represented in the Bible, as He (God) is a Holy God that requires people to live to a higher moral standard than they would otherwise. Why would a man invent a god that would punish sin by eternal damnation, knowing that man sins? Why would man invent a god that gave rules with harsh penalties for disobedience, even though most of the people that were given these rules were guilty of breaking them? Moses was about the only one not breaking the 10C's when he returned from the Mountain. The people still did not all repent. Did man invent the god that gave those 'harsh' laws? WHY?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

From Freethinker...

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

So yes, sanctus, the Bible does teach against divorce, in many different places.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

"That's just one of those parts of the bible I like to pretend is not there!"

 

Ok, show me where those words in quotation marks above are from me? Or is that all from you?

 

When I posted that reply, I very specifically made sure that that sentence's physical location showed it to not be a "quote" from someone else. There was no intent to decieve or create a misattribution. Nor was any indicated. I did intend it to suggest a particular mindset.

 

No, I did not include specific "proofs", as i have repeatedly posted or referred to them and i felt the repetition was unnecessary.

 

"Referring" to proofs is not in any way PROVIDING them. Just like the rest of the believers around here, you keep CLAIMING to ahve proofs. But you NEVER ACTUALLY PROVIDE THEM.

 

Besides, you have already torn my beliefs to shreds many times, and thrown out my 'proofs' as invalid, as deemed by YOU. Why would I willingly subject myself to that again? I'm a Christian, not a martyr ;>)

 

Anytime I disprove a claimed attempt at proof, I include very specific details as to WHY it is invalid. If I am the only person you have ever been exposed to that has been educated on indentifying these fallacies, perhaps you would then incorrectly identify them as MINE. ("thrown out my 'proofs' as invalid, as deemed by YOU") A good education would help you see that I am not the only one with these well established understandings.

 

i feel certain that if you re-read my post in the spirit in which it was intended, you will see it was not a general attack on all atheists.

 

Yes it was. It is the fallacy of dicto simpliciter. You set up from the beginning that you were pushed into an active anti-god stance by him and he turned into an *******... therefore... But you overcame this obvious character flaw by refinding your god!

 

Yes, i agree that there are many "Christians" that do horrible things. I have not intentionally disagreed with that. What I have and will continue to disagree with is making blanket generalizations.

 

this is the first time you have not tried to seperate "'Christians' that do horrible things" from your personal narrow allowance of who is a Christian.

 

You are also correct in that I have not refuted your examples of speciation.

 

Yet you claimed going in to be able to easily disprove them. In fact you originally stated they did not exist in the first place.

 

The reality is they ARE examples of speciation, plain and simple. Unless you can set up the same experiment, or review the specific lab data and succesfully challenge it in peer reviewed publications, any lessor attempt would be meaningless and empty claims.

 

And as for the math formula... that's a problem for me. I'm not a mathemetician. My husband has the very analytical mind, and was the one that worked the math. I think I already explained that. He has tried explaining it to me, but i don't fully grasp it (though I do get the basics), and he flatly refuses to log on here to explain it. Yes, that is an excuse, but tis also the truth. I will try my level best to post it, as it fascinates me, although it is well above my total comprehension. However, i'm sure that you would understand it fully.

 

If memory serves, and I am so tired of having to be the one to backtrack thru posts to force others

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Somehow, the very best from both of us got mixed up and out she came - love and life, and everything perfect in this world.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Explain this to the millions that god is not so nice to. Those who's kids die before birth. Those kids that are born into horrible attrocities with death near, often with extensive suffering first.

 

Christians always want to give credit to their god for the good things, but feel the need to protect him for vblame for the significantly greater number of attrocities he would be equally responsible for.

 

Without specific knowledge of the child in question, or my other children, how can you make so presumptuous a claim?

 

Where does my reply at any point indicate your children as the reference? What I was showing is how people like you pick a single anecdotal event and assign some global meaning to it. Such as: (This is NOT a quote from you or anyone here, but just a generalized statement) "I know there is a god because I have such a wonderful child." (And YOU DID USE THIS approach.) While ignoring the far greater number of examples which would indicate an uncaring, or worse monster god, incapable or unwilling to "create" a more "humane" life process. You yourself prove my point. After you claimed the birth of your child as proof of your loving god, you then want to disassociate it fromo any negatives.

 

However, do I blame God for this? No, I don't.

[rileyj]

"The reality is they ARE examples of speciation"

 

name one

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

Your leaps in logic truly amaze me.

 

Let me clarify things for you, just so you don't *intentionally?* twist my words again. This is getting tiring, but again...

 

I have already, and will continue to admit that I have nothing that you will accept as 'proof' of God, as i believe in Him.

You had posted before about my "3 cent word", "Obfuscation". Here is a perfect example. You want to pretend that you actually have provided PROOFS, but that I personally won't accept them. This is an effort to intentionally decieve by complcating things. But the reality, stripped of the obfuscation is:

 

1) you have NOT provided even the first valid proof to even review. NONE!

 

2) It has NOTHING TO DO WITH whether *I* will accept them or not. It is a matter of whether they are VALID or not. If they can be shown to be invalid, by anyone, they are invalid. Where is the confusion?

 

3) all you do is continue to claim to have and use valid scientific level proof of the existence of your mythical god while crying out how I abuse your attempts.

 

I have what I consider to be very valid arguments (already posted and referenced here more than once) AGAINST evolution.

 

VALID? Show ONE valid one.

 

You continue to show that the concept of "VALID" escapes you.

 

As I see things, there are two MAIN explanations for the existence of life on this planet: either man evolved or man was created.

 

1) this is the fallacy of bifurcation.

 

2) Ockham's Razor resolves the issue completely.

 

When I applied the same methods of questioning evolution that I applied to questioning creationism,

 

And I acknowledged this as very understandable. You admit that you have no acceptable proof to support your god belief. OK, using that "same method of questioning", ignoring the application of valid evidence, you came to a conclusion. I can see why, when someone is willing to forgo facts, they could accept any number of fairytales and myths. You have explained how you came to accept your particular myth. I accept that.

 

evolution had many unresolved issues.

 

As does EVERY Theory in Science. There is not a single Theory that is 100% uundestood. However, Evolution has significatly more factual support and verifyable evidence then the Theories of Gravity or Light (particle theory). Why are you not so vehimently opposing them?

 

I seem to have come full circle, from a believer to a non-believer and back again. However, I questioned things this time around.

 

OK. Once more you explain that your earlier journey into "Atheism" was based on a LACK of questioning. That it was ONLY this time that "I questioned things this time around".

 

Therefore, I do not consider that I have 'blind faith'.

I have already, and will continue to admit that I have nothing that you will accept as 'proof' of God, as i believe in Him.

 

In one you state it is not "Blind faith", one would assume that means you ahve PROOF. The other contradicts this with your admitting you have no acceptable proof. Which is the lie?

 

If you still feel the need to personally attack me, please understand that I am going to try to ignore those attacks from now on,

 

If you consider my insistance for valid evidence and consistancy of your assertions to be a personal attack, perhaps you should do some internal review.

 

as the time required to refute

 

IOW actually supply PROOF for your otherwise baseless claims...

 

I am very used to Christians using this approa

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: rileyj

"The reality is they ARE examples of speciation"

 

 

 

name one

Fruit Flies