Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 51
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Originally Posted by Rose
    There are so many biblical laws that violate women's human rights that it's hard to know where to start. A good verse that covers two violations is:
    Exo.21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

    The verse makes it clear that a father owns his daughter and is able to sell her. Secondly, it states that she is not allowed to "go out" as the men do. Both of those biblical laws totally violate the human rights of the woman being sold and bought.
    Hello Rose

    Since it is accepted that the woman is the weaker vessel, it can be seen that God is ensuring that women could get employment and her parents benefited in the process from the money received. In those days, could a woman survive on her own if she left her employment and become the target of evil men who had no regard for God, and had no regard to women's rights?


    All the best
    David
    Hello David

    I figured that would be the reason you would give, but no matter how you try to justify the discrimination against women found in the Bible, it is still a human rights violation! Women are not property and should not be owned by men for any reason!

    Kind regards,
    Rose
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    U.S.A., Florida
    Posts
    88

    Pardon the interruption...

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    Good morning David

    What I said was that the Biblegod created humans with the desire to do harm to others. A deity with the power to create life could give his creation the desire to only do good and still give them free will.

    And yes, I have harmed others, maybe not physically but emotionally ... I am not perfect, though I try very hard to not harm others.

    Yes, I used the word bad, but failure or not perfect would work just as well. My point is that humans fail 100% of the time in one way or another ... that is not a good track record especially when the Bible says that its god does not like it when people sin, yet that is the way he made them.
    Good Afternoon Rose,

    Please pardon my interruption of your conversation with David.

    I know I told you to remind me of what I said with regards to speaking about my beliefs, and my request still holds.

    28 years ago I took one semester of formal debate in High School. It was not long enough to learn to be very good at it, but I did manage to learn a few of the basics of debate. One of the things that I learned was that you did not always get to debate the side for which you actually believed. I also learned that, in order to be prepared to properly debate your opponent you really had to know both sides of the debate very well. In essence, you had to study and prepare your opponent’s debate points first, so that you could prepare counter-points.

    For the nonce, I would like for you to assume that we have both made that same decision to disbelieve in any god(s) so that we can discuss the reason for our mutual decision.

    My reason would be solely based on the fact that there is absolutely no scientifically quantifiable/verifiable proof of the existence of god(s).

    From your statements above, it seems like you base your reasons for disbelief on the actions of human beings. It's as if you are saying, ‘Because people are bad, good god(s) cannot exist.’ You seem to base your beliefs on things not being the way they ‘ought’ to be. Because there are no god(s), the actions and interactions of human are exactly as they should be. We both know that human behavior can be modified to be better than it is, but it can also be much worse.

    I could use the analogy of a woman creating a sentient robot, but this analogy is exactly the opposite of god(s) creating human beings.
    Sentient robots don’t actually exist, and creative human beings do.

    Human beings do actually exist, and creator god(s) [for the nonce] do not.

    The following comparison is imperfect, but it is the closest extant analogy I can think of.

    Human beings cannot create life, however we can procreate. I believe that it is fair and just to call a serial killer evil. I know that a lot of people do so, but do we have the moral right to call the parents of a serial killer evil? Were Mao Zedong’s, Joseph Stalin’s, Adolf Hitler’s, Benito Mussolini’s, and Saddam Hussein’s parents evil because of the actions of their son? Were George W. Bush’s parents evil because…er…um…never mind.

    The point is, do we have the right to call procreators evil because of the evil that they procreated? Now, I realize that not every parent raises their child in a loving and nurturing environment, but I also know that some parents who do raise their children with love and discipline, teaching them to know right from wrong, are sometimes shocked by what their children decide to do with their lives. It is very likely that at least one of the parents of the named dictators above were shocked by the brutality of their son. They may have even thought of their son as evil.

    If we can blame imaginary god(s) for the evil that men do, should not real living, breathing, quantifiable, verifiable parents who procreate evil men be held so much more at fault?

    Or, perhaps we should rightly lay the blame for the failing of human beings on those human being who actually do the evil deeds. Let’s quit blaming the phaser (you see what I did there...phaser's don't exist either) and start holding the man that pulled the trigger responsible for his own actions, otherwise we come off as being condescending to a person simply because of beliefs that he holds.

    On any debate topic wherein no proof can be found either in support of or against the topic of debate, no one can legitimately claim the moral high ground.


    P.S. My nose is so stuffed up right now that I'm thinking about calling RotoRooter out to see if they can unclog it.
    Respectfully,
    Mark
    An unsupported statement is not an argument; it is only an opinion.
    Eschew obfuscation.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by Guido Fawkes View Post
    Good Afternoon Rose,

    Please pardon my interruption of your conversation with David.

    I know I told you to remind me of what I said with regards to speaking about my beliefs, and my request still holds.


    For the nonce, I would like for you to assume that we have both made that same decision to disbelieve in any god(s) so that we can discuss the reason for our mutual decision.

    My reason would be solely based on the fact that there is absolutely no scientifically quantifiable/verifiable proof of the existence of god(s).
    Hello Mark

    I am happy you joined the conversation ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Guido Fawkes View Post
    From your statements above, it seems like you base your reasons for disbelief on the actions of human beings. It's as if you are saying, ‘Because people are bad, good god(s) cannot exist.’ You seem to base your beliefs on things not being the way they ‘ought’ to be. Because there are no god(s), the actions and interactions of human are exactly as they should be. We both know that human behavior can be modified to be better than it is, but it can also be much worse.
    Actually, that is not the case at all. I began to question god's existence when I opened my eyes to all the unjust and biased treatment of women found in the Bible. Many of these injustices were written into the laws that the Bible claimed were given from god, which told me that the god presented in the pages of the Bible was neither fair nor just in regards to women, which inevitably led me to the conclusion that the Biblegod was man-made.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guido Fawkes View Post
    The following comparison is imperfect, but it is the closest extant analogy I can think of.

    Human beings cannot create life, however we can procreate. I believe that it is fair and just to call a serial killer evil. I know that a lot of people do so, but do we have the moral right to call the parents of a serial killer evil? Were Mao Zedong’s, Joseph Stalin’s, Adolf Hitler’s, Benito Mussolini’s, and Saddam Hussein’s parents evil because of the actions of their son? Were George W. Bush’s parents evil because…er…um…never mind.

    The point is, do we have the right to call procreators evil because of the evil that they procreated? Now, I realize that not every parent raises their child in a loving and nurturing environment, but I also know that some parents who do raise their children with love and discipline, teaching them to know right from wrong, are sometimes shocked by what their children decide to do with their lives. It is very likely that at least one of the parents of the named dictators above were shocked by the brutality of their son. They may have even thought of their son as evil.

    If we can blame imaginary god(s) for the evil that men do, should not real living, breathing, quantifiable, verifiable parents who procreate evil men be held so much more at fault?

    Or, perhaps we should rightly lay the blame for the failing of human beings on those human being who actually do the evil deeds. Let’s quit blaming the phaser (you see what I did there...phaser's don't exist either) and start holding the man that pulled the trigger responsible for his own actions, otherwise we come off as being condescending to a person simply because of beliefs that he holds.

    On any debate topic wherein no proof can be found either in support of or against the topic of debate, no one can legitimately claim the moral high ground.


    P.S. My nose is so stuffed up right now that I'm thinking about calling RotoRooter out to see if they can unclog it.
    There is a vast difference between creating life from "Whole cloth" as a deity would do and procreating. I would in no way hold a parent responsible for the evil deeds of their child, unless a direct connection could be made to some specific actions on the parents part that caused the child to "snap".

    My point to David about god's responsibility in creating humans that do bad things, applies only in regards to said god being able to "program" his creation in any manner he chooses. I gave David an example of people who breed aggressive dogs specifically for fighting, so they are responsible for the behavior of the dogs they bred. Also, people castrate their male animals to make them more docile ... if humans can change the behavior of animals by altering their genetics or changing their hormones, how much more should a creator deity be able to design his creations with a gentle nature, while giving them free will.

    Kind regards,
    Rose
    Last edited by Rose; 10-24-2014 at 04:43 PM.
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    U.S.A., Florida
    Posts
    88

    For the nonce...

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    Hello Mark

    I am happy you joined the conversation ...



    Actually, that is not the case at all. I began to question god's existence when I opened my eyes to all the unjust and biased treatment of women found in the Bible. Many of these injustices were written into the laws that the Bible claimed were given from god, which told me that the god presented in the pages of the Bible was neither fair nor just in regards to women, which inevitably led me to the conclusion that the Biblegod was man-made.



    There is a vast difference between creating life from "Whole cloth" as a deity would do and procreating. I would in no way hold a parent responsible for the evil deeds of their child, unless a direct connection could be made to some specific actions on the parents part that caused the child to "snap".

    My point to David about god's responsibility in creating humans that do bad things, applies only in regards to said god being able to "program" his creation in any manner he chooses. I gave David an example of people who breed aggressive dogs specifically for fighting, so they are responsible for the behavior of the dogs they bred. Also, people castrate their male animals to make them more docile ... if humans can change the behavior of animals by altering their genetics or changing their hormones, how much more should a creator deity be able to design his creations with a gentle nature, while giving them free will.

    Kind regards,
    Rose
    Rose,

    Since we don't actually believe that god(s) created human beings, would it not be more intellectually honest to always say that all the evils that human beings do are the sole responsibility of human beings - rather than blaming god(s) of which we do not believe exist?
    Last edited by Guido Fawkes; 10-24-2014 at 05:22 PM. Reason: added title: For the nonce...
    Respectfully,
    Mark
    An unsupported statement is not an argument; it is only an opinion.
    Eschew obfuscation.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by Guido Fawkes View Post
    Rose,

    Since we don't actually believe that god(s) created human beings, would it not be more intellectually honest to always say that all the evils that human beings do are the sole responsibility of human beings - rather than blaming god(s) of which we do not believe exist?

    Yes, that is absolutely what I believe! All the evils done by people lie solely at the feet of humans for a variety of reasons, sometimes through mental illness, sometimes through brain-washing, sometimes for reasons of power and money and on and on it goes ...

    Kind regards,
    Rose
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    U.S.A., Florida
    Posts
    88

    100%

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    Yes, that is absolutely what I believe! All the evils done by people lie solely at the feet of humans for a variety of reasons, sometimes through mental illness, sometimes through brain-washing, sometimes for reasons of power and money and on and on it goes ...

    Kind regards,
    Rose
    Rose,

    I agree with you 100%.
    Respectfully,
    Mark
    An unsupported statement is not an argument; it is only an opinion.
    Eschew obfuscation.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Tn.
    Posts
    80
    Hey Rose!

    I've noticed most fundamentalist/evangelical christian belivers tend to defend their faith by taking one of the following paths:

    ~They formulate or recite some kind of cosmological argument.

    ~They point out the fact that reason-based enterprises such as science (you know, that that "sciency-stuff!" LOL.) can't fully explain the origins, world, morality, and the human condition in general, "and thus, faith (dogma-beLIEf) is required to fill in the gaps."

    ~They maintain that they have had such "meaningful religious-experiences" or "spiritual-trances" (answers to wishes, voices, prayer, miracles, vivid feelings and confirmations of salvation, love and joy etc.) that they could never doubt the existence of a good and loving supernatural "God Being."

    It is "futile to try to object to their physics or to their feelings." While you cannot argue with their "Experiences," you can at least "try to point out that the conclusions and "confirmation-biases" they draw from their experiences "might not be trustworthy"

    Confirmation-Bias is "how we ALL naturally look for evidence that only proves what we want to be true!" This is the window of opportunity "to raise the problem of evil." You cannot argue with their personal experiences, "but you can raise the problem of the psychological-barriers we all face when trying to make sense of these experiences."

    C. B. is the fallacy that "confirms the success of many prayers and miraculous turns of events." One of the ways in which confirmation-bias " *desensitizes-believers to the problem of real human-suffering* is the causal-link believers create between moral vice and evil.

    God is not at fault for allowing human suffering, "they think," because the suffering so many people face in life is due to their sinful choices!" By selecting and cherry-picking examples from a handful of individuals they know who have suffered because of personal-failures "they can easily avoid considering all the evidence to the contrary." But clearly their reasoning *completely-ignores* the inherently unequal-distribution of health, wealth, capital, and happiness based mainly on biological, geographical, and political-differences, "differences which are factual-conditions that go far more deeper than individual volitional-choice."

    If "Retribution" is the rationale for suffering, then "the suffering of innocent victims is simply Unjustified." But many believers are in fact "comfortable with this situation!" They are "willing to accept" a world in which innocent-children suffer and "God is not responsible" for immediately interfering and helping them.

    The first argument believers often give is that "God is like a parent (father) who cannot always intervene else the child will grow up too dependent and needy. God often needs to show "Tough Love!" (That's the same old twisted and trance logic.) Strangely this seems very inconsistent with the popular religious sentiment that being a person of faith means "depending on God for everything." Moreover, this is hardly an analogy that could stand up to any criticism. Suppose a parent allowed their child to run into a busy street leading to the child's immediate death. The parent could be prosecuted for a crime, that is, "held responsible for not acting."

    If it became clear that while the parent wanted to help they could not due to a physical barrier (tripping and falling down, for example) then the situation would be accidental, not criminal. But if they could have prevented their child's death- "and did not"- surely we would deem them cruel and evil. This is the point of "Epicurus Dilemma." Either God is not powerful enough to help us, or God is cruel and indifferent to human suffering.

    Would we let the human parent off the hook for saying they didn't help because they saw the value in tough love? (Hell No!) The other underlying problem is the best-of-all-possible-worlds thinking that so many fundy Christian beLIEvers maintain. God couldn't have created a world with less evil without minimizing some good. Which good would we lose? Surely it could not be something trivial like ice cream or sports cars.

    But free-will, they contend, is worth it. Oh Yes, free will is such an important good that it was worth the risk. God knew countless innocent-children would suffer because of free will, but because God did not want robots we were created with the freedom to do either good or evil.

    This is a very f'ed-up, twisted and "disturbing way of thinking" that Voltaire and Dostoevsky have both illustrated and critiqued in a way more effective way than I ever could! Now, I am not going to get into the metaphysical issue of whether or not we even have "free will," but let us just suppose that we do.

    It is more productive to point out that even if we do have freedom there are several limitations we cannot ignore. No matter how hard I try I cannot fly, walk through walls, or disappear. No matter how hard I mentally try I cannot conceive of a square circle or a married bachelor. Has God deprived me of some good by not giving me freedom to do these things? Of course Not!

    So, we do in fact live in a world in which our freedom is somewhat restrained. Surely even the most recalcitrant beLIEver must accept this fact. Correct.What is the point of all this? Well, could we conceive of a world in which we still have free will but lack the ability to harm innocent children?

    Could we imagine a world without rape, murder, and disease, but still with anger, pride, personal failure, and greed? Yes, I think we could. Surely a God with his infinite resources and mental capacities "could have created a world with a more just distribution of suffering" to the ones (and only to the ones) who sin and transgress the law.

    I could gladly give up my freedom to commit heinous acts and I think any morally serious person would as well. What would we really lose in return? I do not think we would lose anything of any serious importance...To use Nietzsche's language, God could have created a world without good and evil, but with good and bad. Because God did not do this then it seems "the believer must rationally justify their faith in God's transcendent-goodness."

    Or they could take the more simple solution and recognize that believing that a supernatural parent can solve the problem of the existence of evil is as "useless as using such a creation as an explanation for the existence of evil in the first place."

    In the future, I say, men will one day perhaps *not look upon* it as a sacred duty to herd like cattle together, on purpose to cultic-praise and glorify their Tyrant and Bloody Gore-God in the Sky.

    Peace & Friendship,

    L.V.X.
    343/565

    P.S. BY THE WAY, HOPE YOU ALL HAVE A HAPPY HALLLOWEEN!
    The Meaning of Life is to Eat the Dam Apple! - "Wisdom comes from asking questions."

    I am the Demon Child of Wisdom and Understanding.
    I am HER tantric monk and SHE my Left-Hand Priestess.
    I perch on HER brink, waiting for a summons from the Queen.
    I dance in response to HER teasing and testing.
    I leap into Her depth, HER perfect and Horrible Mystery!

    לילית


  8. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Tn.
    Posts
    80

    Jesus Vs. Jesus

    Name:  Good Jesus  Vs. Bad Jesus.gif
Views: 9
Size:  40.8 KB

    A Religion of Peace? Peace on earth??

    Prince of Peace*, why do you allow wars and massacres on earth? By what mysterious judgment do you allow innocent people to be cruelly slaughtered? I cannot know.

    Many Christians and non-believers alike extol the virtues of living peacefully, Yet: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace but a sword." -
    -Matthew 10:34) So much for the peace on earth stuff we keep hearing about from uninformed Christians.

    The members of the world's militaries believe that their god stands solely on their side and they continually pray to this unproven deity to intervene on their behalf. Has prayer ever worked to stop the violence? Of course Not! Interestingly, religious violence usually stops because secular parties intervene to offer peace agreements [a freaking clue!].

    Anyone who comes with the intent of a "sword" instead of peace can hardly give an example of living peacefully on Earth.

    *Note: The title, "Prince of Peace" does not appear anywhere in the New Testament and only appears once in the Old Testament (Isaiah 9:6). The Hebrew scholars tell us the Hebrew verbs in Isaiah 9:6 appear in "the past tense." The title refers to the prophecy, not necessarily the man as "it could refer to any number of kings, past or future" (many other ancients also commonly referred to favored kings as the 'Prince of Peace'). Nor did He come to set up a government of peace (Isaiah 9:7). On the contrary, only intolerance and wars resulted from this belief.

    Creating peace by blessing does not rely on caring about peace for others but because the do-gooder thinks he'll receive a future reward (going to Heaven, for example). One should do peacemaking acts or charitable works, not because of the candy one will receive but because it serves as the proper and decent thing to do. A peacemaker has my admiration for creating peace, not for the blessing bestowed upon him.

    It's difficult to keep track of how many nations are eradicated by the will of Biblegod Yahweh-El. After Joshua makes further conquests, we get a look at God's thinking: "No city made peace with the Israelites (except the Hivites living in Gibeon); they had to conquer all of them, for the Lord determined to make them obstinate so they would attack Israel. He wanted Israel to annihilate them without mercy [my emphasis], as he had instructed Moses." (Joshua 11:19-20) Those slaughters didn't have to happen; they happened because God wanted them to happen. God purposely engineered things to ensure that genocide would be the result.

    Whatever its causes, the decline of violence has profound implications. It is not a license for complacency: We enjoy the peace we find today because people in past generations were appalled by the violence in their time and worked to end it, and so we should work to end the appalling violence in our time.
    The Meaning of Life is to Eat the Dam Apple! - "Wisdom comes from asking questions."

    I am the Demon Child of Wisdom and Understanding.
    I am HER tantric monk and SHE my Left-Hand Priestess.
    I perch on HER brink, waiting for a summons from the Queen.
    I dance in response to HER teasing and testing.
    I leap into Her depth, HER perfect and Horrible Mystery!

    לילית


  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,829
    Quote Originally Posted by SOPHIA-BAPHOMET777 View Post
    Hey Rose!

    I've noticed most fundamentalist/evangelical christian belivers tend to defend their faith by taking one of the following paths:

    ~They formulate or recite some kind of cosmological argument.

    ~They point out the fact that reason-based enterprises such as science (you know, that that "sciency-stuff!" LOL.) can't fully explain the origins, world, morality, and the human condition in general, "and thus, faith (dogma-beLIEf) is required to fill in the gaps."

    ~They maintain that they have had such "meaningful religious-experiences" or "spiritual-trances" (answers to wishes, voices, prayer, miracles, vivid feelings and confirmations of salvation, love and joy etc.) that they could never doubt the existence of a good and loving supernatural "God Being."

    It is "futile to try to object to their physics or to their feelings." While you cannot argue with their "Experiences," you can at least "try to point out that the conclusions and "confirmation-biases" they draw from their experiences "might not be trustworthy"
    Yo! James! Hallowbrewhaha! Glad you came back for a visit!

    Your comment reminds me of this quote from Michale Shermer:
    We form our beliefs for a variety of subjective, personal, emotional, and psychological reasons in the context of environments created by family, friends, colleagues, culture, and society at large; after forming our beliefs we then defend, justify, and rationalize them with a host of intellectual reasons, cogent arguments, and rational explanations. Beliefs come first, explanations for beliefs follow.
    The funny thing about that "sciency stuff" is that it can be verified. That's more than a little different from the "woowoo" religious stuff, wouldn't you say?

    Quote Originally Posted by SOPHIA-BAPHOMET777 View Post
    C. B. is the fallacy that "confirms the success of many prayers and miraculous turns of events." One of the ways in which confirmation-bias " *desensitizes-believers to the problem of real human-suffering* is the causal-link believers create between moral vice and evil.
    Exactly correct. They remember all the "hits" when "God" (i.e. coincidence) answered their prayers and forgot all the misses.

    Quote Originally Posted by SOPHIA-BAPHOMET777 View Post
    God is not at fault for allowing human suffering, "they think," because the suffering so many people face in life is due to their sinful choices!" By selecting and cherry-picking examples from a handful of individuals they know who have suffered because of personal-failures "they can easily avoid considering all the evidence to the contrary." But clearly their reasoning *completely-ignores* the inherently unequal-distribution of health, wealth, capital, and happiness based mainly on biological, geographical, and political-differences, "differences which are factual-conditions that go far more deeper than individual volitional-choice."
    Well stated. They also forget that their "Gospel" is incoherent. Or what? Did a light-cone of death arise from the event of the cruciFiction, where all those who could have heard but didn't believe were instantly condemned, whereas those who were outside that death light-cone (in the "OT" zone) would be saved through some other means that "believing in Jesus"?

    Quote Originally Posted by SOPHIA-BAPHOMET777 View Post
    If "Retribution" is the rationale for suffering, then "the suffering of innocent victims is simply Unjustified." But many believers are in fact "comfortable with this situation!" They are "willing to accept" a world in which innocent-children suffer and "God is not responsible" for immediately interfering and helping them.
    Two words - cognitive dissonance.

    Quote Originally Posted by SOPHIA-BAPHOMET777 View Post
    The first argument believers often give is that "God is like a parent (father) who cannot always intervene else the child will grow up too dependent and needy. God often needs to show "Tough Love!" (That's the same old twisted and trance logic.) Strangely this seems very inconsistent with the popular religious sentiment that being a person of faith means "depending on God for everything." Moreover, this is hardly an analogy that could stand up to any criticism. Suppose a parent allowed their child to run into a busy street leading to the child's immediate death. The parent could be prosecuted for a crime, that is, "held responsible for not acting."
    Exactly correct. Parents who "trust god" for the health of their children end up with dead children and manslaughter convictions.

    Quote Originally Posted by SOPHIA-BAPHOMET777 View Post
    If it became clear that while the parent wanted to help they could not due to a physical barrier (tripping and falling down, for example) then the situation would be accidental, not criminal. But if they could have prevented their child's death- "and did not"- surely we would deem them cruel and evil. This is the point of "Epicurus Dilemma." Either God is not powerful enough to help us, or God is cruel and indifferent to human suffering.
    This exemplifies the fundamental incoherence in the dogma that God is like a parent. No rational and good parent would treat people the way the biblegod treats people. E.g. The Bible says Yahweh killed 70,000 of his own "children" because David took a census that wasn't even prohibited!

    Quote Originally Posted by SOPHIA-BAPHOMET777 View Post
    P.S. BY THE WAY, HOPE YOU ALL HAVE A HAPPY HALLLOWEEN!
    I'm on vacation for the whole week. It's gonna be great!

    Shine on!



    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Tn.
    Posts
    80

    BIBLE BONDAGE!

    Name:  facehugger[1].jpg
Views: 9
Size:  116.9 KB

    Name:  Science_vs_Creationism[1].gif
Views: 9
Size:  61.4 KB


    Mental bondage that comes with religion. Thinking freely feels like breathing freely. And having my freedom of "thought-bound"(religion) is like suffocation.

    It's a whole hott-mess of confusion and such a mind-f**k of bondage. As for me, thankfully I never bought into it...I never drank the Purple Cool-aid! LOL. I can only judge what I read in the Bible about it's "purported God." I simply Report...You Decide.

    And there's is no way to avoid that– anyone who reads and interprets what is written must "judge" the words, to understand what they mean. When I do that, I see that the actions and commands of said Lusty-Warrior God are utterly f'ed-up beyond all recognition. Think of all the Waste of human life and Suffering that caused.

    And for what ultimate purpose? None whatsoever. It's all Nuts- a Nutty-Nutshell! Because when you're a Fundamentalist and Skanky Bible-Whore, God demands that you get it right or there will be hell to pay! Because it's Yahweh's or Highway's!

    An infinite supernatural creator-god simply *Doesn’t Exist!* And cannot because it is "A Contradiction In Terms" to begin with. The absurd idea of an *infinite* theistic Demiurge-God makes absolutely no sense to me. Never has! (CLUE: COGNITIVE-DISSONANCE!)



    It's all a very dangerous form of Pathological or Spiritual-Trance and Cognitive-Bondage. Discarding this Mental Bondage and Straight-Jacket opens the door to a whole new world!
    The Meaning of Life is to Eat the Dam Apple! - "Wisdom comes from asking questions."

    I am the Demon Child of Wisdom and Understanding.
    I am HER tantric monk and SHE my Left-Hand Priestess.
    I perch on HER brink, waiting for a summons from the Queen.
    I dance in response to HER teasing and testing.
    I leap into Her depth, HER perfect and Horrible Mystery!

    לילית


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •