God is a Fake

[loulizlee]

Yes, I have noticed these ideas being seeped into other threads.  And, btw, falcon9, how do you know I am a fundie (fundamentalist)?  The fact is, I am not. 

[jcribb16]

Exactly.  Many enjoy taking verses out of context, without the full event or story, and twist them to meet their agenda of making God look horrible (even though they don't believe there is God.)

 @ jcribb & newbies:

  You know why, right?  
  The whole agenda behind "d&d" is for trolls to lure in believers on the premise that they are "searching for the truth", while they do what they can to try and provoke believers to insult them, lose their temper, get them to do anything that is not "Christ-like" so they can get their "kicks".  
  
They freely indulge in reusing the same words of their opponents and in turning those words against them.  They always will sound as if it is the responsibility of believers to provide evidence that what the forum is all about is legitimate because they have no evidence of their own.  
 
 D&D is where trolls LOVE to post conflicting information, question believers in an insincere manner, start flaming discussions, try to turn people against each other, "innocently" harass forum members that don't agree with them, and not have to worry much about warnings from Admin.

If you've noticed, they even freely take the negative emotions they've tried to stir up on some threads and carry them into other threads trying to "keep the drama going" in any possible way that they can.  

Their true aganda is to find the believers that are "new", the ones that aren't grounded in the "Word" like you & I.  If they can get them to question their beliefs...and with them not being grounded in the "Word", they will begin to have doubts.  If they don't get the answers in time, they may have reason to abandon their faith, abandon God.  

Many have wondered why people that don't believe in God would spend so much time in  "religious" discussions conversing with believers,  when they consider them to be 'lunatics'.  It's because they are "preying".

Consider their agenda before wasting much more of life's valuable time in d&d.

Dissect away "falcon9-troll", I've got better things to do with my time today!!

Well spoken, Sheryl.  What concerns me, is that even though many on here are strangers, some of them post, particularly in the religious threads, joyfully or innocently about God, their views or beliefs, prayer requests, thanks for prayers, what God has done for them, etc., only to be "preyed" (like you said) by certain ones who have no care whatsoever for what the others are asking.  This is an open forum, true, but there are many threads that can be ignored, instead of going in and causing trouble for ones asking for prayer.  That is exactly what Satan desires to try and get the ones asking or giving prayer riled up. 

I can see coming in threads that are specifically aimed for debates, arguments, disagreeable opinions, etc., but not in ones to stir up anger and get people really upset or feelings hurt that have never had "preyers" of this type pick at them like that.  It's a simple matter of respect and courtesy for their beliefs and of them asking prayers from anyone in the forum who does pray.

I love a good debate when it's done as a debate should be done.  The constant unaccepting of one side over the other, with the same "baseless" and "empty" words is not giving even the least bit of courtesy to the other side.  It doesn't matter, to only a certain few and not all, what the other side provides, including what professors, teachers, scientists have to say or show, it's unaccepted, based on their views only, even when some of their views are not totally verified by evidence, because they say so and that's that.  Unfortunately, that is not that, at all. 

They (only a certain few) need to start providing more proof for theories that aren't totally or at all verified, and have the burden on them to prove there is no God, instead of the other way around.  But, sadly, those certain ones will refuse to do this and lay the burden back on the other side.  However, it's obvious those certain ones can't provide proof, because they refuse to see what's in front of them and around them, and take the step of faith (some don't like this word), so they don't or can't understand the proof.

Then there are some who say they experienced salvation through Christ.  Yet do not accept Him now.  I will say that in my opinion (so I don't get called on for saying that this is fact) that if someone were really saved and has met Christ and has seen God's creation and prayers answered (in one way or another), then how in the world could that someone turn their back on God.  Or was it just a feeling and not true salvation.  I can't answer that honestly because no one knows what's in someone's thoughts and in their hearts.  I just know for myself, now that I've accepted Christ, I could never turn on Him. 

And this is when the respect of other people's choices comes in - to accept their choice and not bash the person for their choice and then continue to demand such "proof," to the point of badgering posters.  That part is wrong and disrespectful.  Adults should be able to be mature enough about things in here, to know when something should be said or when it shouldn't, with regards to the topic and what the person is asking or stating.

[Falconer02]

Typical to post a Bible verse out of context without the full story of what the verse means.

That is not according to my Bible but rather according to your total lack of understanding of the Bible.

Exactly.  Many enjoy taking verses out of context, without the full event or story, and twist them to meet their agenda of making God look horrible (even though they don't believe there is God.)

http://bible.cc/psalms/137-9.htm

According to the large majority of the versions, it seems to be worded fairly accurately. If it's taken out of context, certainly you'd be interested in discussing why a verse talking about smashing babies against rocks and it being "divine justice" is in a holy book that you preach with? Because you may think it's quite typical of freethinkers to take things out of context, but yet here's this verse talking about killing babies. Try to be intellectually honest without putting a blind faith argument forward.

[duroz]

You and duroz; you and Falconer; were also "gossiping."

You tell me or show me ANY posts where I was gossiping.... ....posts I made were made directly in response TO the (a) poster, I did NOT talk ABOUT somebody else.

I requested some evidence too, (in the form of message ID'd quoted posts), however, am disinclined to hold my breath awaiting such proof to the claim.

Hmmm.....I'm still not seeing any posts by anyone that back up the statement claiming I was gossiping...

[falcon9]

The whole agenda behind "d&d" is for trolls to lure in believers on the premise that they are "searching for the truth", while they do what they can to try and provoke believers to insult them, lose their temper, get them to do anything that is not "Christ-like" so they can get their "kicks".

Conversely, the "agenda" on my part is and has been to challenge the unsupported declarations of religious "trolls" whose "agenda" appears to consist of trolling the forums with empty assertions, (essentially, opinions sans evidence).  It isn't productive to speculate about possible motivations for them doing so, other than the apparently common one of expressing such "beliefs" as (empty) opinions which somehow are 'immune' to questioning.
  

They freely indulge in reusing the same words of their opponents and in turning those words against them.

They always will sound as if it is the responsibility of believers to provide evidence that what the forum is all about is legitimate because they have no evidence of their own.  

It is the responsibility of the claimant to provide evidence to support their claims, (not to shift the burden of proof onto those who challenge the veracity of such claims).  Requesting 'proof' that something doesn't exist is a logical fallacy and such requests most often originate from those who have no understanding of reasoning, (and are actively eschewing it).  Religious adherents who make initial claims concerning their religious beliefs are engaging in such attempts to shift the burden of proof because they have never been able to provide accurately-attributible evidence to support their claims.  That's what makes their claims empty, nothing else.

 

D&D is where trolls LOVE to post conflicting information ...

First, designating those who question empty religious claims as "trolls" is extremely disengenuous, (e.g., an out and out lie).  Secondly, to what "conflicting information" do you refer?  While there is no expectation of an answer which would substantiate such an accusation, the question is asked to emphasize the tendency religious adherents demonstrate for making baseless assertions and then failing to support those with substantiating evidence, (e.g., making false claims).  This is, in fact, a characteristic of actual "trolls"; posting such 'hit-and-run' inflamatory accusations sans evidence.

 

question believers in an insincere manner ...

How is sincerity being determined, (other than by unsupported opinion)?  A counter-assertion is that the questioning is 'sincere' until proven otherwise so, if there is evidence of insincerity, post it.  If not, the accusation cannot be justified by evidence and the default conclusion is that it is false.

start flaming discussions, try to turn people against each other...

This is simply not true; the vast majority of such discussions have been begun by the religious adherents complaining when their baseless declarations are questioned.  Questioning baseless declarations is not "flaming", "flaming" consists of the name-calling which a number of religious adherents have engaged in when questioned.  Evidence, (including message IDs), is available to support this contention however, when faced with such evidence as contradicts their declarations of "faith", these same religious adherents start posting more irrational nonsense instead, (such as this particular post by "Sheryls", which consists almost entirely of a 'trolling' post under the actual definition of "trolling").
 

"innocently" harass forum members that don't agree with them, and not have to worry much about warnings from Admin.

No doubt falsely characterizing the challenging and questioning of 'blind faith' is inaccurately considered as 'harassing' by those religious adherents who unreasonably feel that their empty beliefs are someone immune from questioning.  They are not; especially when evangelized in a public forum, (and most especially when publically-posted in the D+D subforum).

If you've noticed, they even freely take the negative emotions they've tried to stir up on some threads and carry them into other threads trying to "keep the drama going" in any possible way that they can.

 
Any "negative emotions" extant belong solely to those claiming to have them.  Such constitutes a 'false martyr' position where merely questioning is considered to be 'persecution'.  As far as carrying discussions into other threads, there is evidence of some religious adherents doing so and of replies to such "drama" subsequently following.  That means such instances of "drama" can be shown to be propagated by all participating parties.

Their true aganda is to find the believers that are "new", the ones that aren't grounded in the "Word" ...

Conversely, there is no such "agenda", (despite such unsupported accusations), and the objective, (at least stemming from my own intentions), is one of questioning empty assertions - religious or otherwise.   

If they can get them to question their beliefs...and with them not being grounded in the "Word", they will begin to have doubts.  If they don't get the answers in time, they may have reason to abandon their faith, abandon God.  

By not questioning one's "beliefs", one avoids considering whether such really are merely 'convictions' and 'opinions' which lack substantiation, (and this is, in fact, what "faith" is - simply a conviction regarding what is 'belived in', sans evidence).  Conversely, by questioning such empty convictions, one takes the first steps in moving away from self-delusions, (no matter how comforting an illusion such appears to provide, without the actual substance).  Given the overwhelming evidence of the harm such religious self-delusions can cause, (millennia of deaths and suppresion of reason, etc.), which is laid directly at the feet of specious religious 'beliefs', questioning them is more prudent than simply accepting them on blind faith.

Many have wondered why people that don't believe in God would spend so much time in  "religious" discussions conversing with believers,  when they consider them to be 'lunatics'.  It's because they are "preying".

No, it is because questioning irrational blind faith can sometimes prevent others from falling into the same self-delusional trap as the religious adherents are clinging desparately to.  These same religious adherents are "preying" on the insecurities, desparations, gullibility and unwillingness to accept personal responsibility of others to blindly accept irrational religious beliefs.

Consider their agenda before wasting much more of life's valuable time in d&d.
Dissect away "falcon9-troll", I've got better things to do with my time today!!

Indeed, no doubt you "feel better" having posted a pack of 'trolling' lies in a hit-and-run manner, (there being little expectation of a significant response to the refutations of your rant).

[jcribb16]

Typical to post a Bible verse out of context without the full story of what the verse means.

That is not according to my Bible but rather according to your total lack of understanding of the Bible.

Exactly.  Many enjoy taking verses out of context, without the full event or story, and twist them to meet their agenda of making God look horrible (even though they don't believe there is God.)

http://bible.cc/psalms/137-9.htm

According to the large majority of the versions, it seems to be worded fairly accurately. If it's taken out of context, certainly you'd be interested in discussing why a verse talking about smashing babies against rocks and it being "divine justice" is in a holy book that you preach with? Because you may think it's quite typical of freethinkers to take things out of context, but yet here's this verse talking about killing babies. Try to be intellectually honest without putting a blind faith argument forward.

Until you go back and read the background of what was happening, and what the verse meant, in regards to the battle, then there's no need to talk about it.  If you don't want to do it, that's your decision.  However, you quoted it.  You are an adult and can research the events around that verse.   So don't be telling me to try and be intellectually honest without putting a blind faith argument forward.  Look it up yourself.  Then I'll be willing to discuss it.

[falcon9]

What concerns me, is that even though many on here are strangers, some of them post, particularly in the religious threads, joyfully or innocently about God, their views or beliefs, prayer requests, thanks for prayers, what God has done for them, etc.

Such is essentially 'evangelicizing' and what gives religious adherents the impression of an unreasonable expectation that opposing 'opinions' cannot be posted in return?  These are discussion forums, not unopposed declaration forums. If religious adherents are freely able to evangelicize, then dissenting points of view have just as much freedom to dissent.  

This is an open forum, true, but there are many threads that can be ignored, instead of going in and causing trouble for ones asking for prayer. 

Some threads are ignored, some get responded to.  The suggestion of ignoring certain subject matter so as to not upset the delicate constitutions of those having blind faith is a suggestion to impose censorship on dissent by characterizing dissent, (in the form of challenging empty convictions/declaraction of such convictions), as "causing trouble".  Such an implicit suggestion is hypocritical in that the empty declarations which religious adherents make are somehow seen, (by them), as not "causing trouble".  The fact of the matter is that initiating a contentious post, (and there is little doubt that religious convictions are contentious by nature), religious adherents are "causing trouble" and then blaming any ensuing contentions on those who question their 'faith'.  And that, my friends, is a load of passive-aggressive crap.
 

That is exactly what Satan desires to try and get the ones asking or giving prayer riled up.

There are three inherent assumptions being made in that speculation.  The first being an unsupported opinion of what some hypothetical  being "desires".  The second being an implicit assumption that such an hypothetical being actually exists, (sans accurately-attributed evidence).  The third consists of speculations regarding a hypothetical being's motivations/intentions.

I can see coming in threads that are specifically aimed for debates, arguments, disagreeable opinions, etc., but not in ones ...

Again, the suggestion to limit or restrict dissent to specific forums while 'permitting' religious adherents to evangelicize in any forum or thread is entirely a one-sided and censoring one.

It's a simple matter of respect and courtesy for their beliefs and of them asking prayers from anyone in the forum who does pray.

If religious adherents are 'free' to post their empty convictions, so too are those who propose alternatives to empty faith as 'free' to post such alternatives.  It's a two-way street, not a one-way 'my way or the highway' situation.

I love a good debate when it's done as a debate should be done.

Numerous posts contradicting your assertion have been made.  What you are convertly declaring is that you prefer a debate which adheres to your personal restrictive preferences, (which appear to include not having your unsupported declarations questioned, being under no particular obligation to back up empty opinions and attempting to shift the burden of providing evidence of a negative proposition onto opponents).  Evidence supporting such contentions is provided by your own posted words, (an example immediately follows).

The constant unaccepting of one side over the other, with the same "baseless" and "empty" words is not giving even the least bit of courtesy to the other side. 

Thank you for providing this current example of your restrictively unreasonable concept of "debate".  To wit; there is no inherent requirement to simply accept, (on "faith"?), some randomly-declared religious conviction without evidence.  Further, there is no requirement to avoid questioning such unsupported 'opinions' on the basis of "courtesy" since attempting to suppress dissent in that manner can be deemed as discourteous at miniumum, (and as objectionable as religious adherents deem dissenting views to be).

It doesn't matter, to only a certain few and not all, what the other side provides, including what professors, teachers, scientists have to say or show, it's unaccepted, based on their views only, even when some of their views are not totally verified by evidence, because they say so and that's that.  Unfortunately, that is not that, at all. 

Dissenting views are made by people; just as empty religious declarations are made by other people.  The difference between an 'opinion' which lacks supporting evidence and one which has supporting evidence is nominally revealed by reasoning.  Unfortunately, religious convictions tend to avoid employing reasoning at all costs and instead, simply insist that "faith" be accepted as a 'matter of faith', (which would be irrational non-reasoning).

...have the burden on them to prove there is no God, instead of the other way around.  But, sadly, those certain ones will refuse to do this and lay the burden back on the other side. 

"Sadly", that's not how the burden of proof works.  It is up to those who claim that "there is a god" to provide evidence to support their claim.  It is not incumbent upon those requesting such evidence to provide evidence that something doesn't exist.  Such an insistance would be a logical fallacy, (since going around proving an infinite number of things _don't_ exist is making the burden unreasonably onerous and an irrational demand).  Conversely, such attempts to shift the burden of proof away from those making claims is disengenuous.

However, it's obvious those certain ones can't provide proof, because they refuse to see what's in front of them and around them, and take the step of faith (some don't like this word), so they don't or can't understand the proof.

There is no reason to attribute "what's in front ... and around" to hypothetical supernatural beings and such random attributions do not constitute evidence, (since one could equally attribute 'the extant universe' to invisible pink unicorns with the same lack of connecting evidence).

And this is when the respect of other people's choices comes in - to accept their choice and not bash the person for their choice and then continue to demand such "proof," to the point of badgering posters.  That part is wrong and disrespectful. 

If so, it is equally as "wrong and disrepectful" of dissenting arguments to not only deem them as being 'bashing', "wrong and disrespectful" or "badgering" but, to somehow expect empty declarations of 'faith' posted on a public forum to be unopposed by those who do not hold such blind faith. It should cease to amaze how such one-sided implicit suggestions of censorship under the guise of "respect" or 'politeness' are not seen as hypocritical. Summarily, if religious adherents can interject such empty declarations of 'faith' without backing such opinions up, so too can dissenting points of view and questioning such premises be expressed without being considered to be "wrong and disrespectful" or "badgering"
by religious adherents.  As much as you would like to, you cannot suppress dissent by characterizing it as being 'rude'.

[jcribb16]

You and duroz; you and Falconer; were also "gossiping."

You tell me or show me ANY posts where I was gossiping.... ....posts I made were made directly in response TO the (a) poster, I did NOT talk ABOUT somebody else.

I requested some evidence too, (in the form of message ID'd quoted posts), however, am disinclined to hold my breath awaiting such proof to the claim.

Hmmm.....I'm still not seeing any posts by anyone that back up the statement claiming I was gossiping...

I posted the one in this thread between Falcon9 and Falconer.  I'm not going to quote quotes from a different thread and bring it in here.  I don't really have anything more to say to you anyway since you don't care to speak about the topic at hand.  I don't have time for snide remarks, and made-up rewards, just to come off of the topic.  Have a nice day.

[falcon9]

Typical to post a Bible verse out of context without the full story of what the verse means.

That is not according to my Bible but rather according to your total lack of understanding of the Bible.

Exactly.  Many enjoy taking verses out of context, without the full event or story, and twist them to meet their agenda of making God look horrible (even though they don't believe there is God.)

http://bible.cc/psalms/137-9.htm

According to the large majority of the versions, it seems to be worded fairly accurately. If it's taken out of context, certainly you'd be interested in discussing why a verse talking about smashing babies against rocks and it being "divine justice" is in a holy book that you preach with? Because you may think it's quite typical of freethinkers to take things out of context, but yet here's this verse talking about killing babies. Try to be intellectually honest without putting a blind faith argument forward.

Until you go back and read the background of what was happening, and what the verse meant, in regards to the battle, then there's no need to talk about it.  If you don't want to do it, that's your decision.  However, you quoted it.  You are an adult and can research the events around that verse.   So don't be telling me to try and be intellectually honest without putting a blind faith argument forward.  Look it up yourself.  Then I'll be willing to discuss it.

You're replying to "Falconer02" above, as indicated by your quoting his response here, ("quote author=Falconer02 link=topic=26632.msg502719#msg502719 date=1331317763").  See, this is why a point was made concerning attributions and 'nyms.

[falcon9]

 

You and duroz; you and Falconer; were also "gossiping."

You tell me or show me ANY posts where I was gossiping.... ....posts I made were made directly in response TO the (a) poster, I did NOT talk ABOUT somebody else.

I requested some evidence too, (in the form of message ID'd quoted posts), however, am disinclined to hold my breath awaiting such proof to the claim.

Hmmm.....I'm still not seeing any posts by anyone that back up the statement claiming I was gossiping...

I posted the one in this thread between Falcon9 and Falconer.  I'm not going to quote quotes from a different thread and bring it in here. 

No, you reposted, (quoted), out of context comments while omitting the intervening remarks which those comments were in reply to.  Further, the quoted comments did not take the form of "gossip" under the definition of that term nor did they provide evidence to support the claim that "duroz" was "gossiping".

[falcon9]

Yes, I have noticed these ideas being seeped into other threads. 

Any 'seepage' is the direct result of various religious adherents' insistance upon interjecting these religious "ideas" into various other trheads.

And, btw, falcon9, how do you know I am a fundie (fundamentalist)?  The fact is, I am not. 

Your simple denial in the face of evidence you posted which contradicts your denial.  That evidence consists of posts you made which adhere to unsubstantiated religious doctrines, beliefs and faith. Fundamentalism is the strict adherence to specific theological doctrines, combined with a vigorous attack on outside threats to their religious beliefs.

[jcribb16]

Typical to post a Bible verse out of context without the full story of what the verse means.

That is not according to my Bible but rather according to your total lack of understanding of the Bible.

Exactly.  Many enjoy taking verses out of context, without the full event or story, and twist them to meet their agenda of making God look horrible (even though they don't believe there is God.)

http://bible.cc/psalms/137-9.htm

According to the large majority of the versions, it seems to be worded fairly accurately. If it's taken out of context, certainly you'd be interested in discussing why a verse talking about smashing babies against rocks and it being "divine justice" is in a holy book that you preach with? Because you may think it's quite typical of freethinkers to take things out of context, but yet here's this verse talking about killing babies. Try to be intellectually honest without putting a blind faith argument forward.

Until you go back and read the background of what was happening, and what the verse meant, in regards to the battle, then there's no need to talk about it.  If you don't want to do it, that's your decision.  However, you quoted it.  You are an adult and can research the events around that verse.   So don't be telling me to try and be intellectually honest without putting a blind faith argument forward.  Look it up yourself.  Then I'll be willing to discuss it.

You're replying to "Falconer02" above, as indicated by your quoting his response here, ("quote author=Falconer02 link=topic=26632.msg502719#msg502719 date=1331317763").  See, this is why a point was made concerning attributions and 'nyms.

WHAT are you talking about??

[jcribb16]

You and duroz; you and Falconer; were also "gossiping."

You tell me or show me ANY posts where I was gossiping.... ....posts I made were made directly in response TO the (a) poster, I did NOT talk ABOUT somebody else.

I requested some evidence too, (in the form of message ID'd quoted posts), however, am disinclined to hold my breath awaiting such proof to the claim.

Hmmm.....I'm still not seeing any posts by anyone that back up the statement claiming I was gossiping...

I posted the one in this thread between Falcon9 and Falconer.  I'm not going to quote quotes from a different thread and bring it in here. 

No, you reposted, (quoted), out of context comments while omitting the intervening remarks which those comments were in reply to.  Further, the quoted comments did not take the form of "gossip" under the definition of that term nor did they provide evidence to support the claim that "duroz" was "gossiping".

That's your opinion.

[duroz]

You and duroz; you and Falconer; were also "gossiping."

You tell me or show me ANY posts where I was gossiping.... ....posts I made were made directly in response TO the (a) poster, I did NOT talk ABOUT somebody else.

I requested some evidence too, (in the form of message ID'd quoted posts), however, am disinclined to hold my breath awaiting such proof to the claim.

Hmmm.....I'm still not seeing any posts by anyone that back up the statement claiming I was gossiping...

I posted the one in this thread between Falcon9 and Falconer.  I'm not going to quote quotes from a different thread and bring it in here.  I don't really have anything more to say to you anyway since you don't care to speak about the topic at hand.  I don't have time for snide remarks, and made-up rewards, just to come off of the topic.  Have a nice day.

I did NOT quote quotes from a different thread, if that's what you're saying. The entire quoted section of my post was from this thread, so don't even imply that I did this.

So now you've posted that:

• I am gossiping in threads
  
• I am quoting quotes from other threads.

That's REALLY nice!

Especially as NEITHER is true.

[falcon9]

You and duroz; you and Falconer; were also "gossiping."

You tell me or show me ANY posts where I was gossiping.... ....posts I made were made directly in response TO the (a) poster, I did NOT talk ABOUT somebody else.

I requested some evidence too, (in the form of message ID'd quoted posts), however, am disinclined to hold my breath awaiting such proof to the claim.

Hmmm.....I'm still not seeing any posts by anyone that back up the statement claiming I was gossiping...

I posted the one in this thread between Falcon9 and Falconer.  I'm not going to quote quotes from a different thread and bring it in here. 

No, you reposted, (quoted), out of context comments while omitting the intervening remarks which those comments were in reply to.  Further, the quoted comments did not take the form of "gossip" under the definition of that term nor did they provide evidence to support the claim that "duroz" was "gossiping".

That's your opinion.

Except that it's based upon factual evidence, unlike your "opinion".