God is a Fake

[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.

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.

I said nothing of you quoting quotes from other threads.  I said I did not wish to quote the quotes from other threads and bring them in here.  They have nothing to do with this thread anyway.  Thank you.

[healthfreedom]

God can be many things to many people, but, he is just as real as the air we breathe. Only the pure in heart shall see God and live with him forever.

[falcon9]

God can be many things to many people, but, he is just as real as the air we breathe.

The cognizant difference being that air has the advantage of evidence of existance, where is the evidence to support your claim?
 

Only the pure in heart shall see God and live with him forever.

The phrase "pure in heart" is either inherently biased toward religious faith or, implicitly means that blind faith is a prerequisite for such wishful-thinking.

[falcon9]

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

Although you've indicated the 'hit-and-run' nature of your rant, the aspect of metaphorical 'dissection' was worth commenting upon.  If you didn't expect your arbitrary comments to be 'dissected', why would you leave them lying naked on the autopsy table, awaiting a determination of the cause of death?

[jcribb16]

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

Although you've indicated the 'hit-and-run' nature of your rant, the aspect of metaphorical 'dissection' was worth commenting upon.  If you didn't expect your arbitrary comments to be 'dissected', why would you leave them lying naked on the autopsy table, awaiting a determination of the cause of death?

Probably because if she didn't go ahead and acknowledge dissection, you would have done it anyway.

[falcon9]

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

Although you've indicated the 'hit-and-run' nature of your rant, the aspect of metaphorical 'dissection' was worth commenting upon.  If you didn't expect your arbitrary comments to be 'dissected', why would you leave them lying naked on the autopsy table, awaiting a determination of the cause of death?

Probably because if she didn't go ahead and acknowledge dissection, you would have done it anyway.

Whether or not it was acknowledged had no impact on arbitrary comments left lying naked on the autopsy table, awaiting a determination of the cause of death.

[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.

While the context appears to be some rambling religious attempt to justify smashing babies against rocks, I'd be curious to see how such religious adherents who believe in these strictures can 'justify' that practice under Any circumstances.  Inverting the premise; how would they feel if the practice were reversed and it was xtian-produced babies?

[Falconer02]

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.

No need to talk about a book that you adhere to having such a horrendously abominable verse in it? Because there's many others that could easily be cited if you'd like to skip the sick and immature revenge/getting-even fantasy here.

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.

So here we have freethinkers willing to discuss, listen, educate, and be skeptical of supernatural claims, and then we have the religious who simply fold their arms and say "Learn it yourself!" while focusing more on typing like angry 13 year olds.

While the context appears to be some rambling religious attempt to justify smashing babies against rocks, I'd be curious to see how such religious adherents who belief in these strictures can 'justify' that practice under Any circumstances.

Precisely!

[jcribb16]

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.

No need to talk about a book that you adhere to having such a horrendously abominable verse in it? Because there's many others that could easily be cited if you'd like to skip the sick and immature revenge/getting-even fantasy here.

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.

So here we have freethinkers willing to discuss, listen, educate, and be skeptical of supernatural claims, and then we have the religious who simply fold their arms and say "Learn it yourself!" while focusing more on typing like angry 13 year olds.

While the context appears to be some rambling religious attempt to justify smashing babies against rocks, I'd be curious to see how such religious adherents who belief in these strictures can 'justify' that practice under Any circumstances.

Precisely!

You are the one who quoted it without the facts behind that verse.  You are the one who should go back and learn the background of what it's about instead of putting forth quotes that sound ugly and don't follow through with the correct context.   I already know what it means and I'm not folding my arms for you or anyone.  I challenged you to go back and read the history behind that verse.  If you aren't a believer, then why would you want to quote from a book that you say isn't true in the first place?  That's apparently one reason you don't know the history behind the verse, and apparently don't want to, but instead just use the Bible as a mockery.

[falcon9]

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.

No need to talk about a book that you adhere to having such a horrendously abominable verse in it? Because there's many others that could easily be cited if you'd like to skip the sick and immature revenge/getting-even fantasy here.

The interpretation may be mistaken however, haven't a number of religious adherents given the direct impression that such 'matters of faith' aren't up for debate, discussion, dissent or requiring any justification which has veracity?

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.

So here we have freethinkers willing to discuss, listen, educate, and be skeptical of supernatural claims, and then we have the religious who simply fold their arms and say "Learn it yourself!" while focusing more on typing like angry 13 year olds.

Additionally, several of those religious adherents appear to feel, (based upon the content of several of their posts), that discussing such 'matters of faith' should somehow preclude the ability to reason.  In lieu of actual rebuttal & debate, they throw tantrums.

While the context appears to be some rambling religious attempt to justify smashing babies against rocks, I'd be curious to see how such religious adherents who believe in these strictures can 'justify' that practice under Any circumstances.

Precisely!

Although I'm not particularly lacking in imagination, I remain unable to envision any scenario or circumstances in which it's okay to smash babies against rocks just because someone else imagined a vengeful 'deity' allegedly told them to.

[falcon9]

You are the one who should go back and learn the background of what it's about instead of putting forth quotes that sound ugly and don't follow through with the correct context.

In this particular instance, I challenge anyone to come up with any justification for smashing babies against rocks - no matter what the context.

I already know what it means and I'm not folding my arms for you or anyone.  

If you're "not folding your arms", (that is, claiming to know what some biblical parable means in the context of smashing babies against rocks), perhaps you'll give your interpretation.  If not, you won't.

[jcribb16]

You are the one who should go back and learn the background of what it's about instead of putting forth quotes that sound ugly and don't follow through with the correct context.

In this particular instance, I challenge anyone to come up with any justification for smashing babies against rocks - no matter what the context.

I already know what it means and I'm not folding my arms for you or anyone.  

If you're "not folding your arms", (that is, claiming to know what some biblical parable means in the context of smashing babies against rocks), perhaps you'll give your interpretation.  If not, you won't.

Falconer put it out there for spite against God.  I challenged him to go back and read the history behind what the quote meant.  The burden is on him at this point.  Nice try.

[falcon9]

Falconer put it out there for spite against God. 

Somehow, I doubt the reason was as simple as that.  I read his post, (which can only be loosely 'interpreted' as 'spiteful' from a biased xtian point of view), and replied, inquiring as to whether there _any_ reasonable justification for smashing babies against rocks, no matter what the context was.

I challenged him to go back and read the history behind what the quote meant.  The burden is on him at this point.  Nice try.

Such a burden, (as in trying to have a rational discussion with religious adherents), is quite different than the 'burden of proof'.  That is, "Falconer02" posted an excerpted biblical reference and quoted it.  Although different variations of different bibles for that 'verse' exist in print, the same message was conveyed - baby-smashing.  Unless you can come up with some context where such a practice is remotely acceptable, going back and reading that dubious source isn't going to provide an acceptable context to those who aren't of that irrational 'faith'.

[jcribb16]

Falconer put it out there for spite against God. 

Somehow, I doubt the reason was as simple as that.  I read his post, (which can only be loosely 'interpreted' as 'spiteful' from a biased xtian point of view), and replied, inquiring as to whether there _any_ reasonable justification for smashing babies against rocks, no matter what the context was.

I challenged him to go back and read the history behind what the quote meant.  The burden is on him at this point.  Nice try.

Such a burden, (as in trying to have a rational discussion with religious adherents), is quite different than the 'burden of proof'.  That is, "Falconer02" posted an excerpted biblical reference and quoted it.  Although different variations of different bibles for that 'verse' exist in print, the same message was conveyed - baby-smashing.  Unless you can come up with some context where such a practice is remotely acceptable, going back and reading that dubious source isn't going to provide an acceptable context to those who aren't of that irrational 'faith'.

Can't handle then, can you (or him.)  He puts a verse out there without including all the verses regarding the whole situation.  He's the one who needs to go back and clarify just exactly what it means.  I said I will be glad to discuss it when he goes back and learns of the situation behind the verse.  Nice try, again.

[falcon9]

Can't handle then, can you (or him.)

Can't handle what, your irrationality?  It isn't that difficult, being of a fairly simplistic nature. 

He puts a verse out there without including all the verses regarding the whole situation. 

Can't expect someone to quote a whole bunch of 'verses' surrounding the one which mentions the contextual point, (baby-smashing), unless you're implying that doing so will provide a reasonably acceptable context for the baby-smashing.
 

He's the one who needs to go back and clarify just exactly what it means. 

Sure, he can do that and since this isn't an attempt to speak for him, (unlike imputing 'spiteful' intentions), I agree.
 

I said I will be glad to discuss it when he goes back and learns of the situation behind the verse.  Nice try, again.

Okay, so you are indirectly implying that there is some background situation which makes baby-smashing acceptable.  Like I stated before, I'd be curious to learn how such a situation can reasonably justify smashing babies against rocks.