God is a Fake

[jcribb16]

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.

Falcon9, stop the name calling please.  I am not irrational with my discussion with you.  If you want to speak as an adult to an adult, I will do that.  If you wish to keep the name calling going such as what you are doing here, then it is not worth the effort, time, or desire to continue this discussion with you.  And if you are so interested in the meaning of the verse, then please go look it up, read it, and I'll be glad to discuss it with you, as adult to adult.  You have name called one time too many tonight.  Good night.  It's time for me to go for tonight.

[Falconer02]

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 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?

Because any work (ancient or present) that has a major following but also has "Smash babies on rocks!" in it (in ANY context) should be questioned heavily. The fact that you're trying to hide behind biblical history instead of looking at the basic morality of the words used is rather...unsettling. I'd expect this kind of behavior from a Jehovah's Witness, but you? Noooo!

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.

Considering this is one of many terrifying and disgusting verses of the bible, to say that many of the books holding these passages aren't worthy of ridicule is unusual.

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.

That wasn't really my point, and I feel that you're trying to walk around it with 'biblical scholarly' roadblocks. However, to save myself some time and lift this burden you slid my way, I'll present the primary wiki article I found this afternoon for all to read. Looks like it's just a sad and psychotic revenge fantasy aimed at babylonian pricks. However, there seems to be 100 different interpretations from different people all over the net, so....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalm_137

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.

Again, the context does not matter. Writing about smashing babies (fantasy or real) is beyond sick and left for the minds of miserable primitives.

Falcon9, stop the name calling please.

...he's not.

[falcon9]

Falcon9, stop the name calling please. 

The word "irrational" means simply, 'not rational'; it's not "name-calling" if the description acccurately applies.  Just as it's not 'slander' in civil court if the evidence substantiates the claim.
 

I am not irrational with my discussion with you.

Not only does your claim lack evidence but, posts of yours in this thread contradict your claim.  Since you provided the evidence, I'm not quite sure why you'd oppose it.
   

And if you are so interested in the meaning of the verse, then please go look it up, read it, and I'll be glad to discuss it with you, as adult to adult. 

It may surprise you to learn that I had refreshed my memory of it after "Falconer02" posted the reference.  Not only was I aware of the preceding and following 'verses' prior to your mention, I was aware of the context prior to my previous posts in this regard.  I am willing to discuss which scenario or situation can reasonably 'justify' smashing babies against rocks, (even as a parable metaphor).  If you want to discuss that as adults, proceed.  If you want to put some irrational spin on it, proceed.  If you want to duck and run instead, proceed.

[SherylsShado]

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.

@falconer01

Did you read the "Parallel Commentaries" at the bottom of the page (of the link you posted)?  Those notes are there to offer insight.  You've stated before that you've been to church...certainly your pastor never preached a sermon about "smashing babies" or you'd recall it.  Didn't that give you a "heads up" that something about your "interpretation" of that verse was "off"?  

[falcon9]

Did you read the "Parallel Commentaries" at the bottom of the page (of the link you posted)?  Those notes are there to offer insight.

Are you referring to this bit? "This refers to what was not uncommon in ancient warfare, as it is now among savage tribes - the indiscriminate slaughter of those of all ages, and of both sexes, in war. This will certainly occur, for it is foretold, and happy or fortunate will he be who is the instrument in fulfilling it."  

a "heads up" that something about your "interpretation" of that verse was "off"?  

Or, maybe you meant this tidbit: "It is impossible to reconcile such barbarous customs with the idex of "honorable war," or with the principles of war as carried on among "civilized" nations now."

[SherylsShado]

Did you read the "Parallel Commentaries" at the bottom of the page (of the link you posted)?  Those notes are there to offer insight.

Are you referring to this bit? "This refers to what was not uncommon in ancient warfare, as it is now among savage tribes - the indiscriminate slaughter of those of all ages, and of both sexes, in war. This will certainly occur, for it is foretold, and happy or fortunate will he be who is the instrument in fulfilling it."  

a "heads up" that something about your "interpretation" of that verse was "off"?  

Or, maybe you meant this tidbit: "It is impossible to reconcile such barbarous customs with the idex of "honorable war," or with the principles of war as carried on among "civilized" nations now."

I meant ALL of it, not just the "bits & pieces" that you wish to construe together because you think it makes you  look so "smug & smart" (which is having the opposite effect).  No one is capable of debating with someone that can't even read a grade-school paragraph and have no better comprehension skills of it than what you keep exhibiting.  Perhaps instead of trying so hard to keep posting what you hope will be 'flaming' posts, you should try spending that free time studying a history book as well.

Btw, this topic is entitiled "God is fake" NOT "God is real"... 
So since "God is fake"---shouldn't you be working harder showing some evidence of that???

[falcon9]

Did you read the "Parallel Commentaries" at the bottom of the page (of the link you posted)?  Those notes are there to offer insight.

Are you referring to this bit? "This refers to what was not uncommon in ancient warfare, as it is now among savage tribes - the indiscriminate slaughter of those of all ages, and of both sexes, in war. This will certainly occur, for it is foretold, and happy or fortunate will he be who is the instrument in fulfilling it."  

a "heads up" that something about your "interpretation" of that verse was "off"?  

Or, maybe you meant this tidbit: "It is impossible to reconcile such barbarous customs with the idex of "honorable war," or with the principles of war as carried on among "civilized" nations now."

I meant ALL of it, not just the "bits & pieces" that you wish to construe together because you think it makes you  look so "smug & smart" (which is having the opposite effect).  No one is capable of debating with someone that can't even read a grade-school paragraph and have no better comprehension skills of it than what you keep exhibiting.  Perhaps instead of trying so hard to keep posting what you hope will be 'flaming' posts ...

"Flaming posts", like the response you posted above?  Listen, you hypocritical closed-minded fundie, (not much of a "flame" since it's accurate),
I read the whole thing and excerpted what was relavent to the context, (which was the baby-smashing reference from your jumbled 'bible').  You still haven't managed to come up with any 'justifications' for that and instead, prefer attempting to denigrate an opponent in lieu of "debate".  Debate does not consist of ad hominem 'attacks' however, should you wish to continue to engage in them, I assure you that my reading, comprehension and writing skills have exhibited an ability to "flame" you to the same toasted degree as your brain.

... you should try spending that free time studying a history book as well.

Since you're making assumptions, perhaps you should strive for your G.E.D. instead of referring to the 4th grade as your 'senior year'.

Btw, this topic is entitiled "God is fake" NOT "God is real"...  

I'm aware of that.  Are you aware that I wasn't the one who started this thread nor, entitled it?

So since "God is fake"---shouldn't you be working harder showing some evidence of that???

It's unclear whether or not idiocy comes naturally to you or, that you had to work at it.  To reiterate the point for emphasis; I didn't claim that "god is fake" therefore, the burden of proof isn't on me, (that would be upon the OP).  Now, are you claiming that "god is real" or, do you merely choose to believe/have faith in that which has no attributible evidence of being "real"?

[falcon9]

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.

@falconer01

Since you mentioned comprehension skills; his 'nym is "Falconer02", (not '01).  No doubt you'll be able to fabricate some weaseling excuse to explain this.

[SherylsShado]

"Flaming posts", like the response you posted above?  Listen, you hypocritical closed-minded fundie, (not much of a "flame" since it's accurate)

  And name calling again doesn't make you look hypocritical, you hypocritical closed-minded troll?
 

Btw, this topic is entitiled "God is fake" NOT "God is real"...  

I'm aware of that.  Are you aware that I wasn't the one who started this thread nor, entitled it?

Yes I am, hopefully she (OP)  isn't the g-friend you met on-line.  

So since "God is fake"---shouldn't you be working harder showing some evidence of that???

It's unclear whether or not idiocy comes naturally to you or, that you had to work at it.  To reiterate the point for emphasis; I didn't claim that "god is fake" therefore, the burden of proof isn't on me, (that would be upon the OP).  Now, are you claiming that "god is real" or, do you merely choose to believe/have faith in that which isn't "real"?

I never said that you "claimed" God is fake, but apparently you believe so.  You've been posting in a "God is fake" thread.  If you believe God is fake then...yes, the burden of proof rest on you.  (If the topic was "God is real" then it would rest on those that thought so.  You don't get to "have your cake" and eat it too here.  You don't get to say "christians have to prove God is real even if the topic is "God is fake" AND they have to prove God is real if the topic is "God is real".)  How ubsurd!  

Since you mentioned comprehension skills; his 'nym is "Falconer02", (not '01).  No doubt you'll be able to fabricate some weaseling excuse to explain this.

Sorry, my bad falconer02!  1...9--- I  don't know why I keep confusing the ORIGINAL with such a bad-imitation.

[falcon9]

And name calling again doesn't make you look hypocritical, you hypocritical closed-minded troll?

Given the sequence of the replies, that was return fire, you hypocritical fundie troll who initiated this particular 'flaming' exchange.

Btw, this topic is entitiled "God is fake" NOT "God is real"...  

I'm aware of that.  Are you aware that I wasn't the one who started this thread nor, entitled it?

Yes I am, hopefully she isn't the g-friend you met on-line.  

More gossipy nonsense from "Sheryls"; one would 'hope' that "jcribbs16" isn't the lesbian lover you met online.

So since "God is fake"---shouldn't you be working harder showing some evidence of that???

It's unclear whether or not idiocy comes naturally to you or, that you had to work at it.  To reiterate the point for emphasis; I didn't claim that "god is fake" therefore, the burden of proof isn't on me, (that would be upon the OP).  Now, are you claiming that "god is real" or, do you merely choose to believe/have faith in that which isn't "real"?

I never said that you "claimed" God is fake, but apparently you believe so.  You've been posting in a "God is fake" thread.  If you believe God is fake then...yes, the burden of proof rest on you.

You are mistakenly conflating an assumed 'disbelief', (not a "belief"), with a claim.  The two are not equivalent therefore, the burden of proof doesn't apply since I never made the initial claim/contention.  

(If the topic was "God is real" then it would rest on those that thought so.  You don't get to "have your cake" and eat it too here.

Using the illogical line of non-reasoning you've used, the burden of proof is upon those who "believe in god" to provide evidence that what they believe in is "real".  The alternative is that what they profess to believe in has no substantiating evidence to support such 'faith' and therefore, that such 'faith' is irrational.  You aren't permitted to "have your cake and eat it too", fundie.

Since you mentioned comprehension skills; his 'nym is "Falconer02", (not '01).  No doubt you'll be able to fabricate some weaseling excuse to explain this.

Sorry, my bad falconer02!   I don't know why I keep confusing the ORIGINAL with such a bad-imitation.

So, according to your 'response', your diminished reading and comprehension abilities stem from an over-riding preference to denigrate, (rather than from the inability to distinguish a "falconer" from a "falcon" 'nym).

[SherylsShado]

@falcon9 

Just what I expected...the troll gets hopping mad because he knows he's no longer fooling many and he's been called out for what he is.

Since all you have is empty arguments, claims and assertions... unless any of your attribution's are supported by actual evidence, you're free to go back under your bridge.  I won't be wasting any more of my time reading your drooly-written drivel. 
 

[falcon9]

Just what I expected...the troll gets hopping mad because he knows he's no longer fooling many and he's been called out for what he is.

Your specious expectations remain unmet since I am neither "hopping mad" nor, attempting to 'fool' anyone.  As for being "called out", all you've managed to accomplish is an avoidence of the context contended in this thread and some simplistic 'flaming'/trolling in order to 'call me out'.

Since all you have is empty arguments, claims and assertions...

Since you snipped the context replied to in order to simply fabricate a contention of "empty arguments, claims and assertions", no doubt you'll be able to produce some evidence to support these specious contentions of yours.  If not, they are not only specious but, serve to put additional emphasis upon your abysmal 'debating skills'.

...unless any of your attribution's are supported by actual evidence, you're free to go back under your bridge.

I wouldn't want to evict you from your place of residence therefore, either indicate precisely _which_ "attributions" you are vaguely referring to or, resuming trolling me, (while hypocritically claiming that others are "trolls").
  

I won't be wasting any more of my time reading your drooly-written drivel.  
  

Yeah, yeah - anyone reading such "drivel" has seen that false claim from you before.  Apparently, you are confusing your own "drooly-written drivel" with comprehending actual rebuttal, (much like you confused 'nyms recently), and are now directly implying that your post is merely a 'hit-and-run' "flame".

[Falconer02]

Didn't that give you a "heads up" that something about your "interpretation" of that verse was "off"?  

Again, though context is important the majority of the time, the point isn't the context in this case at all. The point is there's a verse talking of smashing babies against rocks and being happy about it. Like the other dispicable verses throughout the book, that's horrible to say in a holy book that people preach no matter the context. An example of what's going on here is we see a man savagely beating a child. You tell me "We need to know why he's beating the child first!" and I'm saying "Sheryl...there's a grown man beating a child." As Falcon has already pointed out, the commentaries on the bottom do support and show the moral problem. And, like I had stated earlier, I have already seen multiple interpretations of this verse so yours may conflict with the others I have read.

So since "God is fake"---shouldn't you be working harder showing some evidence of that???

Well admittedly freethinkers cannot disprove the existence of any god as this would technically be contradictory of our label-- not allowing for the thought of deities existing would shackle that freedom for others. But you must understand that believing in any well-defined deity is on par with believing that...say...there's a dragon god living in my peanut butter jar and he's the reason the sun comes up and why we feel happiness. It's completely ridiculous and irrational, most likely not true, and that's our point. If you wanted to step out of your comfort zone, keep the emotional flak at bay, and wanted to have a rational argument, Falcon9 and I could easily point out that the creation of gods came from things we just didn't understand in the primitive days. It's just bonkers that these ancient beliefs in these angry and nonsensical gods still exist, and that's why we believe your god is a fake (along with the millions of others).

Sorry, my bad falconer02!  1...9--- I  don't know why I keep confusing the ORIGINAL with such a bad-imitation.

I'm really trying not to get involved in the emotional quarrel here-- I'm just trying to rekindle this thread whenever possible and in random ways. Falcon9 and I tend to agree on the majority of issues brought up in debate and discus.. I really don't mind if he answers for me as he sometimes answers quicker and better than I could. Nobody seems to be trolling here (atleast from what I'm used to), but there does seem to be a needless hissy fight that should probably stop.

[falcon9]

Didn't that give you a "heads up" that something about your "interpretation" of that verse was "off"?   

Again, though context is important the majority of the time, the point isn't the context in this case at all. The point is there's a verse talking of smashing babies against rocks and being happy about it. Like the other dispicable verses throughout the book, that's horrible to say in a holy book that people preach no matter the context. An example of what's going on here is we see a man savagely beating a child. You tell me "We need to know why he's beating the child first!" and I'm saying "Sheryl...there's a grown man beating a child." As Falcon has already pointed out, the commentaries on the bottom do support and show the moral problem. And, like I had stated earlier, I have already seen multiple interpretations of this verse so yours may conflict with the others I have read.

So, since at least a few of us have read the context of the situation, I remain as curious about any justifications for smashing babies against rocks as you seem to be, (as well as being mildly curious why this point has not been answered by the proponents of such baby-smashing).

So since "God is fake"---shouldn't you be working harder showing some evidence of that???

Well admittedly freethinkers cannot disprove the existence of any god as this would technically be contradictory of our label-- not allowing for the thought of deities existing would shackle that freedom for others. But you must understand that believing in any well-defined deity is on par with believing that...say...there's a dragon god living in my peanut butter jar and he's the reason the sun comes up and why we feel happiness. It's completely ridiculous and irrational, most likely not true, and that's our point. If you wanted to step out of your comfort zone, keep the emotional flak at bay, and wanted to have a rational argument, Falcon9 and I could easily point out that the creation of gods came from things we just didn't understand in the primitive days. It's just bonkers that these ancient beliefs in these angry and nonsensicle gods still exist, and that's why we believe your god is a fake (along with the millions of others).

Not to put too fine a point on your point; you could no doubt examine your peanut butter jar to try and determine whether or not such a dragon god exists in there.  If you cannot find one, it would be irrational to assume that it must be invisible rather than to just report that the Skippy is dragonless.

Sorry, my bad falconer02!  1...9--- I  don't know why I keep confusing the ORIGINAL with such a bad-imitation.

I'm really trying not to get involved in the emotional quarrel here-- I'm just trying to rekindle this thread whenever possible and in random ways. Falcon9 and I tend to agree on the majority of issues brought up in debate and discuss.. I really don't mind if he answers for me as he sometimes answers quicker and better than I could. Nobody seems to be trolling here (atleast from what I'm used to), but there does seem to be a needless hissy fight that should probably stop.

While I endeavor to speak from my own point of view and not that of others, I agree that different people can hold similar views and appreciate your remarks.  As for any "hissy fits", I see those as emanating initially from a few religious adherents, (and subsequent responses to those are likely not superficially-productive).  Such provocations as randomly designating others as "trolls" may be a time-honored cheap trick more often employed by trolls themselves however, in over a decade of dealing with actual trolls, I find that feeding them that which they cannot digest, (invalidating their premises), tends to starve them.

[batmobile]

 

I really am realizing that God is a fake but I could create my own like a God is general that keeps everything in balance but not a personal Savior type of God.

What God do you believe in?

there is only one god and im pretty sure is real