[Tj3]

I'm not going to read that, i don't believe god wrote the bible.

Whether you believe it or not does not change reality.

I just believe there is someone up there looking down on me, etc.

What do you base that belief upon?

all right, i don't like the fact that you're killing something that can become a life... but still...

You cannot kill someone unless it is alive! And yes, a fetus is alive. It needs and takes in nourishment, it grows, it has living tissue...

think about it, if you are in NO shape at all to have a baby, and you have no money or whatever... how could you have a baby? Having a baby should be a beautiful thing, you should be prepared. & if you're in 8th grade and pregnant, what in the world will you DOOOO?

You can ask a thousand questions, but it wont; change anything. But be careful of the questions that you ask. The last country to promote abortion before the current rush to kill babies was Nazi Germany. They killed unwanted babies, and then thought that the mentally impaired were a burden on society, and they would be better off dead, so they killed them, and then identified other groups that were not convenient to have around, until they got to the Jews.

When you say that killing ANYONE for convenience is acceptable, be careful of who is making the value judgment. They may one day look at you, perhaps when you get older or infirmed and decide that you too are an inconvenience.

[marriaget]

I don't like the fact that you're killing something that could be life, but then again you have 250,000 eggs that could be life and you aren't giving them all chances to have life... n stuff. I don't know lol

[marriaget]

God writing the bible isn't reality. It's a belief.

I just think that he is up there looking down on me, and I pray to him at times, though I'm not sure if he's really there listening to me. I always hope and wish he is.

I understand what you said about the inconvience stuff.
It's just that, how could you in 8th grade? You could die from it, and the baby could die anyway too, because you are in no physical nor emotional shape to give birth and handel a kid.

[Tj3]

i dont like the fact that you're killing something that could be life, but then again you have 250,000 eggs that could be life and you arent giving them all chances to have life....n stuff. idk lol

No I don't have any eggs. :p Perhaps you did not note which sex I am. And I doubt that any woman has 250,000 eggs, but that does not matter. First of all, an egg has only half the chromosones required to be a human. It is a living cell, but it is not a person until it receives the other half of the chromosones.

Second, a fertilized egg is life. Your own statement acknowledge that. You cannot kill something which is not alive and yet you talk about killing the fetus.

[marriaget]

No, I didn't literally mean YOU. Haha (:

And yes woman have about 250,000 eggs, I read about it in the Body museum.

Think about it, please tell me... how could you when you're so young. I don't like abortions at all, but sometimes it's the only thing you can do.

People get abortions because they don't want a kid, and why would they have one knowing they didn't want one, and still don't... but they just have it because god wants them too, and it's "right".

[Tj3]

god writing the bible isn't reality. It's a belief.

I have evidence to the contrary, but that does not matter right now - your belief is that God did not write the Bible. Can you validate that claim?

I just think that he is up there looking down on me, and I pray to him at times, though I'm not sure if he's really there listening to me. I always hope and wish he is.

So you believe it but have no reason to believe it. The word "rational" means that there are reasons. So if one does not have a reason for believing something, by definition, it is not rational. You can believe it if you wish, but I would rather believe in something which has a basis in fact, a rational faith.

I understand what you said about the inconvience stuff.
It's just that, how could you in 8th grade? You could die from it, and the baby could die anyway too, because you are in no physical nor emotional shape to give birth and handel a kid.

There are options. First, if children in the 8th grade behave properly, then pregnancy does not happen. Second, if they cannot control themselves, as with anything else, there are consequences. If they are not able to look after the baby, there are thousands of people looking to adopt babies.

Murder is not an option.

[Tj3]

no, I didn't literally mean YOU. Haha (:

Good!

People get abortions because they don't want a kid, and why would they have one knowing they didn't want one, and still don't...

So because they could not control themselves, and they don't want a kid, a baby must die - is that what you are telling me?

What if they want a baby, but after they give birth and decide that the baby is too much trouble - is it okay to murder the baby then?

Maybe when they reach the "terrible twos" and become too annoying - is it okay to murder them then?

What about when they become annoying teenagers - is it okay to murder them then?

[marriaget]

Look, I could keep going on and on, and so can you... but it won't change anything. Obviously, no matter how much you try to get through to a person it never works. You're grown up this way, and so on... anyways... believe what you believe and so will I. If there truly was a god, I wonder why so many bad things are happening... There is no proof that god wrote the bible, no one saw him write it, there is just no proof about things I wish there was proof for.

[Tj3]

You're grown up this way, and so on... anyways... believe what you believe and so will I.

I believe in life. I believe in respect for life. I believe that murder is criminal.

Yep I was brought up that way.

If there truly was a god, I wonder why so many bad things are happening...

I wonder why non-Christians always want to blame God for the evil done by men.

There is no proof that god wrote the bible, no one saw him write it, there is just no proof about things I wish there was proof for.

Why do you deny proof without first examining it?

Where is the proof for your beliefs?

[marriaget]

But doesn't god control everything? Why can't he control the evil?


I KNOW there is no proof, show me the proof. How do you know 100% god wrote that, did you SEE him do it? We don't even know if there IS a god.

You all have your beliefs, if there is reason behind it or not.

In my head, I just believe there is something up there... hopefully an afterlife.

Why are there SO many rules when it comes to religion? People can follow all the rules, and then get hit by a car and die the next day (god forbid)... and etc. I mean, enjoy life, I don't like people's life being overcome by rules from their religion. These rules are coming from the bible, correct? I'm not sure... and the bible is "written by god"... I doubt it... I feel like some person way back made up a story and everybody just believed it was from god or some all mighty thing up in the skies, or heaven.

[Tj3]

but doesn't god control everything? Why can't he control the evil?

He could. But if he was to do away with evil, remember that since everyone has sinned, He would have to get rid of everyone - that includes you.

I KNOW there is no proof, show me the proof.

That would be a separate thread. I am speaking on a related topic next weekend:

Signs of Scripture Conference
http://ldbc.info/SoS.pdf

We don't even know if there IS a god.

Are you breathing? How are you able to do that?

I posted evidence for God on this thread and others.

You all have your beliefs, if there is reason behind it or not.

Yes, I do have beliefs, with good reason behind them.

In my head, I just believe there is something up there... hopefully an afterlife.

As pointed out before, all have sinned, so if God asked you why He should allow you into heaven - what would you say?

[Credendovidis]

Cred, I have already told you I can't prove anything to you.

Let's review my previous post that was a reaction to what YOU POSTED (see the link) !
It was YOU who suggested I could be wrong. But how could I be wrong if I did not claim anything ?

Cred, You refuse to even consider you may be WRONG. Let me ask you this...what IF you are wrong. What if their (sic) is a God...what happens then?

classyT : note that your comment refers to my post #30 to Altenweg , in which I DID NOT CLAIM ANYTHING !

All I did was review recent communications on this board and reflect on them.
So how may I be wrong then ?

I do not claim that an entity/diety exists some people call "God".
I do not claim that this entity/deity has supranatural powers.
I do not claim that I can prove the existence of this entity/deity.
I do not claim that I can prove the non-existence of this entity/deity.

All I stated was :

Spot on Alty !!! You clearly stated that you BELIEVE that, and what you BELIEVE should always be respected !

But not with Tj3, who intolerantly refuses to accept that other people have other ideas about "God", and that these other ideas have identical validity to the idea Tommy has himself.

That is : untill someone can provide OSE for any specific idea claim on "God".
But that OSE will never be forthcoming, as it does not exist.
Next to that : belief and OSE are impossible to match anyway.

Tommy BELIEVES in his Christian version of "God", no problem.
You BELIEVE in your Deist version of "God". No problem neither.
But Tommy claims that what he BELIEVES is "true", "true" as in factual.
But when Tommy is asked to support his BELIEF, and is asked to why his views are more valid than your version or any other version, Tommy can only come up with some pseudo OSE by using arguments based on evolution, and than suggest that it is OSE for his views on "God".

Of course that is not correct. He knows it, you know it, I know it, almost everyone here knows it.
The only proof for the existence of "God" is direct OSE for the existence of "God"
The only proof for the Christian version of "God" is direct OSE for the Christian version of "God".
NOTHING ELSE WILL DO!!

Only Tommy refuses to accept that. Tommy's idea of "true" and "truth" seems to be quite different to the ideas of those who live with ratio, logic, knowledge, understanding, and tolerance.

For any intelligent person the words "true" or "truth" refer to the property of being in accordance with the actual state of affairs.
And as the word "actual" refers to reality, it should refer to OSE as its only guideline.

Unfortunately in the religious field the words "true" or "truth" are used in and out of season to SUGGEST a level of accuracy, and in effect are used to provide some BOGUS VALIDITY to personal interpretations that are at best only covered by Subjective Supported Evidence.

You accept your views as BELIEF. You respect other (and others) views.
Tommy however insists intolerantly that his views are factual, refuses to accept that other ideas are of equal validity, and seems to be ashamed for what he only can BELIEVE but can not can provide OSE for.

What a nice display of the difference between the linguistic meaning and the religious unsupported interpretation of the words "true" or "truth"!!

===

clasyT : than you posted : "what IF you are wrong. What if their is a God...what happens then?"

That refers to Pascal's wager. But that wager has already many years ago been shown to be invalid, and actually turned itself against Christianity and any other specific religion.

What IF there is no "God" at all?
What IF the only supra-natural deity is "Allah" ?
What IF the only supra-natural deity is "Lord Shiva" ?
What IF the only supra-natural deity is "the "Invisible Unicorn" ?
What IF the only supra-natural deity is "the Flying Spaghetti Monster" ?
Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

How would such a deity react to people who refused or failed to BELIEVE in him/her/it ?
You KNOW or could have known (you could have googled) about "Allah", about "Lord Shiva", about the "Invisible Unicorn", about the "Flying Spaghetti Monster", etc.

You insist that the entity/deity called "God" exist, but you can not OSE the existence of that entity at all.
You do your best to provide all kinds of bogus argumentation to provide the illusion that such an entity/deity exists.
All you (and Tj3) have is lot's of hot-aired wild claims.

WHY DON'T YOU SKIP THE BS AND EITHER PROVE YOUR CLAIMS, OR ADMIT THAT ALL YOU CAN DO IS BELIEVE ???

As per the topic : it seems to me that you yourself have no idea what is "TRUE" or the "TRUTH"!!

===

I can tell you that i believe it to my core but I don't have to prove it.

That "I can tell you that i believe it to my core" I accept. No problem. I respect individual views.
But your "I don't have to prove it." is invalid as you frequently CLAIM that what BELIEVE is "TRUE" or the "TRUTH".

Note that your lack of proof confirms what I stated all the time : YOU ONLY BELIEVE THAT !!!

:D :rolleyes: :p :) :rolleyes: :D

.

.

[Credendovidis]

I have never, not once, in all the years that I have known Cred, see him validate or prove his belief that there is no God. He avoids it like the plague.

Another rather hypocrite post by Tj3, who seems to be on a tour of trying to revive old arguments which he all clearly lost before on all points, and will loose again this time.

First of all : I have repeatedly stated on this board in my posts that I am not a strong Atheist who insists that "God" does not exist. Because if I would suggest that, I would have to prove that. And I can't.

Christians are totally unable and uncapable to prove the existence of "God". All they do is BELIEVE that "God" exists.
Than why should I have to prove that "God" does NOT exist ?

Secondly : what is Atheism? / what is an Atheist?

ATHEISM

A THEISM

A = No(t) or Without

THEISM = Belief in "God" or "Gods"

ATHEISM = No or Without Belief in "God" or "Gods"

Atheism is ATHEISM

A THEISM

A = No(t) or Without

THEISM = Belief in "God" or "Gods"

ATHEISM = No or Without Belief in "God" or "Gods"

Atheism is NOT (only) disbelief in the existence of a "supreme being or beings".
Most Atheists have NO opinion on the existence of a "supreme being or beings".
Only a few "Strong" Atheists do that. Most "Soft/Weak" Atheists simply IGNORE the possibility of existence of a "supreme being or beings", as there is no (OSE) proof for that religious claim. (only) disbelief in the existence of a "supreme being or beings".
Most Atheists have NO opinion on the existence of a "supreme being or beings".
Only a few "Strong" Atheists do that. Most "Soft/Weak" Atheists simply IGNORE the possibility of existence of a "supreme being or beings", as there is no (What is truth) proof for that religious claim.

This topic is about "OSE?"
I did state in this topic before , and do again in this post :

Tommy's (and sassyT's) idea of "true" and "truth" seems to be quite different to the ideas of those who live with ratio, logic, knowledge, understanding, and tolerance.

For any intelligent person the words "true" or "truth" refer to the property of being in accordance with the actual state of affairs.
And as the word "actual" refers to reality, it should refer to SUGGEST as its only guideline.

Unfortunately in the religious field the words "true"true"truth" are used in and out of season to BOGUS VALIDITY a level of accuracy, and in effect are used to provide some BELIEVE to personal interpretations that are at best only covered by Subjective Supported Evidence.

Personal views are based on your interpretation of the truth (of the reality).
Tommy however insists intolerantly that his views are factual, refuses to accept that other ideas are of equal validity, and seems to be ashamed for what he only can OSE but can not can provide .

. for.

What a nice display of the difference between the linguistic meaning and the religious unsupported interpretation of the words "true"truth"truth"!!

:D:rolleyes::);):rolleyes::D

[bbcode][/bbcode]

[classyT]

Cred,

I was asking you on a personal level.. what if you are wrong? You know like human beings talk in REAL life. I wasn't attacking you..


I don't know whether you quoted me or not.. it says SASSYT. I am CLASSY dude... I ain't sassy. Get it right.

[Capuchin]

what if you are wrong?

YouTube - Richard Dawkins - "What if you're wrong?"

[Credendovidis]

Cred,I don't know whether you quoted me or not..it says SASSYT. I am CLASSY dude.....i ain't sassy. Get it right.

Sorry that I missed that. Why did you choose that deliberately confusing handle? Seems something JJD would do...

:D :D :D :D :D :D

.

.

[Capuchin]

Sorry that I missed that. Why did you choose that deliberately confusing handle? Seems something JJD would do ...

:D :D :D :D :D :D

.

.

Wasn't there another vocal christian member with the name sassyt? This might be where we are getting muddled up.

[michealb]

Yes there was/is. SassyT is the vocal one that claims to have a biology degree.

[michealb]

Obviously you are interested in what God hs to say or you wouldn't be in this thread. Exodus 21 vs. 22-23 Under the law, God said that if someone caused a woman to lose her baby ( by unnatural causes) that they too should lose their life.read it

Of course their are other circumstances such as health to the Mother to take into consideration. but if it is for the matter of convience. It is murder. that is NOT a popular opinion and it isn't mine..it is GOD's.

So ClassyT how much are you selling your daughter for?

7"(D)If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free (E)as the male slaves do.

I'll follow these rules

8"If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her.

9"If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters.

10"If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or (F)her conjugal rights.

11"If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

Obviously these rules were not meant for the ages so using them as basis for your argument doesn't make since.

[Credendovidis]

Wasn't there another vocal christian member with the name sassyt? This might be where we are getting muddled up.

That's what I meant : deliberate confusion.

:)