God is a jerk

A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline

harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3273
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is onlineOnline
I am sure

I am sure that theists will undoubtedly tell you that

"He works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform"

"It is all part of his divine plan"

Or they will react with maniacal fervor :

"IT IS THE END TIMES !"

"The world is being PUNISHED by god for all of it's sinful ways, like Sodom and Gommorah"

or there old standby :

"Who are you to question the word of god ?"

I find it funny that in one of the chapters in the AA book, supposedly this drunk guy was in despair and did not believe that god could cure him of his alcoholism. When suddenly, he heard this booming voice say : "WHO ARE YOU TO SAY THERE IS NO GOD". At this point, the man was instantly cured of alcoholism and never had another drink. (Why do I get the feeling that this is a bullshit story that happens to coincide with the ending paragraph of the We Agnostics chaper ?)

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13547
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Noony. I

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Noony. I am used to you blindly supporting Palistine and falsely accusing me of blindly supporting Isreal, but what is with this? It comes across as nutty as David Marduke. Are you going to post pictures of dead birds and vacuum cleaners with smile faces next?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Nothing to see here - same

Nothing to see here - same old, same old.

 


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Brian37 wrote:
...Noony. I am used to you blindly supporting Palistine and falsely accusing me of blindly supporting Isreal, but what is with this? It comes across as nutty as David Marduke. Are you going to post pictures of dead birds and vacuum cleaners with smile faces next?

I sort of thought it was obvious that one could pick any time in history and create a similar montage. That montage covers a decade. I did particularly like the jerk part. See Harleysporter for the usual list of excuses.

I like the idea of the dead birds though. How about parrots with upside down beaks? Sort of smiling, Popeye parrots. Maybe I add a politically incorrect tobacco pipe instead of a politically correct hash pipe.

As to blind support, I 100% endorse the ethics Israel claims to have. I assume you do also. I further assume you, as I, do not subscribe to relative ethics but consider ethics to be absolute. Therefore I simply do not understand the "Israel is better than (insert horrible example)" approach to discussing the subject. Can you explain?

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


jdude15 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Where is your basis?

 By judging God (and Christians) and making statements like "God is a jerk", you are imposing a standard of morality that should not exist in an atheistic worldview. If God is not real and the Bible is a lie, then where do morality and ethics come from. You have no basis for claiming that something is right or wrong, since you (if you're an atheist) deny the God who created moral absolutes.

 

So where is your basis? What is your reasoning for judging something to be right or wrong? It certainly cannot come from "moral relativism", because in that case, your opinion of something would be no better than someone else's opinion. Moral relativism is arbitrary and can change.

 

I know that I cannot force you, or anyone else, to believe what I believe to be true. But I trust that God will soften your heart and open your eyes to the truths of His infallible Word.

 

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
jdude15 wrote: By judging

jdude15 wrote:

 By judging God (and Christians) and making statements like "God is a jerk", you are imposing a standard of morality that should not exist in an atheistic worldview. If God is not real and the Bible is a lie, then where do morality and ethics come from. You have no basis for claiming that something is right or wrong, since you (if you're an atheist) deny the God who created moral absolutes.

 

So where is your basis? What is your reasoning for judging something to be right or wrong? It certainly cannot come from "moral relativism", because in that case, your opinion of something would be no better than someone else's opinion. Moral relativism is arbitrary and can change.

 

I know that I cannot force you, or anyone else, to believe what I believe to be true. But I trust that God will soften your heart and open your eyes to the truths of His infallible Word.

 

 

 

Here you go : http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110324193658AAQdsPz

And if you're looking for something meatier, here's a 6 part talk on the superiority of secular morality : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEP4OIj2NA0

 

Sorry to just fob you off with a link, but this is a pretty basic question that I'm kinda tired of answering, and you could very easily answer it yourself just by thinking about it. 

 

Welcome to the forum, btw. Smiling


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
jdude15 wrote: By judging

jdude15 wrote:

 By judging God (and Christians) and making statements like "God is a jerk", you are imposing a standard of morality that should not exist in an atheistic worldview. If God is not real and the Bible is a lie, then where do morality and ethics come from. You have no basis for claiming that something is right or wrong, since you (if you're an atheist) deny the God who created moral absolutes.

 

So where is your basis? What is your reasoning for judging something to be right or wrong? It certainly cannot come from "moral relativism", because in that case, your opinion of something would be no better than someone else's opinion. Moral relativism is arbitrary and can change.

 

I know that I cannot force you, or anyone else, to believe what I believe to be true. But I trust that God will soften your heart and open your eyes to the truths of His infallible Word.

 

 

I always like to see the "Atheists can't be moral" argument when it is shown that atheists and Christians are more moral than God.

My basis for morality is to do the things that minimize harm to all people. Your morals are probably close to that. God's morality (as seen in the Bible) is to minimize harm only to those people that he had "chosen" (and even that was only on condition that they kissed his butt)

So how is God's morality better than yours or mine again?

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
jdude15 wrote:But I trust

jdude15 wrote:

But I trust that God will soften your heart and open your eyes to the truths of His infallible Word.

Your trust is seriously misplaced...

The likelihood of any atheist on this board becoming convinced you're right about God is the same as the likelihood of you becoming convinced atheists are right about God.

 

 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1514
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
re:: ..your 'honest' inquiry will open your eyes to the-Truths :

I trust your 'honest' inquiry will open your eyes to the truths (See: Article):

jdude15(unverified) wrote:
Quote: I didn't attempt to refute the specific "facts" that were presented to me, but I also gave JC a link to an entire website with information that would have refuted those "facts" thoroughly and scientifically. It just so happens that nylonase is specifically refuted by an Answers in Genesis scientist on her blog. When you visit the AiG website, just type in the word "nylonase" in the search bar.

 

But if you want me to give some evidence, then how about the recent "junk DNA" discoveries? Or how about the fact that the entire history of evolution is strikingly devoid of any undisputed transitional fossil forms?

Transitional fossils are strongly suggestive of Evolution since they have characteristics that are intermediate in nature to organisms that existed both prior to it and after it. Please note, When Darwin first published his "Origin of Species" he stressed that the lack of transitional fossils was the most formidable obstacle to his theory. At that time very little was known about the fossil record and complaints that there were a lack of any transitional fossils were understandable. Since that time, despite the rarity of fossilization, literally dozens of excellent examples have surfaced starting with the discovery of Archaeopteryx in the Solnhofen area of Germany just two years after "Origin" was published.
Since transitional fossils are anathema to YEC dogma, they have desperately sought to redefine the term to suit their own purposes or they merely outright deny their existence. An example of the later being the Archaeopteryx, which some YEC assert isn't a transitional between reptile and bird at all, but is instead a true bird despite the fact that it clearly possesses characteristics in common with reptiles that modern birds don't have (www.enchantedlearning.com/agifs/Archaeopteryx_bw.GIF).
Often you hear a YEC contend that transitional fossils don't exist because nobody can prove the fossil in question is a direct ancestor of any later creature. While this is true to an extent, even if a transitional fossil is a side-branch it still demonstrates that creatures with intermediate characteristics did exist, and thus it is highly probable that a similar creature existed that was an ancestor of a later species. Again, the archaeopteryx serves as an example since science isn't sure whether or not they were ancestors of modern birds or a side-branch that serves to illustrate the changes taking place at that time. YEC advocates simply take it too far in demanding a record of every single creature in the chain before we can say that something is an ancestor of something else. Such "absolute proof" is incredibly unrealistic considering the nature of the fossil record itself. Then there are the YECs that stubbornly see gaps everywhere. As soon as a transitional fossil between two groups of creatures is found they spring into action demanding intermediaries between the intermediaries. And if such fossils are also discovered are they satisfied? No. These critics now demand intermediaries between the newly discovered intermediaries. It's a no-win situation. When more links in the chain are found they only see a chain with more holes. More can be learned about Archaeopteryx at
All About Archaeopteryx (www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html) and at the
Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx) for Archaeopteryx.
"Archie" is far from the only example of a transitional fossil that has been dug up over the years. Very recently up in Canada there was the spectacular discovery of a transitional form between lobe-finned fish and early tetrapods dating back 375 million years. Called Tiktaalik, it is an example of Fish to Amphibian evolution demonstrating, among other things, the change from fin to limb. To learn more about this fascinating extinct creature at, the Tiktaalik roseae: Home (http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/).
The evolution of whales and other cetaceans from land animals has long been derided by YECs (www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/images/cej10_1.jpg) as the ultimate example of evolutionary nonsense. Critics used the fact that a fossil record was lacking to "prove" that there are no such thing as transitional fossils. This situation changed dramatically when an entire slew of whale fossils of several transitional species surfaced, primarily in Pakistan, since the 1990s. More information can be found at the Wikipedia page on the
Evolution of cetaceans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_whales)
There are many other examples of transitional fossils (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils). Probably two of the best sources available on the internet for further information include CC200: Transitional fossils (www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html) and the famous
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ (www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html) by Kathleen Hunt.

Considering the number of new transitional fossils being uncovered, especially in recent years, don't you YECs think it might be time to quit hoisting your flag on this particular battlefield?
Researchers have taken a new look at the fossilized remains of the long extinct arachnid, Attercopus fimbriunguis, that lived 386 mya (Middle Devonian) and had been interpreted in 1989 as being the oldest known spider. They have now concluded that instead of being the oldest spider it is actually a more primitive ancestor of web-spinning spiders. This means that the oldest "true" spider may have arrived 80 million years later than previously thought.

The reason for the reinterpretation is that new analysis has revealed that the parts of the 7mm (0.27”) long Attercopus that had been described as spinnerets (the external, modified appendages that allow web-spinning) weren’t actually spinnerets after all.

While this proto-spider could still produce silk, it wasn’t in strands like modern spiders, but in the form of broad sheets excreted from spigots arranged along the edges of the segmented plates that made up the underside of the creature’s abdomen. What appeared to be a tubular spinneret was in fact a rolled-up or folded sheet of cuticle (the animals' external skeletal material).

The team that made the reassessment, led by Paul Seldon, director and the Gulf-Hedberg Distinguished Professor of Invertebrate Paleontology of the Paleontological Institute at the Biodiversity Institute at the University of Kansas, think that Attercopus could have used the sheets for a variety of purposes including to line burrows, protect eggs, have sex, make homing trails and possibly even subdue prey, but that web-making wasn’t one of them because of the inflexibility of the spigots.

Further, they found that Attercopus, unlike any known spider, possessed a long, segmented, flagellum-like tail similar to that seen on a whip scorpion that is commonly seen on some of the spider’s more primitive relatives.

And aside from having tails and spinning silk from broad, segmented plates, the team discovered that Attercopus also seem to lack venom glands and openings on the fang of the chelicerae previously thought to be associated with venom glands was the result of a misinterpretation.

It was these characteristics that got Attercopus moved into the extinct order of arachnids thought to be close to the origins of spiders named Uraraneida.

"The thing that had been called the oldest known spider we have now shown is in fact more primitive than a true spider," Professor William Selden, the Trinkle Professor of Biology at Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia, and co-author of the report said.

“We think these ‘tailed spiders’ represent an entirely new kind of animal, not known before from living or fossil examples,” observed Shear. “They were more primitive than spiders in many ways, and may be spider ancestors,” he added, “This new information also allows us to reinterpret other fossils once thought to be spiders, and this evidence suggests these Uraraneida, or pre-spiders, existed for more than 100 million years, living alongside real spiders, which evolved later.”

Now, the oldest known "true spiders,” are members of the Mesothelae, a primitive group now represented only by the Liphistiidae, and dates from the Late Carboniferous period that ended roughly 300 mya, though Professor Selden says that true spiders could have existed earlier but haven’t been discovered.

What prompted the reinterpretation of Attercopus was the discovery of an additional specimen since the original was uncovered in Gilboa, in upstate New York almost two decades ago. A slightly younger (374 myo) example with tail still attached to the abdomen, was discovered in nearby South Mountain, New York.

The existence of such a tail is also supported by the more recently discovered Permarachne genus from a Permian deposit in Russia, which was also originally and inaccurately described as a spider and whose tail was originally described as an "elongated spinneret".

Interestingly, as late as July of this year Shear and Sheldon have been describing Attercopus as having spinnerets: Fossil evidence for the origin of spider spinnerets (http://precedings.nature.com/documents/2088/version/1). The oldest silk-producing spigots are known from the Middle Devonian of Gilboa, New York2. This specimen, slide 334.1b.AR34 (See:npre20082002-.PDF; Nature). The findings of the new research were published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
(source Rouge06 in the year 2009).


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1514
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Cannot force you to believe what I believe to be true (you said)

Re:: I cannot force you to believe what I believe to be true (you said).

jdude15 wrote:

I know that I cannot force you, or anyone else, to believe what I believe to be true
..truths of His infallible Word.


Attn. -- J-dude.
Jdude15 at the off chance you will be around at all:

In a while perhaps you will learn if you dont provide a basis for your 'beliefs', you will be deeply penalized on this board. Data, facts, findings are looked at, more subjective approaches of your (own) personal conclusions or beliefs, not so much,. In the other thread you were deeply offended w/ the term liar. Well, If you are honest as you seem to think; an honest inquiry can be made, right ? If it is true then you wont have any problems looking into matters yourself without the additional assistance of AiG or ICR, correct ? Why say that? As for Gish and Ham, there is nothing quite like going in with a desired conclusion and trying to make the evidence fit, eh ? If you show true courage and do not shink back (Heb. 10:38-9), why'd you desire anyone who allows his beliefs cloud his judgment of the facts?!? If you are a purest like Mr. K. Ham, it isnt 6,000 years but six solar days by his teaching. Remember, It's a very human thing to find what youre looking for, if you look hard enough or if that doesn't work attack the competing theor(-ies). In the Back-to-Genesis culture, They are busily developing narratives which strike them as best fitting or explaing the problem, where the authority of the Genesis account is simply assumed. Does sound like a safe place to retreat to for the christian, I must say.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

jdude15 wrote:

 By judging God (and Christians) and making statements like "God is a jerk", you are imposing a standard of morality that should not exist in an atheistic worldview. If God is not real and the Bible is a lie, then where do morality and ethics come from. You have no basis for claiming that something is right or wrong, since you (if you're an atheist) deny the God who created moral absolutes.

The code of Hammurabi is at least 700 years older than the supposed date of the Big Ten of Exodus yet is more mature and rational than them. Whoever invented the Big Ten was a savage in comparison to Hammurabi. Yet believers come along and claim out of their own profound ignorance that "morality" can only come from the savage composer of the Big Ten.

If that is not good enough for you there are some sets of Egyptian laws older than the Code that exhibit the same morality and ethics and also make the Big Ten look primitive.

You believers are clearly WRONG in your assertion of the origin of morality. Which is hardly surprising as you are wrong in nearly everything.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1514
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
It's fun to get silly sometimes . . .

 

It's kinda good to see people make their own fun . .
That's pretty funny

Atheistextremist wrote:

re :: That's pretty funny

 

Lee2216 wrote:

It's not you that deceives yourself but satan himself that is deceiving you. You can know with absolute certainty. Repent and believe what the bible says.

 

To hear a christian bringing to bear that wondrous fundamentalist argument asserting that when you believe you will know the truth. 


功夫

功夫

 To:: AE

 You might not have meant it in that way but you did say funny. Generally, there is a lot of humor on the board, even when people are playing it straight. You should know by now how much I adore 'double meanings'(none of that french tripe), it can be looked on a  couple of different levels. Culturally, Today for a white girl to be quoting the 'I have a dream' speech  in America is riotously funny (we havent progressed THAT far). It's a cultural thing, and all really complex. To be clear though I have seen black people imitate Coastal 'Surf culture' falling out of the isles practically rolling on the floor laughing.  It's good to see people make their own fun. I deeply appreciate Zarathustra, he's cool beans. Admirably, even Foz is being a good sport about it.

   You can enjoy Zarathustra highly Satirical take on Fonzie at the thread everyone gave up on.

zarathustra wrote:

Despite the Old Troll's history of mendicancy, the Snow Wolf of Free Enterprise thought --optimistically-- that the free exchange of ideas would lead to mutual profit. 

But the Troll had no interest in generating intellectual capital.  It could only exploit the benevolence of others for Its own welfare.


At any rate, it was still quite easy to duplicate the Troll's output:

 

 

the_Snow_Wolf wrote:
If your delusions motivate you I am not going to say you should get rid of them.

I have no delusions, since god proves himself to me 24/7, even if I can't prove that to you.  How do your delusions of nothing motivate you?

  

Quote:
Atheist dogma? No such thing. In case you haven't noticed atheists are an extraordinarily diverse bunch and most of us don't insist that everyone should live like we do or for the same reasons. Personally, I enjoy waking up in the morning and doing whatever I feel like doing and not knowing what I am going to do tomorrow. My motivations change from day to day and some days I am not the slightest bit motivated to do anything. I don't think I need anything to live "for", life is amazing and worth living for its own sake. 

Yes, there are an extraordinarily diverse bunch of ways to believe in nothing.  I enjoy waking up and doing what jesus tells me to do.  My motivations don't change because jesus doesn't change. 

 

 


 


 

 On a more serious note,

  Now nobody forgot you Mr.Lee.  Our latest YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST, I think THOUGH NOT SURE . . .

  Some of the quotes from ICR (the link you handed to Cj.) --

 

ICRdefinesYEC wrote:
. . . even unbelievers are able to use logic and science is a proof that the Bible really is true. When we understand the Bible, we find that what it teaches can make sense of those things necessary for science and reasoning. God has designed us so that when believers read His Word, we recognize it as the voice of our Creator (John 10:27). The truth of the Bible is inescapably certain.

 

 At the risk of making myself sound silly. Does this permeate "all" of that website you quoted, it 's not as if there is  some secret part everybody missed ? Moreover, Are you suggesting ICR gets it right, in quoting  them? Please let me remind you of some of their positions in the following quotes:

ICRdefinesYEC wrote:
All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days [which Ham affirms only just recently] of the creation week described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical and perspicuous; thus all theories of origins or development which involve evolution in any form are false. All things which now exist are sustained and ordered by God's providential care. However, a part of the spiritual creation, Satan and his angels, rebelled against God after the creation and are attempting to thwart His divine purposes in creation.
The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry, but were specially created in fully human form from the start. Furthermore, the "spiritual" nature of man (self-image, moral consciousness, abstract reasoning, language, will, religious nature, etc.) is itself a supernaturally created entity distinct from mere biological life.

The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry, but were specially created in fully human form from the start. Furthermore, the "spiritual" nature of man (self-image, moral consciousness, abstract reasoning, language, will, religious nature, etc.) is itself a supernaturally created entity distinct from mere biological life.

   Dumb question but from these statements can we infer the ICR takes a strictly literalist view of the first part of the Bible ? Then, This is something you 're used to defining and defending. When you can get a chance. Please explain.  That's to Lee, THIS TIME  seeing he gets around the board better than some did.

 

 

 


Mintyfell
Theist
Mintyfell's picture
Posts: 54
Joined: 2012-11-15
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote: "Who

harleysportster wrote:

 

"Who are you to question the word of god ?"

I find it funny that in one of the chapters in the AA book, supposedly this drunk guy was in despair and did not believe that god could cure him of his alcoholism. When suddenly, he heard this booming voice say : "WHO ARE YOU TO SAY THERE IS NO GOD". At this point, the man was instantly cured of alcoholism and never had another drink. (Why do I get the feeling that this is a bullshit story that happens to coincide with the ending paragraph of the We Agnostics chaper ?)

The "drunk guy" that you are referring to is Bill Wilson, co founder of AA. He also wrote the book that the story is in. It is a very fascinating read. AA is a religion that screams and proclaims that it is not a religion. Usually people aren't exposed to AA or the literature with out a reason. Have you read the book? What do you think about it? Are you in the Program?