Author Topic: Why give hormones and then create rules about sexual life?  (Read 3089 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6493
  • Darwins +846/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Why give hormones and then create rules about sexual life?
« Reply #145 on: April 05, 2014, 04:52:33 PM »
Well I was trying to give Star Trek 100 years to become a religion..... :?
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Why give hormones and then create rules about sexual life?
« Reply #146 on: April 06, 2014, 09:32:13 AM »
He was punished because off all the bad things I did and all the bad things you do. Also, it was prophesied.
So the Romans knew the future. They thought to themselves: I know that Hatter23 will have sinful thoughts while looking at Christina Hendricks sashaying trough the offices of SCDP, so I whip this Jewish heretic an extra time. Hrrm, makes sense.

You misunderstood. The prophecy was about him dying so you can be closer to God. The Romans punished him because he said he was God. I hope you understand the evil pleasure they got from slashing God. It made them felt stronger than God.

So God came down to sacrifice himself, to himself, to act as a loophole for a rule that he, himself, created in the first place. Yes, and Santa Claus is coming to town. Hello delusion!
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Why give hormones and then create rules about sexual life?
« Reply #147 on: April 06, 2014, 09:36:12 AM »
You had so much to say on your plate. And I'm glad you shared it all with us even if it's all out of subject.
But all this does not give me an answer. Even if my question are also out of subject, I really would like to have an answer to them since it's the third time I ask them and such...
Why would Jesus put himself in such a situation? Why did he not save himself from this torture?

This is called the fallacy of a Complex Question. These questions have built in assumptions which I do not accept. As such, if I were to answer them I would be, inadvertently, giving credence to those assumptions. I won't do it.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Online Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1928
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Why give hormones and then create rules about sexual life?
« Reply #148 on: April 07, 2014, 11:52:42 AM »
You had so much to say on your plate. And I'm glad you shared it all with us even if it's all out of subject.
But all this does not give me an answer. Even if my question are also out of subject, I really would like to have an answer to them since it's the third time I ask them and such...
Why would Jesus put himself in such a situation? Why did he not save himself from this torture?


This is called the fallacy of a Complex Question. These questions have built in assumptions which I do not accept. As such, if I were to answer them I would be, inadvertently, giving credence to those assumptions. I won't do it.

Thank you! I was thinking the same thing when add homonym Brought the "Jesus did no suffer bit" (or was it someone else!?). It doesn't make sense from someone who doesn't believe. You just made your "arguments" useless.
You're worth more than my time

Online Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1928
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Why give hormones and then create rules about sexual life?
« Reply #149 on: April 07, 2014, 12:00:30 PM »
So God came down to sacrifice himself, to himself, to act as a loophole for a rule that he, himself, created in the first place. Yes, and Santa Claus is coming to town. Hello delusion!
It's a little bit more complicated than that. Jesus was 100% human too. But you don't have to believe it for it to be true. God created a rule and gave humans freedom of choice. They chose to break the rule so only a human could try to repair the damages done by humans. But it couldn't be any human.
You're worth more than my time

Online Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1928
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Why give hormones and then create rules about sexual life?
« Reply #150 on: April 07, 2014, 12:11:03 PM »
Lukvance, the reason the Jesus story has so many holes and so many things about it don't make sense is because IT IS A MADE UP STORY! Got that? You are like a Trekkie trying to make the "Spock's Brain" episode into a coherent narrative as if it really happened.
I don't get it. Say it again one more time, louder, with you fists up in the air, maybe I will understand then? 
I agree with you that the Old testament is made of stories. But the Bible made so much good in the world. Star trek influenced my life (i'm a geek) but not as much as the Bible.
You're worth more than my time

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1329
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Why give hormones and then create rules about sexual life?
« Reply #151 on: April 07, 2014, 12:50:21 PM »
So God came down to sacrifice himself, to himself, to act as a loophole for a rule that he, himself, created in the first place. Yes, and Santa Claus is coming to town. Hello delusion!
It's a little bit more complicated than that. Jesus was 100% human too. But you don't have to believe it for it to be true. God created a rule and gave humans freedom of choice. They chose to break the rule so only a human could try to repair the damages done by humans. But it couldn't be any human.

Humans do not have freedom of choice to believe or not believe. I have no freedom of choice. I need evidence.

I hereby by decree that you have freedom of choice to believe Star Trek more than the bible, and Star Trek will from now rule your life, Earthling.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Backspace

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1253
  • Darwins +49/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • IXNAY
Re: Why give hormones and then create rules about sexual life?
« Reply #152 on: April 07, 2014, 12:50:52 PM »
...so only a human could try to repair the damages done by humans.


So the all-powerful Yahweh, who created the universe in just a few days, couldn't do it? 

There is no opinion so absurd that a preacher could not express it.
-- Bernie Katz

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1959
  • Darwins +355/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Why give hormones and then create rules about sexual life?
« Reply #153 on: April 07, 2014, 01:07:48 PM »
Lukvance, the reason the Jesus story has so many holes and so many things about it don't make sense is because IT IS A MADE UP STORY! Got that? You are like a Trekkie trying to make the "Spock's Brain" episode into a coherent narrative as if it really happened.
I don't get it. Say it again one more time, louder, with you fists up in the air, maybe I will understand then? 
I agree with you that the Old testament is made of stories. But the Bible made so much good in the world. Star trek influenced my life (i'm a geek) but not as much as the Bible.

The following two statements are NOT equal:
1) That book has lots of made up stories.
2) That book is made up of stories.

You have got to stop trying to play semantic games here.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Online Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1725
  • Darwins +182/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Why give hormones and then create rules about sexual life?
« Reply #154 on: April 07, 2014, 01:57:56 PM »
^^^To be fair, there aren't very many choices available to him.  ;)
My tolerance for BS is limited, and I use up most of it IRL.

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 703
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Why give hormones and then create rules about sexual life?
« Reply #155 on: April 07, 2014, 03:47:17 PM »
Oh, sevenpatch I guess you didn't get the hint when I said : "For the existence of god discussion please go to : http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,21563.650.html"

Oh, Lukvance, I guess you didn’t get the hint when I said :

Every discussion about god or gods first require sufficient evidence of existence of said god or gods.  Unless we are discussing a hypothetical situation.  In any case my response is entirely relevant to the analogy we are discussing.

In the corrected analogy it is not clear whether the parents even exist.  You are dodging the discussion, however if you insist, I will move this discussion to the probabilities of "God's" existence thread.

I meant for the purpose of moving THIS discussion along you will have to acknowledge the existence of God (even if it's only for this discussion) If you do not want to then this discussion does not make sense. How something that does not exist gives hormones and create rules?

I am very capable of having a hypothetical discussion about “God” existing (IMO any discussion about “God” is actually hypothetical anyway).  No, actually, what you must acknowledge in order to move THIS discussion along is that “God” is, in addition to giving hormones and creating rules, is hiding and making reality appear as if “God” does not exist and all of the people who do believe in “God” or gods, each have their own interpretation.  You will have to acknowledge that “God” is vague and mysterious and far from being clearly known to exist.

Whether “God” exists or not is always part of the equation even if “God” does in fact truly exist, because the current state of reality is that it is not clear whether “God” exists or not and if “God” does exist, why is the current state of “God’s” existence in question.

In this hypothetical scenario where the question is asked “why did God give hormones and then create rules about sexual life” the question of “God’s” existence is factored in even if “God” does exist.

We have both agreed that “God” does not make the rules, humans do.  Of course you have different reasons than I do for coming to that conclusion.  I have come to the conclusion that “God” is an invention of the human mind, a mere concept like other fictional concepts, and one of the many reasons for creating this concept is to explain something that we as humans don’t understand.


even if I wasn't listening, it would not matter because there would be no way for me to ignore the clear and coherent communication from "God"

That's where some people make the mistake, they assume that because God CAN then God MUST (or WILL). Did your parents never waited for you to be ready to listen to them before trying to communicate with you? (in a clear and coherent fashion)

Your response is a prime example of your mistake.  You see, you think an assumption is being made that because “God” CAN then “God” MUST (or WILL), but you are thinking incorrectly.  No assumption is being made, and instead a question is being asked.  Actually, I’m slightly wrong, there are a few assumptions being made, the first is an assumption that “God” exists and the second is that you will comprehend the question. 

It is true that “God” doesn’t HAVE to communicate and that just because “God” CAN, doesn’t mean that “God” WILL.  We were already past this point, so you are backtracking.   What is clear, is that “God” DOESN’T communicate clearly and coherently with everyone. 

Can you understand that it is true that “God” DOES NOT clearly and coherently communicate with everyone?  Yes, I know you will respond to that question that parents clearly and coherently communicate with children yet the children don’t understand.  Your analogy doesn’t work though because even if the children don’t understand the clear and coherent communication, the children still know that their parents exist SO, if you are paying attention, if the children don’t know that their parents exist, then whatever means the parents are using to communicate is not clear and coherent is it?  If the communication was clear and coherent, then even without proper understanding, all of the children would know that the parents exist.

Please note, this entire discussion is under the acknowledgement that the parents do exist.  Will you please acknowledge that in this scenario, the parents exist yet the existence of the parents is not clear to some children.  Do you understand that even if something exists, it might not actually be known to exist.  THAT is one of the many questions posed here in this discussion which you are avoiding, WHY is it that the parents are not making their existence known to all of the children?  Yes, I know that you will respond to that question with some bullshit about the children putting their hands over their ears.  I’ve already explained that this does not work. 

You are left with a very difficult question, of why doesn’t “God” allow everyone to clearly know that “God” exists and make the free will choice of loving “God” or not.  Why are there so many religions? Why doesn’t your god do everything in its power to give everyone an equal chance to do what your god wants?  Your answer of “just because God CAN doesn’t mean God MUST or WILL” might work but now you are describing an uncaring and unloving “God” which doesn’t differentiate itself from something that does not exist.

You see, if “God” CAN, and is a caring and loving “God” then “God” would, just like a caring and loving parent would.  My actual parents weren’t perfect, they did the best they could as any other caring or loving mortal parent would.  So what exactly are the abilities of your “God”?  Is you “God” as limited in ability as my mortal parents?  If so, then I can understand why your god is having difficulty in clear and coherent communication.  I expect however that you view “God” as having vast power and knowledge, yet you insist on comparing something with vast power and knowledge with parents who have very limited power and knowledge.

Why do you insist on making this unfair comparison and expecting it to make sense?

What you are in affect doing is called “Special Pleading”.  Mortal human parents are not perfect, so we can look the other way when they are at fault because they did everything they could, yet you insist that we should also look the other way when a god with vast power and knowledge is at fault.  Is your god as imperfect as human mortal parents?  Why should an imperfect being, entity or whatever your god is, call itself a god?

You don’t have to answer my questions, they are rhetorical and only meant to get you to start thinking for yourself instead of responding with cookie cutter non-answers fed to you by others who didn’t think for themselves.


the kid will still know that his parents exist

I don't get it. I know that God exist. The kid know that his parents exist. are you saying that the kid doesn't know the existence of his parents? or is it a question about the existence of God?

There is no question being asked about does “God” exist or not here, this discussion is about the actualities that both you and I live with today, right now.  For the purposes of this discussion, let’s say that you do in fact know that “God” exists.  You must also acknowledge for the purposes of this discussion that while you do know, I myself do not know that any god or gods exist.   It should not be difficult for you to imagine what it is like to not know the state of existence of someone, something or someplace.  For example, you don’t know if some guy in San Diego named Sandi Bigbuttkowski exists or not.  Is this person real or did I just make him up.  In theory, if Sandi Bigbuttkowski exists then it could easily be proven, perhaps a picture could be taken of him with his state photo ID for name verification.  Sandi could introduce himself.  However, if none of that could be done and you could find no evidence for the existence of Sandi Bigbuttkowski, you would be left with not knowing if Sandi Bigbuttkowski exists.

Back to the parents = “God” analogy. 

So, in this analogy, some children know that their parents exist, other children do not know that their parents exist.  Why is it that some children do not know that their parents exist?  The only way for these children to not know is if their parents were completely absent from the lives of the children.  This might be the equivalent to an orphan never knowing his or her parents and having no documentation or evidence at all of who they were.  In the case of the orphan, the parents are either dead or they abandoned the child. 

Look, I’ll make this easy for you and make this a multiple choice question, why do some children claim to know their parents exist, yet other children do not know their parents exist?  (Pick one of the following answers from A to D )

A – The parents are sadistic and twisted, playing games with the children.  The parents will let some children know of the parents existence but do it in a way that is confusing, vague and ambiguous while not letting other children know of their existence, making them think the parents don’t even exist at all.  These parents are uncaring, unloving, evil and very poor parents.  Child services would take the children away from these parents.

B – The parents are unable to care for the children properly and don’t even try to, thus are very poor parents and probably shouldn’t be considered parents at all.

C – The parents are dead, the children who think they know the parents exist are mistaken or perhaps delusional.

D – The parents don’t actually exist, the children who think they know the parents exist are mistaken or perhaps delusional.

Do not add an option E, unless it is viable, and it better be miles better than what you’ve offered so far.  I’m already well aware of the band-aid fixes you’ll try to apply to this mile wide gaping hole of a problem regarding your god.   Perhaps your god has a plan, F#CK your god’s plan, by saying your god has a plan you are in effect picking option A.  If you say that it is my fault because I’m not listening, you are in effect picking either options B, C or D.

You might also think perhaps I am the one who is mistaken or delusional, and my response to that is, please show me how to believe something which does clearly exist, doesn’t exist.  Show me how to believe that the Sun does not exist.  Show me how to believe that a person standing next to me does not exist.  Children who don’t actually know that their parents exist are not mistaken or delusional. 

Hopefully you are able to realize that believing something, which clearly does exist, doesn’t exist is very difficult(if not impossible).  Now consider how easy it is to believe that something which doesn’t exist, does exist.  Realize that the human mind operates by imagining the many different possibilities that could be the cause of any experience.  The human mind will naturally believe anything if it doesn’t have information necessary to know the actual cause.


If you are the best that "God" can try, then "God" has failed miserably

Thank you for the insult. I am far from the best.

Interesting that you would characterize my statement as an insult.  There are probably a number of ways you could have interpreted my comment.  Honestly it was more an observation regarding your god, not you.  It isn’t your fault that “God” has failed miserably. 

Thinking about this more, I can’t fathom why you would find my comment insulting unless you have a very devoted (and unhealthy) association with “God”.  Almost like fanboys of a gaming system.  Yeah if I were to go to a X-Box or Playstation forum and say Microsoft or Sony really screwed something up, I’m sure a bunch of fanboys would get all upset as if they themselves were insulted.

Another analogy might be a victim of spouse abuse who continues to worship the spouse despite the abuse.  In the eyes of the victim, the spouse can do no wrong. 

You may or may not be the best, but I’ll keep waiting and searching. 


if I can't make sense of what a god is communicating then that means this god is not capable of clear and coherent communication. Why are the children responsible for the inability of the parents to even attempt to clearly and coherently communicate with the children?

Did you always understood what your parents where trying to tell you?

Nope, but first and foremost I was fortunate enough to grow up while my parents were alive and I know they exist even if I didn’t understand their communication UNLIKE this god thing you “know exists”. 

The way you are viewing this analogy doesn’t function.  Just like “God” there is no way for you to distinguish imaginary parents from real parents.

If not, does that make them incapable of clear and coherent communication?

Mortal imperfect loving and caring human parents? No.  Powerful, loving and caring eternal creator god? Yes

Should we hold your god to the standards of mortal imperfect loving and caring human beings? 

Where you responsible for the inability of your parents to even attempt to clearly and coherently communicate with you? Yes or no will suffice.

No.  Parents are always responsible for their children’s mistakes.  Children are not responsible for the mistakes of the parents.


if I were to be dishonest and pretend that "God" exists, how would you be able to tell the difference?  If "God" does exist, then I would expect "God" could tell the difference, but you are a mere human, so how could you tell?

Like we do in science, we try then we see if it works. If it doesn't work, we maybe try in a different way or try again the same way with more precision to the details... until it works...or not. If it works a certain amount of time then the ones having difficulty obtaining the same result must be doing something wrong.  I have tried the experiment and it worked, I couldn't hear God before and now I can (although not perfectly, I still have my sins in the way). Maybe if I was alone you might be right but I am not alone, many have tried the same experiment and it worked.

Okay, I’ll bite.  What experiment exactly?

So if this experiment is so successful, why doesn’t everyone on the planet know the same exact “God”, like everyone on the planet can perform chemistry experiments and get the same results.

I suspect the results of your experiment are ever changing, like personalities of every human being are ever changing.  I’ve seen and read my fair share in my short lifetime.   I’ve only heard claims ripe with cognitive bias and superstition.

If you have some valuable information to share, please share it and stop wasting my time.  If not, don’t respond.

If you do however agree that “God” does not make the rules and instead it is humans that make the rules then for the purposes of the analogy it is not the parents that make the rules or provide the instructions, it is the children who make the rules and provide the instructions.
I think we both would agree that it would be dishonest to use an analogy that incorrectly asserts that something is true without sufficient evidence

I like that! For me the analogy stands God = Parents, Humans = Child but I don't understand it the way you did. Saying that humans make rules is saying that children make rules (and they do!) BUT the children making rules (and following them instead of their parents) does not prevent parents to make rules (and try to teach the children these rules)

Okay, never mind then, apparently you don’t agree that “God” does not make the rules.

I’m not surprised we are not on the same page, considering how unclear, vague and ambiguous “God’s” rules and communication is.  That is part of the problem being discussed.  It is almost as if “God’ is completely imaginary.  Wait.  That is exactly what it is like.

So far however, I'm sorry but you have been merely responding helplessly to my questions instead of answering them.  I asked before, why are you responding if you don't have coherent answers?  Why are you pretending to have answers? [...]  you haven't explained anything yet.  I was being sarcastic when I said AGAIN to poke fun at your avoidance of not actually answering questions which again you didn't answer my question.

Maybe you could reformulate your question? For example if you ask me how much is 1+1 and I respond 2 and then you said "it's not coherent! because it is not 2! Please answer the question asked! and stop responding helplessly to my questions instead of answering it. By the way I love to poke fun at you so sometimes I might invent things... just for fun" That is how I feel now :(

I’m not surprised that THAT is how you feel.  In regards to how I feel, regarding your scenario, I feel like after I asked you what 1+1 is, you responded by saying the word “blue”.  So perhaps now you can understand my observation that your responses are helpless,  nonsense, incoherent non-answers.  In your mind, you are giving a good or reasonable answer, but unfortunately in my mind, you are not.

I’ve been trying to explain to you the problems with your responses but you aren’t actually addressing the problems.  You ignore the problems and again, this is not surprising.  I expect you’ll respond by asking what problems I have identified, go back and read all of my posts in this thread, if you can’t see the problems with your responses, that is in and of itself part of the problem.  Unfortunately, we are not dealing with simple mathematical questions are we.  We are dealing with philosophical deep questions.  Your responses don’t account for the big picture, they only leave more questions which are bigger problems than the original problems. 

I can see exactly why your responses seem like great answers to you.  They were my answers when I was a kid.  I’ve grown up now, and had a lot of time to think about these questions.  Your responses don’t function, they don’t work, they are incorrect simple pieces in a complex puzzle.  As I said before, whether I like your response to my questions or not has nothing to do with  them not being viable answers or being non-answers.  I may not like the number 2, but I have no choice but to admit that 1+1 equals 2.  However if I press 1 + 1 = in a calculator and the display says “BLUE”, I’m probably not going to keep using that calculator anymore except for shits and giggles as a gag calculator. 
 

If they did then there would be no question about their existence regardless if the children are placing their hands over their ears and shouting "lalala".
Your method for ignoring communication is not actually effective and instead is more illogical nonsense.  Would you like evidence that what you are saying is illogical nonsense?  Try your method out for a week.  Every time someone attempts to communicate with you, put your hands over your ears and shout "lalala" and then see if who was trying to communicate with you exists or not [...] Parents = "God" = imaginary friends [...] You don't see what is cruel about parents who don't even clearly or coherently communicate with children in a house leaving the children completely in the dark about the existence of the parents. 

Again with the existence of God

Again you ignore the point of the discussion.

Ps : Sorry about bringing up the babies I wanted to say children instead to stay into context.

My point remains whether you said babies or children.
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Online Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1928
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Why give hormones and then create rules about sexual life?
« Reply #156 on: April 07, 2014, 07:20:22 PM »
...so only a human could try to repair the damages done by humans.


So the all-powerful Yahweh, who created the universe in just a few days, couldn't do it? 
You are right. I should have said " only a human SHOULD try to repair the damages done by humans"
You're worth more than my time

Online Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1928
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Why give hormones and then create rules about sexual life?
« Reply #157 on: April 07, 2014, 08:50:13 PM »
Hello SevenPatch,
You had so much to say, it was a good read.
My main comment will be : I am waiting for you to believe in my parents. (you'll find afterwards that we are all brothers and sisters)
Let me try and answer the questions you asked : These answer are in my opinion/belief

"Can you understand that it is true that “God” DOES NOT clearly and coherently communicate with everyone?" No :(

"if the children don’t know that their parents exist, then whatever means the parents are using to communicate is not clear and coherent is it?  If the communication was clear and coherent, then even without proper understanding, all of the children would know that the parents exist." The means are clear. The parents exist whether the children know it or not.

"WHY is it that the parents are not making their existence known to all of the children? [...] Why are there so many religions? Why doesn’t your god do everything in its power to give everyone an equal chance to do what your god wants?" Because If the parents did, the children will not have a choice anymore. It will remove the freedom of the children.

"So what exactly are the abilities of your “God”?  Is you “God” as limited in ability as my mortal parents?" God's abilities are infinite He has all the qualities we can imagine. They are not limited.

"Why do you insist on making this unfair comparison and expecting it to make sense?" I don't believe it is unfair. The sentiment I feel toward my parents are a fraction of what I feel for God. But they are similar, more comprehensible.

"Is your god as imperfect as human mortal parents?  Why should an imperfect being, entity or whatever your god is, call itself a god?" He is not. He calls himself "I am" I am the one calling him God :) (it's a joke, semantics)

"Why is it that some children do not know that their parents exist?" Because they are free. In fact I think they know, they are just blinded but other "gods" like themselves or their kids or money or anything material...etc I believe every child knows God exist. I will always remember that story from a parent
He caught his 2 years old kid, standing above the crib of the newborn in the family and he was saying "Tell me again about heaven, I've already forgotten"

"why do some children claim to know their parents exist, yet other children do not know their parents exist?" Because of the freedom their parents gave them. The parents want the child to believe in them without forcing him.

"You might also think perhaps I am the one who is mistaken or delusional, and my response to that is, please show me how to believe something which does clearly exist, doesn’t exist.  Show me how to believe that the Sun does not exist.  Show me how to believe that a person standing next to me does not exist.  Children who don’t actually know that their parents exist are not mistaken or delusional. " I can't :( I believe that the sun or the person standing next to you exist.

"if I were to go to a X-Box or Playstation forum and say Microsoft or Sony really screwed something up" Maybe you forgot that you are talking to the thing they screwed up.

"It isn’t your fault that “God” has failed miserably." When you think that the failure is ME, I get insulted.

"Should we hold your god to the standards of mortal imperfect loving and caring human beings?" No

"Okay, I’ll bite.  What experiment exactly?" You are doing it right now. Start by asking hard questions to believers. For the full course, you got it right, each person is different. For me the answers I got made sense enough. In fact, I wondered before asking the question what answer to my question would satisfy me. Even today I still receive answers that don't fit the answer I am looking for and they make for good discussion with priests and other believers. But it's question about surface, not the base.

God make THE rules but the rules (beside the 10 commandments and the ones Jesus gave us) that are in the bible are made for humans that are not us anymore. Humans also make
the rules (like with the pope and such...) and these are not flawless.
I believe that God is the one who made the rule for gravity for example. Humans discovered it. Humans made the rules for your computer programs.
I don't think God rules are unclear (even if it took us centuries before discovering gravity)
You're worth more than my time

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 703
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Why give hormones and then create rules about sexual life?
« Reply #158 on: April 07, 2014, 09:33:13 PM »
OH THANK YOU LORD JESUS THAT I AM FREE TO NOT KNOW THAT YOU EXIST!  HALLELUJAH, PRAISE JESUS! 

Man, those "God" and Jesus characters would be real jerks if they didn't give me the freedom to not know that they exist.
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Why give hormones and then create rules about sexual life?
« Reply #159 on: April 08, 2014, 12:29:53 AM »
Lukvance, the "freedom of the children" argument doesn't work at all b/c having knowledge of the existence of something does not in anyway violate that persons ability to choose to go the opposite direction. Don't you believe that Satan (who allegedly had direct knowledge of this "Yahweh") rebelled? If so, then your argument is 100% false and you should recant it. Having knowledge of something does absolutely nothing to violate a persons freewill. So this argument is no longer an option for you.

Regarding the "God's rules" comment, are you saying then that whatever God says is moral because he says it, or does he say it because it is moral?

HINT: I will be waiting for you to use the "nature" argument.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2014, 12:36:43 AM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6493
  • Darwins +846/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Why give hormones and then create rules about sexual life?
« Reply #160 on: April 08, 2014, 04:40:41 PM »
Lukvance, your responses to SevenPatch might have merit if there were only two groups of people in the world; Christians and atheists.[1]

Then you could reasonably look at the world and say, "Some people are listening to god's communication-- see those Christians? Other people are not, for whatever reasons, listening to god's communication-- see those atheists?"

However, you have to account for the thousands of different religions in the world. Only two billion of the planet's people are Christians of some denomination, and a few million people are atheists with no religious beliefs.

That leaves five billion people who are neither Christians nor atheists. They are devout Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Sikhs, Cao Dai, Rastas, Santeros, etc. They are actively, eagerly, listening for god's clear communication, and they are hearing it. (In the case of Hinduism and Haitian Vodun, they are hearing from lots of gods!)

But they are not hearing the same things you are hearing. They are "performing the experiment" and getting entirely different results from you. How do you account for sincere believers of other faiths than yours?

Let's assume that you are correct and a)there is one loving creator god, and b)Christianity is the true religion. What do we have to conclude?:

1) God is communicating well and reaching one group of "children"-- the Christians.
2) God is not communicating at all with another group of "children" -- the atheists. Maybe the atheists do have their fingers in their ears, and are blocked by their sins, but god's communication is not reaching them for whatever reason.
3) God is communicating badly with everyone else. He is giving the wrong information to all the other groups of children, who have their ears wide open, so the vast majority of the world is being misled by what they think is a coherent, clear message from god(s)....

If there is really only one true faith and one true god, it starts to look more and more like what SevenPatch proposed as "A" on his list of possibilities. God is like a twisted abusive parent who talks to one group of children clearly and nicely, ignoring some completely, while jerking the rest around with lies and trickery.

You also say that if god let everyone know that he existed it would force people to worship.[2]That is clearly wrong, if the OT is reliable. In the OT all sorts of people talked to god directly, including Moses, Noah, Adam and Eve. Were they forced to worship, or did they still have free will? Adam and Eve definitely had free will to obey or not, didn't they? How come humans today don't get the same chance to choose freely as the people in the OT?
 1. If you are going to try to argue that devout Muslims, Hindus, Jews and other believers--some of whom have become martyrs for their religion-- are actually atheists, we might as well give up on this conversation right now! 
 2. Someone else mentioned Satan and all the rebellious angels who also experienced god directly and chose not to worship.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Online Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1928
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Why give hormones and then create rules about sexual life?
« Reply #161 on: April 08, 2014, 06:49:14 PM »
HINT: I will be waiting for you to use the "nature" argument.
You'll wait long, I don't know what is the nature argument.
Quote
having knowledge of the existence of something does not in anyway violate that persons ability to choose to go the opposite direction

Oh yes it does! You cannot chose that something does not exist after you acknowledge it's existence. Satan knew that God existed. You won't hear him say that God does not exist.
Wait I'm a bit lost here are we talking about the existence of God?
Quote
Regarding the "God's rules" comment, are you saying then that whatever God says is moral because he says it, or does he say it because it is moral?
I'm saying that whatever God says we should find it moral. Because he is the wisest. Then again, what God said is told/written by humans... that are flawed.
You're worth more than my time

Online Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1928
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Why give hormones and then create rules about sexual life?
« Reply #162 on: April 08, 2014, 07:24:45 PM »
That's a really good point you make nogosforme. Thank you for continuing the conversation.
But they are not hearing the same things you are hearing. They are "performing the experiment" and getting entirely different results from you. How do you account for sincere believers of other faiths than yours?
I believe that in every other religion there is a truth. Some of the message from God was heard correctly, but not all. I even believe that in Christianity the message from god isn't heard correctly. I remember saying that even I who listen to him am impaired because of my sins. What makes Christianity different for me than the other religion is logic and freedom. It is the religion that made the more sense to me and accepted me as I was without forcing me to change. I did change, but by my own will, not because someone or something told me to.
I believe that makes 2 type of people.
1 . Those who listen with their ears impaired (finger in the ears) -- The Religious people (like me) or Agnostics
2. Those who don't want to listen. -- The atheist
In either group God is communicating well. It's the child fault to not wish to listen at all (or not well)

Quote
You also say that if god let everyone know that he existed it would force people to worship. That is clearly wrong, if the OT is reliable. In the OT all sorts of people talked to god directly, including Moses, Noah, Adam and Eve. Were they forced to worship, or did they still have free will? Adam and Eve definitely had free will to obey or not, didn't they? How come humans today don't get the same chance to choose freely as the people in the OT?
I meant that it would force them to acknowledge his existence. Humans today a freer than Satan or Adam and Eve.

You're worth more than my time

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1959
  • Darwins +355/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Why give hormones and then create rules about sexual life?
« Reply #163 on: April 09, 2014, 09:48:30 AM »
I meant that it would force them to acknowledge his existence.
Yes, if god made his existence clear we would be forced[1] to acknowledge that he does exist - this is readily evident.  Why you see this as a potentially bad thing is not nearly as evident.  Why you would think this has a negative impact on someone's ability to exercise their free will is not nearly as evident.

Or, perhaps, I'm looking at this all wrong.

Could you provide an example of where your ability to exercise your free will was or would have been reduced as a result of having more knowledge?  What choices were you denied as a result of this acquired knowledge?
 1. Though, like climate change deniers, I imagine that there would still be those who would actively deny his existence.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1228
  • Darwins +89/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why give hormones and then create rules about sexual life?
« Reply #164 on: April 09, 2014, 10:20:23 AM »
I believe that makes 2 type of people.
1 . Those who listen with their ears impaired (finger in the ears) -- The Religious people (like me) or Agnostics
2. Those who don't want to listen. -- The atheist
In either group God is communicating well. It's the child fault to not wish to listen at all (or not well)

I would add a third group: Those that would listen but hear nothing but silence -- The atheist

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6493
  • Darwins +846/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Why give hormones and then create rules about sexual life?
« Reply #165 on: April 09, 2014, 03:26:37 PM »
So, all religious people are hearing the one true god, even if they practice a religion different from Christianity? Any religion will do? Mormonism, Scientology, Santeria, Hinduism, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism--they all count towards heaven as long as you are not an atheist.

Gotcha.

Note to self:
1) Invent a religion that involves no heavy lifting but requires people to send me all their money.
2) ?
3) Heaven.

And how would knowing for sure that a god exists violate our freedom again? We could still, like Satan, use our freedom to refuse to worship him. :angel:

I am willing to bet that most of us on this site, if we did ever meet the god of the bible, would not worship him. Because he was not a nice guy, and a god should at minimum be nice if he wants voluntary, sincere worship.

Otherwise he is like a dictator, just forcing you to bow down out of fear. Any human a$$hole (Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, Stalin, Idi Amin, Trujillo) can get people to bow down out of fear. I'd bow down to all of them, but would never worship them.

That is different from voluntary, sincere worship. Which a god who killed millions of living beings in a flood, yet ignores sick, starving children definitely does not deserve. :P
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Why give hormones and then create rules about sexual life?
« Reply #166 on: April 10, 2014, 08:11:08 AM »

I'm saying that whatever God says we should find it moral. Because he is the wisest. Then again, what God said is told/written by humans... that are flawed.

So what is the objective method of determining which is which? Because every Christian seems to operate on the principle of "what I want to hear/believe" = God/moral; "What I don't want to hear/believe" = flawed human stuff.

Meaning the Bible shows no evidence of internal meaning more than a Rorschach test.



An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Why give hormones and then create rules about sexual life?
« Reply #167 on: April 10, 2014, 03:59:03 PM »
So God came down to sacrifice himself, to himself, to act as a loophole for a rule that he, himself, created in the first place. Yes, and Santa Claus is coming to town. Hello delusion!
It's a little bit more complicated than that. Jesus was 100% human too. But you don't have to believe it for it to be true. God created a rule and gave humans freedom of choice. They chose to break the rule so only a human could try to repair the damages done by humans. But it couldn't be any human.

Why? Is this God you propose incapable?
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Online Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1928
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Why give hormones and then create rules about sexual life?
« Reply #168 on: April 10, 2014, 06:37:03 PM »
Could you provide an example of where your ability to exercise your free will was or would have been reduced as a result of having more knowledge?  What choices were you denied as a result of this acquired knowledge?
That's a good point you bring. I had to think a little bit about it.  This is fun!
You have the knowledge of god existence. I told you he existed. So seeing him won't give you more knowledge.
But him showing himself to you is less good (but still a good thing) than you choosing him because you will be less free to accept him.
It's like closing the door to prevent your dog to go out (which is a good thing) versus letting the door open and let the dog choose to wait for you (which is a better thing).
You're worth more than my time

Online Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1928
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Why give hormones and then create rules about sexual life?
« Reply #169 on: April 10, 2014, 06:43:06 PM »
So, all religious people are hearing the one true god, even if they practice a religion different from Christianity? Any religion will do? Mormonism, Scientology, Santeria, Hinduism, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism--they all count towards heaven as long as you are not an atheist.

Atheists can go to heaven too. You get it now?
Quote
That is different from voluntary, sincere worship. Which a god who killed millions of living beings in a flood, yet ignores sick, starving children definitely does not deserve

So you believe that Noah's story was true!? (I don't) If not, you are wasting your time trying to provoke me because you ran out of arguments.
You're worth more than my time

Online Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1928
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Why give hormones and then create rules about sexual life?
« Reply #170 on: April 10, 2014, 06:46:40 PM »
I'm saying that whatever God says we should find it moral. Because he is the wisest. Then again, what God said is told/written by humans... that are flawed.
So what is the objective method of determining which is which? Because every Christian seems to operate on the principle of "what I want to hear/believe" = God/moral; "What I don't want to hear/believe" = flawed human stuff.
Meaning the Bible shows no evidence of internal meaning more than a Rorschach test.
Prayer is the method.

So God came down to sacrifice himself, to himself, to act as a loophole for a rule that he, himself, created in the first place. Yes, and Santa Claus is coming to town. Hello delusion!
It's a little bit more complicated than that. Jesus was 100% human too. But you don't have to believe it for it to be true. God created a rule and gave humans freedom of choice. They chose to break the rule so only a human could try to repair the damages done by humans. But it couldn't be any human.
Why? Is this God you propose incapable?
He is capable. It's not because he CAN that he MUST.
You're worth more than my time

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6493
  • Darwins +846/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Why give hormones and then create rules about sexual life?
« Reply #171 on: April 10, 2014, 07:00:23 PM »
So, Lukvance, you believe that god did not kill millions in a flood. I agree with you. He never did that, because there is no evidence that there was any such flood. But you do think god has the ability to save all starving children in the world, but chooses not to.

If you could save every starving child by a wave of your hand, would you do it? If you could cure everyone who has cancer the same way, would you do it? If you could give every wounded soldier their limbs back, would you do it? If you saw a baby lying in the  road, would you dash into the street to save it from being run over?

Of course you would. So would I. Because we are both nice, normal, caring humans. There is no way we would "choose not to". God, however, is not nearly as nice as we are. God "chooses not to" do any of the nice things that we would do.

He stands by and watches the baby get run over, ignores the children dying of starvation, turns away from the soldiers as they scream in agony from amputations.

And still you choose to worship him....

Maybe you are not as nice as all that.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1959
  • Darwins +355/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Why give hormones and then create rules about sexual life?
« Reply #172 on: April 10, 2014, 09:47:02 PM »
Could you provide an example of where your ability to exercise your free will was or would have been reduced as a result of having more knowledge?  What choices were you denied as a result of this acquired knowledge?
That's a good point you bring. I had to think a little bit about it.  This is fun!
You have the knowledge of god existence. I told you he existed. So seeing him won't give you more knowledge.
But him showing himself to you is less good (but still a good thing) than you choosing him because you will be less free to accept him.

Flomongerstart the Murderer of Babies in 2017 exists.  He is a powerful alien that will murder every baby in the year 2017, unless you believe, of your own free will[1], that he exists.

There.  You now have knowledge of Flomongerstart's existence.  I told you he existed.  So seeing him won't give you more knowledge.

Lukvance...let me be frank with you.  I don't think you're spending sufficient time thinking through your responses here.  You miss the point a lot, and sometimes by very large margins.  Some of your responses, like the above, have such glaring and obvious holes in them that I sometimes wonder if you're pulling these responses from some kind of cheat sheet or something.  I mean - come on - I would undeniably have more information available to me regarding this god entity if I saw him or directly experienced him vs. me not seeing or directly experiencing him.  That you think otherwise is disconcerting.  I'm in agreement with Foxy at this point - I'm questioning your ability to think clearly.

And this:
Quote
It's like closing the door to prevent your dog to go out (which is a good thing) versus letting the door open and let the dog choose to wait for you (which is a better thing).
This is a very, very poor analogy.  It's more like me, with all of my ingenuity, cunning, and financial resources hiding the very existence of the door from the dog and expecting him to walk through it.
 1. I type this for consistency.  I don't actually think you understand how 'choice' actually works, so thinking terms of the philosophical ins-and-outs of free will with you is going to be nightmareish.  For the time being, just go ahead and substitute this weird, twisted version of 'choice' you have.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Why give hormones and then create rules about sexual life?
« Reply #173 on: April 11, 2014, 10:51:55 AM »
I'm saying that whatever God says we should find it moral. Because he is the wisest. Then again, what God said is told/written by humans... that are flawed.
So what is the objective method of determining which is which? Because every Christian seems to operate on the principle of "what I want to hear/believe" = God/moral; "What I don't want to hear/believe" = flawed human stuff.
Meaning the Bible shows no evidence of internal meaning more than a Rorschach test.
Prayer is the method.

Reread what I wrote again paying particular attention to the large bolded parts and maybe you can see why your answer was nonsense. Probably not, you being too limited in intellect and/or too wrapped up in a delusion.


So God came down to sacrifice himself, to himself, to act as a loophole for a rule that he, himself, created in the first place. Yes, and Santa Claus is coming to town. Hello delusion!
It's a little bit more complicated than that. Jesus was 100% human too. But you don't have to believe it for it to be true. God created a rule and gave humans freedom of choice. They chose to break the rule so only a human could try to repair the damages done by humans. But it couldn't be any human.
Why? Is this God you propose incapable?
He is capable. It's not because he CAN that he MUST.

Your answer was nonsense. It is just pseudo profundity trying to hide that it is nonsense. If you want to accomplish soothing, and you don't it must meaning you are unwilling, or incapable, or some combination; there is no other "must" about it.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2014, 10:53:33 AM by Hatter23 »
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.