As long as you're inexplicably hating on what you think is imaginary

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
Why the fake sympathy, expressed 7,647 times over last few years, for the alleged "needless harm" caused to babies many centuries ago? You admitted that like all of us, you cried at birth. You concluded, when pressed, that it was because of "needless harm."

Why not ditch the tired old drowning baaaaaaaaabies shtick and make a new more up to date OP:

"WAAAAAH, God's a big meanie for causing us 'needless harm' when we were born. I rue the day I was born. WAAAAAAAHH"
 

treeplanter

Well-known member
Why the fake sympathy, expressed 7,647 times over last few years, for the alleged "needless harm" caused to babies many centuries ago? You admitted that like all of us, you cried at birth. You concluded, when pressed, that it was because of "needless harm."

Why not ditch the tired old drowning baaaaaaaaabies shtick and make a new more up to date OP:

"WAAAAAH, God's a big meanie for causing us 'needless harm' when we were born. I rue the day I was born. WAAAAAAAHH"
You're mistaking a condemnation of moral character for an outpouring of sympathy

I don't believe that God drowned anyone, let alone babies, because I don't believe that God exists
Sympathy for babies who were made to endure a non-existent event?
No, stiggy - it's nothing to do with that!

The reason I point out that God needlessly drowned babies
{which is something that Christians DO believe happened}
is to illustrate His gross immorality in an attempt to convince Christians to scrape Him off of their shoe



As far as the trauma of birth goes - yes, God, according to scripture, consciously and purposefully designed childbirth to be a painful experience

He consciously and purposefully chose to inflict this needless harm upon us as a consequence of Adam and Eve's actions

And yes, on this basis, God is immoral

Ditch the drowned babies in favor of babies crying at birth?
How stupid would that be?

On the scale of immorality - it is infinitely worse to drown a baby than it is to make him/her endure a few minutes {or even hours} of unpleasant birthing


There is much to choose from when it comes to God's immorality, but what else packs as visceral a punch as the thought of a supposedly just and loving God torturing His most helpless and innocent of creations?
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Why the fake sympathy, expressed 7,647 times over last few years, for the alleged "needless harm" caused to babies many centuries ago? You admitted that like all of us, you cried at birth. You concluded, when pressed, that it was because of "needless harm."

Why not ditch the tired old drowning baaaaaaaaabies shtick and make a new more up to date OP:

"WAAAAAH, God's a big meanie for causing us 'needless harm' when we were born. I rue the day I was born. WAAAAAAAHH"
Sad when mocking is an apologists idea of discussion.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
You're mistaking a condemnation of moral character for an outpouring of sympathy

So it's pure Pharisaism?

I don't believe that God drowned anyone .............
The reason I point out that God needlessly drowned babies .......

LOL! Gotta love it, folks. He debates himself.

As far as the trauma of birth goes - yes, God, according to scripture, consciously and purposefully designed childbirth to be a painful experience

Has da widdle bitty tweepwantuh gotten over the pain of being born yet?

On the scale of immorality - it is infinitely worse to drown a baby than it is to make him/her endure a few minutes {or even hours} of unpleasant birthing

Infinitely? Even though the former results in immediate glory, while the latter results in years spent in trials and tribulation? Didn't think that one out too well, now didja?
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Why the fake sympathy, expressed 7,647 times over last few years, for the alleged "needless harm" caused to babies many centuries ago?
And after all those 7,647 times atheists have pointed out the Christian God is an immoral monster, Christians still have no proper response.

You admitted that like all of us, you cried at birth. You concluded, when pressed, that it was because of "needless harm."
Let us not forget the pain the mother experiences when she gives birth.

Not merely needless, but pain God chooses to cause them.

Genesis 3:16 To the woman He said,
“I will greatly multiply
Your pain [g]in childbirth,
In pain you shall deliver children;

Why not ditch the tired old drowning baaaaaaaaabies shtick and make a new more up to date OP:
Because Christians have yet to find an answer to this one.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
And after all those 7,647 times atheists have pointed out the Christian God is an immoral monster, Christians still have no proper response.

0<7,647.


Let us not forget the pain the mother experiences when she gives birth.

EXACTLY! You tell him! If he's gonna blubber and moan about how mean is a god in whom he doesn't believe, why confine it to what he doesn't really believe happened to babies centuries ago? His own Mommy experienced some pain a mere few decades ago, and he DOES believe she exists.

"WAAAAAH, God's a big meanie for causing my Mommy 'needless harm' when I born. I rue the day I was born. WAAAAAAAHH"
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
EXACTLY! You tell him! If he's gonna blubber and moan about how mean is a god in whom he doesn't believe, why confine it to what he doesn't really believe happened to babies centuries ago? His own Mommy experienced some pain a mere few decades ago, and he DOES believe she exists.
The point is that God choosing to inflict pain in not compatible with the Christian claim that "God is love".
The conclusion, then, is that Christianity is wrong.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
The point is that God choosing to inflict pain in not compatible with the Christian claim that "God is love"

WRONG! The point of my OP is that if one wants to claim that inflicting pain always indicates hatred as a motivation, it's idiotic to repetitively whine ad nauseam about an event that you don't believe happened centuries ago, when you believe there are plentiful examples that occur this very day.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
WRONG! The point of my OP is that if one wants to claim that inflicting pain always indicates hatred as a motivation, it's idiotic to repetitively whine ad nauseam about an event that you don't believe happened centuries ago, when you believe there are plentiful examples that occur this very day.
The point of your OP was to attack a straw man.

I am ignoring your straw man, and pointing out that the real issue is the dichotomy between "God is love" and, for example, God choosing to make women suffer needlessly when they give birth. Or indeed, between "God is love" and, for example, God choosing to drown millions, including babies, in a flood.

I do not believe "God is love", I do not believe God chooses to make women suffer needlessly when they give birth, I do not believe God choose to drown millions, including babies, in a flood. But that is what Christians tell me is true, and I am pointing out that that does not make sense, and therefore Christianity is wrong.

Now we both know you have no answer to that, so I suggest you go back to your straw man, and focus on that.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
The point of your OP was to attack a straw man.

Half right. Treeplanter is a man but he is not made of straw.

I am ignoring your straw man, and pointing out that the real issue is the dichotomy between "God is love" and, for example, God choosing to make women suffer needlessly when they give birth. Or indeed, between "God is love" and, for example, God choosing to drown millions, including babies, in a flood.

I do not believe "God is love", I do not believe God chooses to make women suffer needlessly when they give birth, I do not believe God choose to drown millions, including babies, in a flood. But that is what Christians tell me is true, and I am pointing out that that does not make sense, and therefore Christianity is wrong.

Now we both know you have no answer to that, so I suggest you go back to your straw man, and focus on that.

Not interested in your shallow opinion that the infliction of pain cannot be done in love. That would be between you and the kids I hope you don't have. Please stick to the point of my OP, which is this:

Do you or do you not agree that if you want to claim that inflicting pain always indicates hatred as a motivation, it's idiotic to repetitively whine ad nauseam about an event that you don't believe happened centuries ago, when you believe there are plentiful examples that occur this very day?
 
Last edited:

shnarkle

Well-known member
WRONG! The point of my OP is that if one wants to claim that inflicting pain always indicates hatred as a motivation, it's idiotic to repetitively whine ad nauseam about an event that you don't believe happened centuries ago, when you believe there are plentiful examples that occur this very day.
I could be wrong here, but one of the reasons I think some people get so bent over fictional narratives is because deep down, they're not really looking at them as fictional narratives at all.

In other words, if we look at the bible as a work of fiction, it's a Given that this fictional god is not just omniscient, but full of wisdom so these authors present us with examples that we can't begin to comprehend to show that people with limited intelligence or awareness must necessarily become confused in relation to infinite wisdom.

Crying and whining about it is not just useless, it's downright asinine. The biblical god holds all the cards. If we want to play dice, we already know that they're loaded. Anyone who throws those dice is a fool to complain after the fact.

Even more bewildering is the fact that we can look around the world today, and see people doing far worse things than this fictional god, and yet we either ignore or even approve of them. We approve of a woman's right to abort her baby because it's her body, but the biblical god created everything. It's all his so it's his to do with as he pleases. He's doing the exact same thing a woman does when she decides to kill her baby.

Defense contractors build bombs to kill people, and nobody seems to have a problem with that at all. The examples are practically endless. We're all each responsible for killing far more life in this world than every death recorded in the bible combined. Those who are bothered by the biblical god's lust for murder and death are simply projecting their own guilt onto fictional gods.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Half right. Treeplanter is a man but he is not made of straw.

Not interested in your shallow opinion that the infliction of pain cannot be done in love. ...
Right. You would prefer to attack your straw man, rather than address the real issue.

Of course you would, denial is the biggest weapon the apologist has.

That would be between you and the kids I hope you don't have.
You are the one who thinks causing needless pain is compatible with love.

It seems to me that that is a bigger cause for cause with regards to raising children. I have three children, more-or-less grown up now, and I have never deliberately caused them needless pain.

Do you have children, stiggy? Have you ever deliberately caused them needless pain?

That is what God does, according to Christianity. He deliberately causes needless pain. So tell us where you stand on this, stiggy, when it comes to parenting, since you brought up the issue of raising kids.

Or continue to hide behind your straw man, and I will start a new thread about it.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
Right. You would prefer to attack your straw man,

Parroting the unoriginal phrase "straw man" isn't going to cut it here, pal. I already shot down that shtick. Get busy with the task you're evading:

Do you or do you not agree that if you want to claim that inflicting pain always indicates hatred as a motivation, it's idiotic to repetitively whine ad nauseam about an event that you don't believe happened centuries ago, when you believe there are plentiful examples that occur this very day?


You are the one who thinks causing needless pain is compatible with love.

NEW TASK FOR YOU TO AVOID: Get busy showing where I think the infliction of NEEDLESS pain compatible with love.

Do you have children, stiggy? Have you ever deliberately caused them needless pain?

NEEDLESS? I hope not. I know God hasn't. Now get busy with your tasks.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Parroting the unoriginal phrase "straw man" isn't going to cut it here, pal. I already shot down that shtick. Get busy with the task you're evading:
You mean you continued to pretend that that is Treeplanter's position.

Still makes it a straw man. If you want to show otherwise, quote him. Provide evidence.

Do you or do you not agree that if you want to claim that inflicting pain always indicates hatred as a motivation, it's idiotic to repetitively whine ad nauseam about an event that you don't believe happened centuries ago, when you believe there are plentiful examples that occur this very day?
I disagree. No need for me to evade.

It is perfectly reasonably because it illustrates the dichotomy between conflicting Christian beliefs. According to your reckoning this has been asked 7647 times, and still Christians cannot muster a decent response.

NEW TASK FOR YOU TO AVOID: Get busy showing where I think the infliction of NEEDLESS pain compatible with love.
You tell me what you think stiggy.
  • Do you think God causes women to suffer more than they need to in child birth?
  • Do you think that extra suffering is needless?
If not, then what is the need? Would you say letting women have painkillers during childbirth is sinful, given it is acting against the suffering they, apparently, need to experience?

NEEDLESS? I hope not. I know God hasn't. Now get busy with your tasks.
So what was your point when you said "That would be between you and the kids I hope you don't have."?

I am arguing against causing needless pain. Why should I therefore be kept away from kids? I am the one has has clearly stated: "I have never deliberately caused them needless pain." Why is it that when I asked you if you had, you evaded?

Here it is again:

Do you have children, stiggy? Have you ever deliberately caused them needless pain?

Evade it again, and I will assume that the answer is that yes you have, and it is you who should be kept away from children.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
You mean you continued to pretend that that is Treeplanter's posi.tion.

Yep, been his position for years now. You obviously don't read his garbage, you lucky man.


Still makes it a straw man. If you want to show otherwise, quote him. Provide evidence.

Hilarious. You need evidence that TP posts about drowning babies.


You tell me what you think stiggy.
  • Do you think God causes women to suffer more than they need to in child birth?

Nope.

  • Do you think that extra suffering is needless?

Yep. They suffer enough.

If not, then what is the need? Would you say letting women have painkillers during childbirth is sinful

Nope.

, given it is acting against the suffering they, apparently, need to experience?

Read the gospels. Jesus alleviated physical suffering EVERY TIME He encountered it.

I am arguing against causing needless pain.

Good. Inflicting pain you know is needless is evil.

Here it is again:

Do you have children, stiggy? Have you ever deliberately caused them needless pain?

Evade it again

Again? I answered it last post. PAY ATTENTION!
 

bigthinker

Well-known member
Now you are starting to understand why few ever address the atheists here.
I've understood it for a long time; believers don't have facts on their side. Apologists argue with other apologists with ease, in the same one might debate star wars vs star trek or Batman vs Superman.
They struggle, however when expected to present actual, reality based facts.
 

Furion

Well-known member
I've understood it for a long time; believers don't have facts on their side. Apologists argue with other apologists with ease, in the same one might debate star wars vs star trek or Batman vs Superman.
They struggle, however when expected to present actual, reality based facts.
Yes, people can argue and bicker over the temperature of scat too, nice.
 
Top