The third side of the abortion debate. The 'fetuses' that can now speak.

[Hockeycowboy]

This reminds me of a Paul Harvey story, where he describes two pregnant women from different eras, discussing with someone (their Dr? Pastor? I can’t remember), whether they should abort. They didn’t…the kids survived…

One child became Mozart; the other became Adolph Hitler.

Does anyone remember that?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I found it! (It was da Vinci, not Mozart.)

 

[HonestJoe]

Abortion Survivors imput is critical as to how things need to proceed and where limits apply.

I'm not sure I'd agree with "critical". While the risks of abortion is an important consideration and there is value having real individuals as the face of those risks, there is nothing to say that someone who happened to survive an abortion is going to be automatically better informed or knowledgeable about issues in question and there could well be some (albeit entirely understandable) bias against abortion on their part. There is also the aspect that adult abortion survivors will be talking about abortion 20+ years ago (often much longer) and medical fields can move a long way in that kind of time.

As I said earlier, they totally should (and do) have the right to comment on the topic but no more or less than anyone else who could be directly affected (which includes pretty much every pre-menopausal woman).

 

[Bathos Logos]

Many people, like yourself, blame God for everything that is bad.

You have it wrong. I, personally, do not blame God for anything. I do not believe He exists. What I am doing is demonstrating for you, the believer, some of the conclusions you should be drawing based on what you believe and how powerful you likely suppose God is. If I am incorrect, and you don't believe that God is very powerful, then I apologize for making such an assumption. But if you do believe He is powerful enough to intervene in situations like those I posed, but He does not, well then you have something to think about. I have already thought about it, considered what it would mean if God existed and had the power to prevent things like premature births but chose not to, and that's what I am sharing with you. You can make excuses for God, obviously, but that is all that they would be. Especially since he could prevent the dangers of premature births without anyone knowing He was even involved! If He cares so very much about not making His presence known, He could still easily prevent premature births without anyone knowing He was doing so. So, excuses are all that can be made.

Many others however, know that God is not the one who messes up human lives, but man does.
The science is out there for everyone who would accept it.

Smoking & Tobacco Use
Smoking during pregnancy can cause tissue damage in the unborn baby, particularly in the lung and brain, and some studies suggests a link between maternal smoking and cleft lip.
Mothers who smoke are more likely to deliver their babies early. Preterm delivery is a leading cause of death, disability, and disease among newborns.

The article says mothers who smoke while pregnant or who are exposed to secondhand smoke after birth, their babies have weaker lungs than other babies, increasing the risk of many health problems.

Plastic
Exposure to Plastic Chemicals Before Conception Tied to Premature Births
Pregnant women exposed to phthalates, a group of chemicals used in many products, may be at increased risk for preterm birth, studies have found. Now a new study has found that exposure even before conception may increase the risk.

The decision to prohibit the manufacture of infant feeding bottles made of polycarbonate from March 2011 and the sale or import of the bottles from June 2011 came after a “qualified majority"...

Synthetic chemicals called phthalates are damaging children's brain development and therefore must be immediately banned from consumer products, according to a group of scientists and health professionals from Project TENDR.

We are now discovering that the use of plastic (with focus on plastic water/juice/sports drink bottles, food storage containers, and baby items) and resultant chemical leaching can have far-reaching health consequences, and is of especially great concern with regard to pregnancy.

This doesn't really hold water, firstly since you'd seriously be overestimating the number of women who smoke during pregnancy to try and pin it on smoking. The number of people who smoke, in general, has decreased quite significantly over the years (this links to a report on Forbes.com), and the pool of smokers has always been comprised of more males than females. Not only this, but, statistically, more women who smoke are lesbian and bisexual, meaning that a larger portion of female smokers are less likely to be getting pregnant or carrying a baby to term anyway. Also, a good portion of the remaining heterosexual women who smoke are responsible enough to stop smoking when they become pregnant, leaving the pool of women you can blame for premature births due to tobacco use to be a very small number indeed.

And then this report I found (which is very comprehensive indeed) goes into detail on the types of things classified as "preterm birth", since there are preterm births that are initiated by medical staff for various reasons, on top of "spontaneous preterm birth". And the spontaneous preterm births would be the kind that one would be talking about if external reasons like smoking or plastics were the root cause. As in - a woman can be forced into preterm birth for the baby's or her own safety, and then there is preterm birth that just happens for some external reason. And more preterm births nowadays are preventative measures to save the baby from conditions that would have, in previous years, just resulted in a miscarriage. Like "intrauterine growth restriction" which a baby can now be saved from by inducing a preterm birth (which becomes part of the overall statistics!) And looking at the graphs, while the number of preterm births is rising:

Looking at this graph shows just how wrong your ideas are, and that whoever you got them from is just making noise:

Both "spontaneous preterm birth" (green squares) and premature birth due to "ruptured membranes" (purple squares) have gone down, steadily over the years. The one category that is really increasing are the number of births that are induced prematurely because there was a medical indication that such was necessary (blue triangles)! And again, that area has increased somewhat due to our technology and ability to medically save the babies that end up in various situations that would have otherwise (and previously did) lead to miscarriage. So, while your sources may not be entirely wrong (because maybe plastics and smoking can lead to premature birth), by no means is it indicative of the lion's share of premature births or the complications that result in such being necessary (the report I linked doesn't even give either of those things a mention). That much is crystal clear given this data. Unless you want to claim that the increase in "medically indicated" premature births is actually a cover-up for all the babies they have to save from the effects of plastics and smoking. Good luck finding data to support that conspiracy theory. Without it, you're dead in the water.

 

[nPeace]

You have it wrong. I, personally, do not blame God for anything. I do not believe He exists.

That's what I keep hearing, but then, it's not what is demonstrated.
For example, when I read something like this...
Anyone ever allow premature birth survivors to tell their stories? You know... the babies who God, for whatever reason, either called into the world too early or designed their mother's bodies such that they don't wait the most healthy amount of time before going into labor. One has to wonder why God does that. Or perhaps He's just not as powerful as whatever is in control of such things.

If I did not believe God existed, I would not spend my time talking about God as though he did.
I would leave people to their "imaginary" friend.

I suggest the reason Atheists spend so much time talking about what God does or does not do, is because the reason they want to make excuses for leaving God, whom they don't really think does not exist, but rather, don't want to exist.
In other words, they wish God were dead, since they don't want his laws, and so, they look for "valid" reasons to excuse their Atheistic stance.

What I am doing is demonstrating for you, the believer, some of the conclusions you should be drawing based on what you believe and how powerful you likely suppose God is.

Trying to demonstrate, I would say, because you haven't demonstrated it, but like other Atheists, you are arguing it.

If I am incorrect, and you don't believe that God is very powerful, then I apologize for making such an assumption.

This you haven't assumed incorrectly.
I do acknowledge that God is all-powerful.

But if you do believe He is powerful enough to intervene in situations like those I posed, but He does not, well then you have something to think about.

I have thought about it... perhaps with more information than you might have though.
Thinking about something, when one is clueless, does not help them very much.

For example, suppose you saw or heard that an officer shot a guy in the back of the head, and you started thinking about how unjust and corrupt cops are... If you don't have all the fact, your thinking does not benefit you.

On the other hand, another person, or others, may have more information than you do, and that knowledge benefits them, as they think about what happened.

Officers on the scene may hae been alerted to the fact that the victim was armed and dangerous, and had, in a surprised attack, earlier gunned down a cop with the gun he keeps in his waste-band, which he quickly draws and fires.
The officer may have seen his hand reach for that weapon, through the freshly polished glass door, of McDonald's.

So many details you would have missed, which should make a difference to your thinking.
In my experience though, I have found that Atheists ignore these details, and focus only on what they desperately want to hold on to, in an attempt to excuse their position.

I have already thought about it, considered what it would mean if God existed and had the power to prevent things like premature births but chose not to, and that's what I am sharing with you. You can make excuses for God, obviously, but that is all that they would be. Especially since he could prevent the dangers of premature births without anyone knowing He was even involved! If He cares so very much about not making His presence known, He could still easily prevent premature births without anyone knowing He was doing so. So, excuses are all that can be made.

This is what I mean.
You thought about it with limited facts - only what you want, while you ignore every other detail - the important facts that makes your argument void, and then you claim to have a valid argument.

It's like the lawyer who wants the jury to see only the evidence that could win his case, but all the other evidence he hides, and hopes the opposition does not reveal it.

That only reveals fear.
Why not consider the other details, if you are not afraid.
I asked one Atheist what he suggests God do to save all the children.
He hasn't answered, and you know why? For the same reason you won't consider what you don't want to.
They aren't excuses. They are facts.

If you are going to ask believers to consider something, go all the way. Don't ignore the other details which are also written, and don't tell them they need to consider your side of the story, which is only 20% of the whole.
It's a dead give away, of Atheists' weakness.

This doesn't really hold water, firstly since you'd seriously be overestimating the number of women who smoke during pregnancy to try and pin it on smoking. The number of people who smoke, in general, has decreased quite significantly over the years (this links to a report on Forbes.com), and the pool of smokers has always been comprised of more males than females. Not only this, but, statistically, more women who smoke are lesbian and bisexual, meaning that a larger portion of female smokers are less likely to be getting pregnant or carrying a baby to term anyway. Also, a good portion of the remaining heterosexual women who smoke are responsible enough to stop smoking when they become pregnant, leaving the pool of women you can blame for premature births due to tobacco use to be a very small number indeed.

And then this report I found (which is very comprehensive indeed) goes into detail on the types of things classified as "preterm birth", since there are preterm births that are initiated by medical staff for various reasons, on top of "spontaneous preterm birth". And the spontaneous preterm births would be the kind that one would be talking about if external reasons like smoking or plastics were the root cause. As in - a woman can be forced into preterm birth for the baby's or her own safety, and then there is preterm birth that just happens for some external reason. And more preterm births nowadays are preventative measures to save the baby from conditions that would have, in previous years, just resulted in a miscarriage. Like "intrauterine growth restriction" which a baby can now be saved from by inducing a preterm birth (which becomes part of the overall statistics!) And looking at the graphs, while the number of preterm births is rising:

Looking at this graph shows just how wrong your ideas are, and that whoever you got them from is just making noise:

Both "spontaneous preterm birth" (green squares) and premature birth due to "ruptured membranes" (purple squares) have gone down, steadily over the years. The one category that is really increasing are the number of births that are induced prematurely because there was a medical indication that such was necessary (blue triangles)! And again, that area has increased somewhat due to our technology and ability to medically save the babies that end up in various situations that would have otherwise (and previously did) lead to miscarriage. So, while your sources may not be entirely wrong (because maybe plastics and smoking can lead to premature birth), by no means is it indicative of the lion's share of premature births or the complications that result in such being necessary (the report I linked doesn't even give either of those things a mention). That much is crystal clear given this data. Unless you want to claim that the increase in "medically indicated" premature births is actually a cover-up for all the babies they have to save from the effects of plastics and smoking. Good luck finding data to support that conspiracy theory. Without it, you're dead in the water.

Well, first of all, I did not highligh smoking as the only cause of premature births. You can read the post again, if you happened to miss that.

The other thing is, mankind has been around for centuries, and so has defects, passed down through generation.
You know this well, so, I don't have to explain genetic defects, and how they work.

Again, that didn't come from God, and does not have to... as you know.
Man is to blame.
You don't believe the Bible, but this is what it says. Deuteronomy 32:4-5; James 1:13-15

To further, demonstrate that point, the earth is a beautiful place. Just take mankind off of it for a century, and see the difference between then, and now.

 

[Revoltingest]

Is there anyone saying they shouldn't?

It's a strategy....feign victimhood, tug at heartstrings, &
let empathy overwhelm rational thought. Don't address
other sides of the issues. This enables the emotional
argument that people who exist, but might not have,
possess special authority against abortion...that abortion
is murder of those who now speak of their wonderful lives.
It makes the mother's perspective silent.

 

[Bathos Logos]

That's what I keep hearing, but then, it's not what is demonstrated.
For example, when I read something like this...
Anyone ever allow premature birth survivors to tell their stories? You know... the babies who God, for whatever reason, either called into the world too early or designed their mother's bodies such that they don't wait the most healthy amount of time before going into labor. One has to wonder why God does that. Or perhaps He's just not as powerful as whatever is in control of such things.

If I did not believe God existed, I would not spend my time talking about God as though he did.
I would leave people to their "imaginary" friend.

I told you precisely why I do it. And I am able to do so freely, without worry for whether or not I am insulting some otherworldly being, because I don't believe in one in the first place. You see, that is the freedom that a nonbeliever has. He/she can contemplate things from both sides of the fence. If God exists, then what are the implications? What are the things we might expect to see if we assume that what the believer says about God is true? And then, of course, what are the implications if God does not exist? What are the things we expect to see?

So, in the case that a believer:

1. believes God wants to remain hidden from people to preserve some form of "free-will" so that they seek Him out on their own volition
2. believes that God wants babies to survive, rather than die
3. believes that God has the power to save babies who would otherwise be dying of various maladies

what could we expect from such a God? Would we expect what we literally see happening in the world today? Would we see babies dying due to premature birth? Again - God could remain completely hidden, and not violate any "free will" by secretly helping these babies to survive. In fact, "premature birth" could not even be a thing, and we humans wouldn't even know it! He could help them all, never allow a single premature birth, and no one would be the wiser about any of it! This could literally be how it worked, if God exists and the above 3 items were 100% true. But what do we see instead? These deaths do occur. Which means that if God exists, He does not conform to one or more of the above. He either doesn't want those babies to survive, or He doesn't have the power to save them, or He simply hasn't thought about the situation deeply enough to realize that He could still preserve His hidden-ness even if He were to save all these babies dying in premature births.

Why do you think it so "strange" that a nonbeliever might consider what things could/would be like if God actually did exist? Why is that so hard to understand? Or is it simply that you don't like it when such things are thought upon that cast God in a poor light? You only like the thoughts about God that see Him coming out in a positive light, is that it? I am pretty sure that is it. I doubt you would be so perplexed if all my conclusions had God coming out smelling like a rose. This is your bias wrapped around your throat and choking off the blood supply to your brain.

I suggest the reason Atheists spend so much time talking about what God does or does not do, is because the reason they want to make excuses for leaving God, whom they don't really think does not exist, but rather, don't want to exist.

Absolutely incorrect. It doesn't matter if He exists or not, obviously, because from what I can see/feel/experience there is zero interaction from God with the world I inhabit. It literally does not matter whether or not He exists. He could exist... and I don't see that mattering in the slightest. He's not doing anything, period. It isn't, at all, that I "don't want Him to exist." I don't care if He exists or not, because there is absolutely no demonstrable effect on my life one way or the other.

In other words, they wish God were dead, since they don't want his laws, and so, they look for "valid" reasons to excuse their Atheistic stance.

Do you seriously believe that I am out to break all of "God's laws"? I mean, the blasphemy ones I obviously do break quite often - but those have nothing, at all, to do with the treatment of my fellow man. I abide by all the major rules on the list otherwise, and I can't even care whether or not you believe that. Outside of the rules surrounding the treatment of God Himself, God's other major rules are just obvious things that nearly every other human civilization in the world have come to on their own anyway - and because they are just that obvious for anyone who stops to think about it. In other words, God's rules are nothing special, and I am already actively in-line with them - not because they are God's, obviously, but because they make sense. Of course, then we get into the stupid rules that likely not even you abide by like the "mixed fabrics" nonsense.

This you haven't assumed incorrectly.
I do acknowledge that God is all-powerful.

This is pretty funny. You should go back and read what I wrote - that's what I was assuming you thought, was that God was all-powerful. I was only apologizing in the case that that ISN'T what you thought.

I have thought about it... perhaps with more information than you might have though.
Thinking about something, when one is clueless, does not help them very much.

For example, suppose you saw or heard that an officer shot a guy in the back of the head, and you started thinking about how unjust and corrupt cops are... If you don't have all the fact, your thinking does not benefit you.

On the other hand, another person, or others, may have more information than you do, and that knowledge benefits them, as they think about what happened.

Officers on the scene may hae been alerted to the fact that the victim was armed and dangerous, and had, in a surprised attack, earlier gunned down a cop with the gun he keeps in his waste-band, which he quickly draws and fires.
The officer may have seen his hand reach for that weapon, through the freshly polished glass door, of McDonald's.

So many details you would have missed, which should make a difference to your thinking.
In my experience though, I have found that Atheists ignore these details, and focus only on what they desperately want to hold on to, in an attempt to excuse their position.

In the cases you're talking about, such details can actually be known, however. As in - they happened in reality, and there are potential pieces of evidence that can bring such things to light. But you are hinting that there may be good reasons that God Himself aborts babies' lives. Good reasons that He makes some babies die in premature births. Right? How can we know the details, or investigate the circumstances that make those deaths just and correct? How? That is the HUGE problem you believers have on your hands. Wanting to make all these excuses for God but having ZERO evidence to back up your ridiculous statements that try to justify horrible circumstances that you 100% believe that God could take care of and generally "fix" if He had a mind to. You talk so much about me not having all the information, and yet here you are, referring to information that none of us can possibly have as the key to reaching understanding. Do you even realize how dishonest and strange this is? Do you?

This is what I mean.
You thought about it with limited facts - only what you want, while you ignore every other detail - the important facts that makes your argument void, and then you claim to have a valid argument.

Okay then hotshot - I want you to choose any recent case of a premature birth - any single one at all - and I want you to get me the facts that indicate that that baby's death was allowed to slip by under God's watch for good and just reasons. Just one case. Get to it. You seem to be so confident that there is such knowledge to be had. Present it to me!

It's like the lawyer who wants the jury to see only the evidence that could win his case, but all the other evidence he hides, and hopes the opposition does not reveal it.

Analogies aren't going to cut it... give me the facts.

That only reveals fear.
Why not consider the other details, if you are not afraid.
I asked one Atheist what he suggests God do to save all the children.
He hasn't answered, and you know why? For the same reason you won't consider what you don't want to.
They aren't excuses. They are facts.

Now you're just rambling. Give me the facts. Present them to me. Again... you're only displaying more and more confidence the more that you write. Get me some of these details that excuse even ONE premature birth. Then we can talk about this seriously. Until then this is just you blathering.

If you are going to ask believers to consider something, go all the way. Don't ignore the other details which are also written, and don't tell them they need to consider your side of the story, which is only 20% of the whole.
It's a dead give away, of Atheists' weakness.

Okay then... please stop talking about the facts and present them. I already showed you how you were wrong about the smoking and plastics. Did you understand the data I linked to and posted graphs of? If you bring that crap up again then I will call you out, again, with the same data until you are able to provide evidence that all of the medically indicated premature births (the only actual category of premature births on the rise) were medically indicated due to either plastics or the mother smoking, or some other "sin" the mother was committing. And be careful now - the study of data I linked to did list some of the more common reasons that those births are medically indicated to be in need of premature intervention - and NONE of the reasons were plastics, smoking, alcohol consumption, drugs, etc. None of them.

The other thing is, mankind has been around for centuries, and so has defects, passed down through generation.

This is getting even more and more ridiculous. So God can't help innocent children and save them from the damage that their forebears did to their genetic makeup? Is that what you're saying? Didn't you admit that you believed God to be all powerful? And doesn't this present yet another case that God could easily help in secret?

You know this well, so, I don't have to explain genetic defects, and how they work.

It isn't pertinent to the discussion anyway and is just a dodge. Punishing people down into the generations due to a "sin" committed by some ancestor is entirely immoral and unjust. Period.

All you have are excuses and assumptions. The data isn't on your side, reality isn't on your side. What you have presented is abject waste of the worst kind.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It makes the mother's perspective silent.

Yup.
Myself, I have never even heard of the idea they shouldn't speak until the OP making a vague reference about it.

 

[nPeace]

I told you precisely why I do it.

So? What does that have to do with anything?
We tell you things and they don't matter. What makes what you say so special?

And I am able to do so freely, without worry for whether or not I am insulting some otherworldly being, because I don't believe in one in the first place.

Whether you believe or not, you can do so freely, because you have freedom to make your own choice.
Believing or not believing does not take away your freedom to choose to do whatever you want.

You see, that is the freedom that a nonbeliever has. He/she can contemplate things from both sides of the fence.

That makes no sense.
That's like saying a believer is not able to contemplate or analyze things and freely act on their decision to go one way or other.

If God exists, then what are the implications? What are the things we might expect to see if we assume that what the believer says about God is true?

Why assume anything?
If God exists, what are the things we might expect to see? Period.
Or. Better yet, without assuming or presuming anything, what implications are they for the things we see?
Let's investigate.

And then, of course, what are the implications if God does not exist? What are the things we expect to see?

What would we expect to see if God does not exist? What???
That requires so many assumptions doesn't it, and you know what... Every assumption will be correct... to the Atheists, thus working in his favor. Isn't that so?

If scientists went that route, nothing today existed... until they discovered it.

All the surprising finds would be discarded as something in their imagination... everyone hallucinating at the same time. LOL
Are you thinking this through. Seeing the flaws in your argument yet?

So, in the case that a believer:

1. believes God wants to remain hidden from people to preserve some form of "free-will" so that they seek Him out on their own volition
2. believes that God wants babies to survive, rather than die
3. believes that God has the power to save babies who would otherwise be dying of various maladies

what could we expect from such a God? Would we expect what we literally see happening in the world today? Would we see babies dying due to premature birth? Again - God could remain completely hidden, and not violate any "free will" by secretly helping these babies to survive. In fact, "premature birth" could not even be a thing, and we humans wouldn't even know it! He could help them all, never allow a single premature birth, and no one would be the wiser about any of it! This could literally be how it worked, if God exists and the above 3 items were 100% true. But what do we see instead? These deaths do occur. Which means that if God exists, He does not conform to one or more of the above. He either doesn't want those babies to survive, or He doesn't have the power to save them, or He simply hasn't thought about the situation deeply enough to realize that He could still preserve His hidden-ness even if He were to save all these babies dying in premature births.

Why do you think it so "strange" that a nonbeliever might consider what things could/would be like if God actually did exist? Why is that so hard to understand? Or is it simply that you don't like it when such things are thought upon that cast God in a poor light? You only like the thoughts about God that see Him coming out in a positive light, is that it? I am pretty sure that is it. I doubt you would be so perplexed if all my conclusions had God coming out smelling like a rose. This is your bias wrapped around your throat and choking off the blood supply to your brain.

Well, you see... You started with an assumption, which you conclude must be right, and then you build your case on that assumption, thus you have already create a formula to go in your favor... based on faulty or incorrect assumptions.

So think about it.
Whose bias is wrapped around their throat and choking off the blood supply to their brain?

Actually, it is the person that builds a strawman argument, who is biased.
Straw man argument, or straw man fallacy, is a type of logical fallacy that occurs when someone deliberately distorts or misrepresents their opponent’s position to make it easier to defeat. As such, it is commonplace in a wide variety of situations, such as political debates, journalism, and debates on any controversial topics.

It's the one who cleverly loads the question to always be in his favor, who is biased.
A loaded question is a type of logical fallacy in which the interrogator uses flawed logic to pose a question based on an implicit assumption. Often, especially in debates, the assumption being made is controversial or notably untrue.

Isn't that so?
Take a nice long unbiased look at your arguments.

Absolutely incorrect. It doesn't matter if He exists or not, obviously, because from what I can see/feel/experience there is zero interaction from God with the world I inhabit. It literally does not matter whether or not He exists. He could exist... and I don't see that mattering in the slightest. He's not doing anything, period. It isn't, at all, that I "don't want Him to exist." I don't care if He exists or not, because there is absolutely no demonstrable effect on my life one way or the other.

Not doing anything? That's your subjective opinion B. You are entitled to that. That has nothing to do with me, or reality... Why do you feel that opinion matters so much, or is of any importance?
From what I can see/feel/experience your feelings have zero effect on any believer's life, or on God's existence.

I wouldn't say I don't care if you don't care if God exists or not... although it's the natural thing to do.
I only care because I know that if you cared, then your peace would become like a river, and your righteousness like the waves of the sea, but it's your choice.
I respect your choice.

Do you seriously believe that I am out to break all of "God's laws"? I mean, the blasphemy ones I obviously do break quite often - but those have nothing, at all, to do with the treatment of my fellow man. I abide by all the major rules on the list otherwise, and I can't even care whether or not you believe that. Outside of the rules surrounding the treatment of God Himself, God's other major rules are just obvious things that nearly every other human civilization in the world have come to on their own anyway - and because they are just that obvious for anyone who stops to think about it. In other words, God's rules are nothing special, and I am already actively in-line with them - not because they are God's, obviously, but because they make sense. Of course, then we get into the stupid rules that likely not even you abide by like the "mixed fabrics" nonsense.

I don't think you want to break all God's laws. I didn't say that. If it seemed I was saying that, I wasn't.
However, I do believe Atheist want to do what they want, which means going against God's laws.

I think the "basic" laws on how one treats their neighbors, is exercised by people who either, 1) was taught those principles before "switching", or "breaking camp"; 2) was raised by, or around people who lived by those principles... because they were taught them.

So either way, Atheists still have God to thank for his instructions.

So this claim is incorrect.
God's other major rules are just obvious things that nearly every other human civilization in the world have come to on their own anyway

I can prove it.
Just look at society today.
Look also at human nature.
The natural thing to do, is not love your enemy, and do good to them. The natural thing to do is get even, grudge, hate, pay back, refuse to assist...
For example, someone cusses you out, or robs or assaults you. You come across them catching for breath, and frantically searching their pockets. They ask for your help. What do you do?
Human nature would dictate to us, 'beat him' 'leave him let him suffer and die. He deserves it.'

The one who has been taught by God - either in a direct or indirect way, is different. They pursue peace with their neighbor, and show love, even to their enemy... like the 'good Samaritan'.
It's not easy to do, but that's the difference between the believer, and unbeliever, who thinks he has just as much morality as the unbeliever. There is a lot he misses out on.

 

[nPeace]

This is pretty funny. You should go back and read what I wrote - that's what I was assuming you thought, was that God was all-powerful. I was only apologizing in the case that that ISN'T what you thought.

So why is it funny? What did I say that is contrary to what you said?

In the cases you're talking about, such details can actually be known, however. As in - they happened in reality, and there are potential pieces of evidence that can bring such things to light. But you are hinting that there may be good reasons that God Himself aborts babies' lives.

No. That's an incorrect assumption.
God does not abort babies, and I have not given any indication that he does.
Where did you come up with that?

Good reasons that He makes some babies die in premature births. Right?

Wrong. God does not make some babies die in premature births.

How can we know the details, or investigate the circumstances that make those deaths just and correct? How? That is the HUGE problem you believers have on your hands. Wanting to make all these excuses for God but having ZERO evidence to back up your ridiculous statements that try to justify horrible circumstances that you 100% believe that God could take care of and generally "fix" if He had a mind to. You talk so much about me not having all the information, and yet here you are, referring to information that none of us can possibly have as the key to reaching understanding. Do you even realize how dishonest and strange this is? Do you?

You are making it strange because of your wrong assumptions. Don't blame me for your mistakes, please.

Okay then hotshot - I want you to choose any recent case of a premature birth - any single one at all - and I want you to get me the facts that indicate that that baby's death was allowed to slip by under God's watch for good and just reasons. Just one case. Get to it. You seem to be so confident that there is such knowledge to be had. Present it to me!

LOL
Atheist come in all colors. This one is new to me.

For one thing, you again started with a presumption - assuming that God is guarding, or watching over babies. What???
Secondly. The facts are in the Bible. Have you ever read it through?

Analogies aren't going to cut it... give me the facts.

Now you're just rambling. Give me the facts. Present them to me. Again... you're only displaying more and more confidence the more that you write. Get me some of these details that excuse even ONE premature birth. Then we can talk about this seriously. Until then this is just you blathering.

Okay then... please stop talking about the facts and present them.

So you haven't studied the Bible, then?

I already showed you how you were wrong about the smoking and plastics. Did you understand the data I linked to and posted graphs of? If you bring that crap up again then I will call you out, again, with the same data until you are able to provide evidence that all of the medically indicated premature births (the only actual category of premature births on the rise) were medically indicated due to either plastics or the mother smoking, or some other "sin" the mother was committing. And be careful now - the study of data I linked to did list some of the more common reasons that those births are medically indicated to be in need of premature intervention - and NONE of the reasons were plastics, smoking, alcohol consumption, drugs, etc. None of them.

Everyone has an opinion. You chose one you prefer.

This is getting even more and more ridiculous. So God can't help innocent children and save them from the damage that their forebears did to their genetic makeup?

Of course. What do you think the Bible is there for... to cherry pick and criticize?
It contains a message of salvation... for all people - not just children.

Is that what you're saying?

No.

Didn't you admit that you believed God to be all powerful?

Yes.

And doesn't this present yet another case that God could easily help in secret?

What do you mean by that?
Do you mean do things your way, or his way?

It isn't pertinent to the discussion anyway and is just a dodge. Punishing people down into the generations due to a "sin" committed by some ancestor is entirely immoral and unjust. Period.

You think God is punishing people for one sin?
May I ask where you got that from? Did someone tell you that?

All you have are excuses and assumptions.

No. That's you B. Just read back you post... without any bias.

The data isn't on your side, reality isn't on your side. What you have presented is abject waste of the worst kind.

Opinion noted.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

What I am doing is demonstrating for you, the believer, some of the conclusions you should be drawing based on what you believe and how powerful you likely suppose God is.

Is that what you were taught, that God controls this world? He is powerful enough. But then, His Word states “the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked One.” I didn’t make that up; the Bible says it. (1 John 5:19 We know that we are of God, and that the whole world is under the power of the evil one.) And Jesus referred to the Devil as “the ruler / prince of this world.” - John 12:31

Why would God allow that, then?
The reasons - they are not excuses - the reasons are found early on in the Scriptures, by deciphering the account at Genesis 3:1-6. Most people haven’t even thought about the ramifications of what happened there. Or the issues that were raised.

Again - God could remain completely hidden, and not violate any "free will" by secretly helping these babies to survive. In fact, "premature birth" could not even be a thing, and we humans wouldn't even know it! He could help them all, never allow a single premature birth, and no one would be the wiser about any of it! This could literally be how it worked, if God exists and the above 3 items were 100% true. But what do we see instead? These deaths do occur. Which means that if God exists, He does not conform to one or more of the above. He either doesn't want those babies to survive, or He doesn't have the power to save them, or He simply hasn't thought about the situation deeply enough to realize that He could still preserve His hidden-ness even if He were to save all these babies dying in premature births.

This, too, ties in to the Genesis 3 account.
By disobeying God, A&E chose independence from God.

And He was accused of keeping something from them, some knowledge that they were told which would benefit them.

What would be the best way to settle these questions, that would answer these issues?
To stay out of the picture. To let mankind rule themselves, w/o God’s help.

If He stepped in every time a problem arose, that would be defeating His side of the issue, namely that we need Jehovah God’s guidance.

And for those who do want His guidance, we have His Word, which told the Israelites how to act w/ each other, and teaches Christians how we should behave. Unfortunately, very few really try to live by it (Titus 1:16)….it’s just ‘a Sunday thing.’

God’s Word also tells us what God has done, to redeem mankind from sickness and death.

Remember that life in this system, this 70 to 100 years, isn’t the only one promised. - John 5:28-29.

And the bad we may endure, will be rectified when ‘the Kingdom comes, and His Will (will) be done on Earth.’ (Matthew 6:9-10) “The former things will not be called to mind.” - Isaiah 65:17.

Have a good one.

 

[Bathos Logos]

So? What does that have to do with anything?

You said:

If I did not believe God existed, I would not spend my time talking about God as though he did.

Which explicitly means you don't see the point in what I am doing, so I was informing you. If you don't want to know, fine. I will continue to do as I do regardless whether you understand.

We tell you things and they don't matter.

Because you don't have adequate evidence/justification/logic. You contradict yourself in what you believe God wants and is capable of and the explanations of why He still behaves as He does or allows certain things to happen.

What makes what you say so special?

Absolutely nothing! I am of the firm belief that you should be as ashamed of your ridiculous beliefs, inferences and excuses no matter who was bringing them to your attention.

That makes no sense.
That's like saying a believer is not able to contemplate or analyze things and freely act on their decision to go one way or other.

In my experience, believers very seldom attempt to even think from the perspective of "What if God didn't exist?", or if they do so, it is only to try and pin something on every human being on the planet who doesn't believe. Like "If God doesn't exist, then there is no reason to be a good person." That is one of the dumbest statements ever made, hands down. And statements like that are literally some of the only times I have ever known a believer to view things from the perspective of God not existing. They never seriously consider it at all. They are nearly unable because of their super-strong biases and the fear that to "doubt" is some kind of "sin". That's what I meant by unbelievers having the freedom to consider both sides, while the believer doesn't really allow themselves such freedom.

Why assume anything?

Because the words of believers are literally the only form of evidence for God, period. That's it. You have scripture (the written words of believers), and the spoken words of believers. How could one be expected not to assume some things?

If God exists, what are the things we might expect to see? Period.

The other reason we must necessarily assume some things about what any given believer states (again, seeing as how all of the evidence we can possibly acquire rests in the words of believers), is because the believers of various faiths have different beliefs, different attributes that they give God or gods. So, if we are to investigate any given God claim of any given believer, then we must necessarily assume the "facts" they present about their God are what we are investigating. And to believe that we can literally just "investigate God" as a general activity is ludicrous. Where do we go to start our investigation that doesn't include talking to believers or reading the texts written by believers? Where do we go to investigate that doesn't boil down to nothing but words for our evidence? We basically have no choice but to select a God of some existing believer, read/listen to their claims about it and then investigate base on that. We have never encountered a "god" to be able to do any independent investigation. That is a cold, hard fact, and is something you believers never seem to be able to wrap your heads around.

What would we expect to see if God does not exist? What???

Once again, I feel the need to point out that there is no evidence nor direction of investigation to take in order to just generally "look for" or investigate God. There isn't. And so we have to start from somewhere with the goofy idea, and that would be with the ideas of believers. That, again, is all we have! If you can think of something, feel free to correct me!

That requires so many assumptions doesn't it, and you know what... Every assumption will be correct... to the Atheists, thus working in his favor.

So interesting that you are able to admit this. That every assumption we can possibly make about God, based on the tales of believers (again, the only form of evidence for any god), will end up working in the atheist's favor. This is extremely telling.

If scientists went that route, nothing today existed... until they discovered it.
Are you thinking this through. Seeing the flaws in your argument yet?

You are the one with flaws leaking through your every word here. It isn't at all, that "nothing existed until they discovered it" it is precisely that (pay attention now): they hadn't discovered it until they discovered it. Do you see what I am saying? This is not how "God" works. You claim to have discovered it before you have actually discovered it. Each and every god claim works exactly like that. In essence, that is the entire problem in a nutshell!

So think about it.
Whose bias is wrapped around their throat and choking off the blood supply to their brain?

The previous paragraphs I have written in this reply should demonstrate to you that it is most definitely yours.

Straw man argument, or straw man fallacy, is a type of logical fallacy that occurs when someone deliberately distorts or misrepresents their opponent’s position to make it easier to defeat.

Note that you never once refuted that God must necessarily work as I said He does regarding premature births. If He has the power to intervene, secretly, and so without disturbing anyone's "free will", and has the desire to save baby humans' lives, then what is stopping Him? Women smoking? Plastic? Remember the statistics I gave you. What is it that is overpowering God in this situation? If you can't answer, then are you so sure that I misrepresented the situation? And whose situation is it!? Is it yours, or God's? How could I be straw-manning some argument of yours when I am discussing the implications of God's action or inaction? How is that even possible?

It's the one who cleverly loads the question to always be in his favor, who is biased.

You gave an insufficient, bogus answer, which I refuted with the statistics and realities of premature births, reasons for such, and how that does not match up with your ridiculous claims. Of course, you want to be able to boil that all down to "bias". Well no, you were wrong, and found to be claiming things foolishly.

Not doing anything? That's your subjective opinion B. You are entitled to that. That has nothing to do with me, or reality... Why do you feel that opinion matters so much, or is of any importance?
From what I can see/feel/experience your feelings have zero effect on any believer's life, or on God's existence.

Opinion based on observation of reality where God does not appear to be present, and literally cannot be demonstrated to be. And we can pretty much guaranteed that your opinions of God are not, at all, based on such observation of reality, because, again, you have no more evidence that can be shared with anyone else than the words you speak or the words that someone else wrote. That is objective fact. Unless it isn't... and you have such evidence that breaks from mere words. So how about it? Do you have such evidence?

I only care because I know that if you cared, then your peace would become like a river, and your righteousness like the waves of the sea

I wish you could understand that you are not really saying anything here. Just metaphors for something you only hope will "work" for your intended mark. And in my experience, I am far more well-adjusted, content/happy, grateful for life and accepting of all types of people (not necessarily their ideas, mind you, but ideas are not people) than any believer I have ever met in my life. And this is based on the words they, themselves, have spoken to me that relay that they turned to their faith because there were facets of life that they found too difficult to accept without "help". So many stories... and so many of them indicating a fundamental inability to cope - with death, with poverty, with their own previous inability to stop "sinning". And even the way they frame their arguments to me, or how they frame the ways in which Christianity "can help" - it all indicates a fundamental inability to cope with various aspects of life without pretending that "help is on the way". Even yours here, telling me that I could reach some fantastical "peace" or "righteousness" - all the while assuming that I can't, or haven't achieved this myself. Assuming that I have some faults that I believe need "fixing". Meanwhile, my disposition offers me endless coping, as far as I have experienced thus far. I am sure there is a limit, but I haven't found it yet.

 

[Bathos Logos]

I don't think you want to break all God's laws. I didn't say that. If it seemed I was saying that, I wasn't.
However, I do believe Atheist want to do what they want, which means going against God's laws.

These two statements are somewhat contradictory. You can't know that "what I want" goes against God's laws. If acting in one's self-interest at any moment is "against God's laws" then all believers should literally be dead from inaction. Can't eat until all the hungry are fed. Can't drink until all the thirsty are given drink. That literally doesn't work. And so, you can't know that anyone literally wants to act "against God's laws", and to assume that you do know means that you must have some specific laws in mind that someone is actively breaking. So, how about it? Which of God's laws am I actively breaking because I literally want to? Lay it on me.

I think the "basic" laws on how one treats their neighbors, is exercised by people who either, 1) was taught those principles before "switching", or "breaking camp"; 2) was raised by, or around people who lived by those principles... because they were taught them.
So either way, Atheists still have God to thank for his instructions.

I can't believe you can say this and even add a smiley emoji to it as if it were "so obvious". What about all of the instructions given by gods that are not your God? How are people getting along in those countries? Are they all just sinners, treating all their neighbors poorly? My point being that you statements here assume that there is only one way to come to a point of treating your fellow human beings well - and that is demonstrably not true. You don't have a monopoly on "the way" to be a descent human being.

So this claim is incorrect.
God's other major rules are just obvious things that nearly every other human civilization in the world have come to on their own anyway
I can prove it.
Just look at society today.

Yes, and? Looking at society I don't see a single one where murder (as an example) is actively or even tacitly allowed.

Look also at human nature.

We're all just murderers and thieves just waiting for the opportunity when "God's not looking", right? What a way to consider your neighbors. Wasn't it you just talking about God's laws concerning treatment of your neighbors? You think God would like it that you consider everyone evil until proven good? Doesn't sound too fair, nice, kind or loving to me. Not at all. And you wonder why some people can't take your faith seriously.

The natural thing to do, is not love your enemy, and do good to them. The natural thing to do is get even, grudge, hate, pay back, refuse to assist...

So, you claim to love your enemy, when you can't even admit that your neighbor isn't a terrible person because of "human nature"?

For example, someone cusses you out, or robs or assaults you. You come across them catching for breath, and frantically searching their pockets. They ask for your help. What do you do?

I ask them if they remember me, find out what their current issue is, and if it is dire enough, show them that I am the better person than they ever will be by helping them - specifically in order to get them to contemplate their horrid behavior in the past and perhaps recant/change for the better. And if their situation isn't dire enough? I remind them who I am to them, wish them luck, and walk on.

Human nature would dictate to us, 'beat him' 'leave him let him suffer and die. He deserves it.'

Does my above stated reaction make me inhuman, then, do you think? I even have examples of how I have done exactly as I described above, if you care to hear them. Point being - I don't need your faith, your beliefs, your stories, in order to be what I believe makes a good person. And I seriously feel that no one does.

 

[Bathos Logos]

So why is it funny? What did I say that is contrary to what you said?

Oh boy... why do I have to explain things like this?

I originally stated that I assume you believe God to be all-powerful, and apologized, in advance, if that was NOT the case and I assumed incorrectly.
You then replied that I was incorrect and that you do believe that God is all powerful - which is exactly what I assumed in the first place.

And now here we are, you still thinking you are somehow "in the right" on this, when it was your misunderstanding in the first place, and all my points were 100% relevant and on point the entire time.

No. That's an incorrect assumption.
God does not abort babies, and I have not given any indication that he does.
Where did you come up with that?

So, you don't believe that God aborts the babies, fine. However, based on everything you have said, you must believe that God allows babies to die in situations that He could otherwise help, right? That's more what I was getting at. That you must feel that God has legitimate and even "good" reasons to let those babies die. Is that right, or no?

Wrong. God does not make some babies die in premature births.

But He decides not to prevent it, correct?

You are making it strange because of your wrong assumptions. Don't blame me for your mistakes, please.

I am becoming more and more convinced that you're just trying to redirect the conversation here. Let's reframe it all as "God does not lift a finger to help babies who die from premature birth". Now, what avenues of investigation do we have open to us in order to be able to discern when such a baby dies for valid and good reasons? How or what can we investigate in order to know that God made the correct and good decision not to involve Himself? That's what I was getting at. Please answer that question.

For one thing, you again started with a presumption - assuming that God is guarding, or watching over babies. What???

Just more dodging from you here. Please read through this list of questions and try to understand why they are relevant:

1. Does God dislike human abortion?
2. Is God "always watching" such that He knows when people are having abortions?
3. Is God always aware when a female human being is pregnant?
4. If God dislikes human abortion, does He also dislike when any baby dies unnecessarily?
5. Does God have the power to save babies (in secret) who are suffering from any malady?
6. If God could prevent a baby dying, would He want to do so?
7. If God is aware of all babies, and all their conditions, enough to always know when an abortion has occurred, and God wants babies to survive, and is entirely able to make that happen, then how is it that He does not save all the babies from dying due to premature birth?

It is my opinion, based on what you have revealed so far about your beliefs, that your answers to the above questions will put you in a trap of your own making. And the trap is made specifically because you believe in fanciful tales of things that do not conform to reality, and so your "knowledge" of them simply cannot remain objective and consistent.

Secondly. The facts are in the Bible. Have you ever read it through?

So the facts surrounding to why God doesn't save babies from dying due to premature birth is in The Bible? Can you give me some quick references? I read most of The Bible, stopped when I got to Revelations because it was too dense and ridiculous. So, maybe its in revelations? I don't remember reading anything that appeared to be an answer to this conundrum.

So you haven't studied the Bible, then?

In order to combat the ridiculous assumptions and claims made by believers, yes, I have investigated quite a bit more than you are probably willing to accept.

Everyone has an opinion. You chose one you prefer.

Some opinions are based on things that are present and accounted for in reality, however.

Of course. What do you think the Bible is there for... to cherry pick and criticize?
It contains a message of salvation... for all people - not just children.

This is precisely why we must criticize it! We have to see if all its claims and stories stand up to scrutiny, or represent the morality and principles we want for ourselves as human beings in this modern age! Why wouldn't we?

What do you mean by that?

1. Do you mean do things your way, or his way?

1. Something else I shouldn't have to explain... but I believe you are acting dense on this item in order not to incriminate God in the foul dealings we can assume are going on, based on your assumptions about Him. Once again, please read this bulleted list and understand its relevance:
2. You believe God is all powerful
3. You likely believe God doesn't like human abortion, and by extension, that He doesn't like babies dying in general
4. Because you believe God to be all-powerful, then you believe that God is literally able to help babies who are about to be born prematurely
5. You must accept that God does not help all babies who are born prematurely
6. You must accept that God saving a baby from dying prematurely can be done in secret, and would not violate anyone's "free will"
7. Therefore, you must have reasons that you do accept for why God does not save babies from premature birth

Please tell me what those reasons are. This is all I have been trying to get from you.

You think God is punishing people for one sin?
May I ask where you got that from? Did someone tell you that?

This is just you stalling, not wanting to answer the question or address the immorality of punishing people for the sins of their ancestors. No, I did not mean "just one sin". I meant ANY sin, in general, that was committed by someone in the past that you had no control over. It is entirely immoral to punish anyone for anyone else's sins. This should be entirely obvious. Punishing someone who didn't even commit the act is atrocious behavior. Am I being clear enough for you now?

No. That's you B. Just read back you post... without any bias.

You have basically refused to actually answer any of the questions I have put to you, and have favored pretending you didn't understand, or reading them so literally that you feel able to strawman them away (like the "one" sin garbage). Your bias is astounding, and yet here you try to pin all bias on me.

Opinion

noted.

The more you keep posting without answering my questions, the more you demonstrate that I am correct... what you are presenting is looking more and more like abject garbage as these posts continue on.

 

[Bathos Logos]

Is that what you were taught, that God controls this world? He is powerful enough. But then, His Word states “the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked One.” I didn’t make that up; the Bible says it. (1 John 5:19 We know that we are of God, and that the whole world is under the power of the evil one.) And Jesus referred to the Devil as “the ruler / prince of this world.” - John 12:31

God doesn't even need to "control the world" in order to enact some of the things I am talking about here, and I believe you know this. Yet you decided to frame it as "God controlling the world" - in order to make that sound negative, like something we wouldn't want God doing, right? Sort of like straw-manning the issue, in order to easily be able to hand-wave it away as undeisrable.

What I have specifically been saying is that God could easily intervene on behalf of babies being prematurely born, such that He could save them from any issues that cause such deaths, and He could do so without His involvement even being known! This is just simple logic inferring from the belief that God has the power to do so, and the idea that He wants babies to live.

Would saving a premature baby, entirely in secret, be "controlling the world"? Be honest now.

Why would God allow that, then?

Uh... that's what I have been asking.

The reasons - they are not excuses - the reasons are found early on in the Scriptures, by deciphering the account at Genesis 3:1-6. Most people haven’t even thought about the ramifications of what happened there. Or the issues that were raised.

Then I insist that these are very, very poor reasons. Do you advocate the punishment of progeny for acts committed by their ancestors? As in, if you accrue credit card debt, do you believe that your children should be on the hook to repay it? You were the one who created the situation, but your children should be the ones to pay the price? Is that fair? Is that "good" behavior? Is that moral in any way? Can you describe to me why it is moral if you deem it so? Or is it only moral if God does it? And if that is the case, then how can you ever argue for objective morality? If God can do things that are moral that would be immoral for a human to do, then the "subject" in question determines the morality of the action - which is the very definition of subjectivity! And completely negates objectivity!

This, too, ties in to the Genesis 3 account.
By disobeying God, A&E chose independence from God.

And did all the babies who die from premature births also "choose independence from God" do you think?

What would be the best way to settle these questions, that would answer these issues?
To stay out of the picture. To let mankind rule themselves, w/o God’s help.

So God just doesn't help then? What is prayer about, I wonder? None of this stuff can remain consistent, and I believe this is precisely because it is all being made up.

This is one of the big problems faith-based belief has. It is demonstrated not to remain consistent by the words of the believers themselves. When this is pointed out, insufficient or illogical justification is given for why it seems contradictory, or nothing but inadequate insistence that it is consistent when, again, it demonstrably is not.

If He stepped in every time a problem arose, that would be defeating His side of the issue, namely that we need Jehovah God’s guidance.

So, we literally need the guidance, but He isn't going to give it, right? You just said the answer God came up with was to "stay out of the picture". Are you starting to see why I have problems with the consistency of the statements of believers? This kind of stuff is rampant in their words all the time. Literally, always. I never, ever come away feeling like I got adequate descriptions and answers that actually make sense. Never. And you can try and make this out to be "my problem" all you want. Until you actually answer some of these questions with things that make sense (which would, of course, mean that you would have answer them at all in the first place, let's remember), they are most definitely still your problems. You want people to believe this stuff... it is going to need to make sense. As it stands, it does not.

And for those who do want His guidance, we have His Word, which told the Israelites how to act w/ each other, and teaches Christians how we should behave. Unfortunately, very few really try to live by it (Titus 1:16)….it’s just ‘a Sunday thing.’

So the guidance is in the book then? And that's where we're expected to go when we literally need "Jehovah God’s guidance"? And how does this help babies about to die from premature births, I wonder? Can they go to the book to try and live? Also, with respect to abortion - if God doesn't like abortion, but he's not willing to do anything about it, and His book actually doesn't say much about abortion except that there are instances where it is okay to literally risk one to find out the guilt of a potentially adulterous woman, or that an unborn baby isn't to be considered as worthwhile as the mother's life for purposes of doling out consequences by law, and this book is the only place we can actually turn to for His guidance, according to what you're saying here, then what's our recourse? Listen to the complaints of believers? Listen to their interpretations of other parts of The Bible that aren't talking specifically about abortion, but seem to perhaps have some relevance to the value of life in general? This is all very tenuous, and, again, doesn't make much sense. And what say should God have in a matter that He leaves entirely up to humans to resolve?! Again... no specific mention of abortion as a bad thing in The Bible. And specific mentions of abortions (deaths of the unborn) specifically cast the value of the fetus as lesser than the living people involved. Do I just take a believer's word on this? There quite obviously isn't any other help on the matter forthcoming!

God’s Word also tells us what God has done, to redeem mankind from sickness and death.

What? I thought He was staying out of it? I mean... that part at least made sense, since He is nowhere to be found in anything going on here on Earth. He is just demonstrably absent. Or, at least, no one can provide any good evidence that God was to be found acting (in secret) in any of the goings on of Earth. And that's just it... if He is willing to act in secret (which you would have to claim is the case, since His presence literally cannot be verified or known for sure), then why not save those prematurely born babies?! If He wants babies to live so badly that He can't abide by abortion, then why can't He secretly save some premature dying babies? Again... this makes absolutely no sense.

 

[nPeace]

... you don't have adequate evidence/justification/logic. .

This is not true, at all.

You contradict yourself in what you believe God wants and is capable of and the explanations of why He still behaves as He does or allows certain things to happen..

For example...?

Absolutely nothing! I am of the firm belief that you should be as ashamed of your ridiculous beliefs, inferences and excuses no matter who was bringing them to your attention..

Well that's your belief. Thanks for letting me know.

In my experience, believers very seldom attempt to even think from the perspective of "What if God didn't exist?", or if they do so, it is only to try and pin something on every human being on the planet who doesn't believe. .

So, you are saying believers should doubt.
Perhaps you have no idea why that is foolish.
Let me explain.
Please pay attention. I would not want to repeat.

(Hebrews 11:1-3) 1 Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen. 2 For by means of it, the men of ancient times had witness borne to them. 3 By faith we perceive that the systems of things were put in order by God’s word, so that what is seen has come into existence from things that are not visible.

If you do not understand that, let me know.
So. one who possesses faith has evidence and is thus assured of what the evidence demonstrates, though not seen.
*** it-1 p. 804 Faith ***
“Assured expectation” translates the Greek word hy·poʹsta·sis. This term is common in ancient papyrus business documents. It conveys the idea of something that underlies visible conditions and guarantees a future possession. In view of this, Moulton and Milligan suggest the rendering: “Faith is the title deed of things hoped for.” (Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, 1963, p. 660) The Greek word eʹleg·khos, rendered “evident demonstration,” conveys the idea of bringing forth evidence that demonstrates something, particularly something contrary to what appears to be the case. Thereby this evidence makes clear what has not been discerned before and so refutes what has only appeared to be the case. “The evident demonstration,” or evidence for conviction, is so positive or powerful that faith is said to be it.
Faith is, therefore, the basis for hope and the evidence for conviction concerning unseen realities.

With that in mind, here is an illustration.
You hold athe title deed to property given you by your beloved dad (I don't know if your dad was beloved to you, but if not, let's pretend your dad was a trusted father and friend).
I come to you and say, "Why don't you question whether your dad did really give you that, and if you are really the owner of that property?
What would you do?
I know what most people would do.

Spoiler

You are asking the one who has a title deed of the things invisible to doubt. Seriously?

Here is something you might understand
Dark Matter - a component of the universe whose presence is discerned from its gravitational attraction rather than its luminosity.
Dark Matter’s existence was first inferred by Swiss American astronomer Fritz Zwicky... The reality of this missing mass remained in question for decades, until the 1970s when American astronomers Vera Rubin and W. Kent Ford confirmed its existence by the observation of a similar phenomenon...
Continue reading if you like.

Though the reality may not be seen, the evidence can demonstrate that reality, and can be discerned or inferred.
Faith, however is based on solid evidence. There is no doubt, as is the case of Dark Matter and Gravity.
The Bible says that he that doubts is like the one, carried here and there by every wind.

Like "If God doesn't exist, then there is no reason to be a good person." That is one of the dumbest statements ever made, hands down. .

I do agree. Those people are the imitations that don't really know God - the ones that contribute to loss of faith, and Atheism... who use God as a crutch, as Atheists correctly say.

And statements like that are literally some of the only times I have ever known a believer to view things from the perspective of God not existing. They never seriously consider it at all. They are nearly unable because of their super-strong biases and the fear that to "doubt" is some kind of "sin". That's what I meant by unbelievers having the freedom to consider both sides, while the believer doesn't really allow themselves such freedom..

You encountered unbelievers whom give an appearance as believers... but are not.
You really should read the Bible carefully. That's all there. There are many people who say they are, but are not.
If you can't identify them, or don't know how to, you will believe wrong information, and build on that.

Because the words of believers are literally the only form of evidence for God, period. .

If you seriously believe that, you must not like Biblical archaeology or science very much.

That's it. You have scripture (the written words of believers), and the spoken words of believers. How could one be expected not to assume some things?.

Seems you are not in favor of academia and history either.

“These are not books, lumps of lifeless paper, but minds alive on the shelves. From each of them goes out its own voice... and just as the touch of a button on our set will fill the room with music, so by taking down one of these volumes and opening it, one can call into range the voice of a man far distant in time and space, and hear him speaking to us, mind to mind, heart to heart.”
― Gilbert Highet, The Immortal Profession​

“Books are not lumps of lifeless paper, but minds alive on shelves!” ― Gilbert Highet

Perhaps you don't even think anything like this should be history then?
The Nabonidus Chronicle is an ancient Babylonian text, part of a larger series of Babylonian Chronicles inscribed in cuneiform script on clay tablets. It deals primarily with the reign of Nabonidus, the last king of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, covers the conquest of Babylon by the Persian king Cyrus the Great, and ends with the start of the reign of Cyrus's son Cambyses, spanning a period from 556 BC to some time after 539 BC. It provides a rare contemporary account of Cyrus's rise to power and is the main source of information on this period; Amélie Kuhrt describes it as "the most reliable and sober [ancient] account of the fall of Babylon."

Which documents are more reliable... or are there none?

I'll like to suggest you think about these facts the next time you are tempted to make such claims as the one you just made.

 

[nPeace]

The other reason we must necessarily assume some things about what any given believer states (again, seeing as how all of the evidence we can possibly acquire rests in the words of believers), is because the believers of various faiths have different beliefs, different attributes that they give God or gods. So, if we are to investigate any given God claim of any given believer, then we must necessarily assume the "facts" they present about their God are what we are investigating. And to believe that we can literally just "investigate God" as a general activity is ludicrous. Where do we go to start our investigation that doesn't include talking to believers or reading the texts written by believers? Where do we go to investigate that doesn't boil down to nothing but words for our evidence? We basically have no choice but to select a God of some existing believer, read/listen to their claims about it and then investigate base on that. We have never encountered a "god" to be able to do any independent investigation. That is a cold, hard fact, and is something you believers never seem to be able to wrap your heads around.

Once again, I feel the need to point out that there is no evidence nor direction of investigation to take in order to just generally "look for" or investigate God. There isn't. And so we have to start from somewhere with the goofy idea, and that would be with the ideas of believers. That, again, is all we have! If you can think of something, feel free to correct me!.

After all that, it will be my pleasure to correct you.
I do question things. It might surprise you that many scientists believe in a creator / designer, because they question things. You may be surprised to know that Atheists have come to believe in a creator, through questioning things.
In fact, questioning things is what lead to the conclusion that there is a creator.

One scientist describes the faith required to not believe in a creator, like believing that one can put a book with blank pages on a desk; some ink; and a pen, and in time they would find the book filled with writings of Shakespeare.

Biologists Baffled

Spoiler: Excerpt

The “National Geographic” journal states that scientists “have created not only amino acids, but most of the other important basic molecules of life.” Yet, their knowledge is limited. Says the magazine: “Much to their frustration, however, biologists can still only speculate on how these simple organic molecules emerged through the eons as proteins and genes. More baffling still is how these proteins and genes got together in the first self-replicating cell. The odds against the right molecules being in the right place at the right time are staggering. Yet, as science measures it, so is the time scale on which nature works. Indeed, what seems an impossible occurrence at any one moment would, given untold eons, become a certainty.”

According to this argument, if you gave a group of chimpanzees pieces of metal, wire and the like and put the animals together long enough, they could build a jumbo jet airplane, complete with numbered reclining seats and all the necessary equipment. Obviously, the chimpanzees would never succeed, even if they had “untold eons” to complete the task. And, of course, the molecules of life are far more complex than any aircraft. Their marvelous design testifies clearly that supreme intelligence has been responsible for them.

I don't mean to quote mine, but merely emphasize why it takes more than faith, to not believe in a creator.
There was more, but I don't have access now. Pc problems.

Spoiler

“Mathematics is not something that you find lying around in your back yard. It’s produced by the human mind. Yet if we ask where mathematics works best, it is in areas like particle physics and astrophysics, areas of fundamental science that are very, very far removed from everyday affairs. ...It suggests to me that consciousness and our ability to do mathematics are no mere accident, no trivial detail, no insignificant by-product of evolution.”

Spoiler

- Are We Alone?; Paul Davies​

Mathematics and Creation
◆ One of the strong evidences pointing to intelligent creation of the material universe is that a knowledge of higher mathematics is necessary to achieve an understanding of it. Chance action by blind forces is not the creator of mathematical order and laws. Remarking on the role of mathematics in nature, P. A. M. Dirac states in Scientific American of May 1963: “It seems to be one of the fundamental features of nature that fundamental physical laws are described in terms of a mathematical theory of great beauty and power, needing quite a high standard of mathematics for one to understand it. You may wonder: Why is nature constructed along these lines? One can only answer that our present knowledge seems to show that nature is so constructed. We simply have to accept it. One could perhaps describe the situation by saying that God is a mathematician of a very high order, and he used very advanced mathematics in constructing the universe. Our feeble attempts at mathematics enable us to understand a bit of the universe, and as we proceed to develop higher and higher mathematics we can hope to understand the universe better."

“The existence of an orderly, coherent universe containing stable, organized, complex structures requires laws and conditions of a very special kind. ...
Taken together, they provide impressive evidence that life as we know it depends very sensitively on the form of the laws of physics, and on some seemingly fortuitous accidents in the actual values that nature has chosen for various particle masses, force strengths, and so on. ...Suffice it to say that, if we could play God, and select values for these quantities at whim by twiddling a set of knobs, we would find that almost all knob settings would render the universe uninhabitable. In some cases it seems as if the different knobs have to be fine-tuned to enormous precision if the universe is to be such that life will flourish. ... The fact that even slight changes to the way things are might render the universe unobservable is surely a fact of deep significance.”
- The Mind of God; Paul Davies​

One would need to give me evidence that designed objects do not require a designer, none has been shown, andbut from the experience of humans, we know that design requires a designer.
If you take this apart...

and don't reassemble it using an intelligence - whether real or artificial, it will be useless.
The human body, as just one example - has more 'components', 'working parts', 'connections', and is vastly more intricate than any human design.
I see no evidence that blind undirected processes produced the brain with an intelligent mind, and all its intricate features and connections to the body it drives.
That's never seen in reality.

I can discern an intelligence behind the creation I see around me... including the leg of a horse. All parts work together based on specific instructions, towards a goal.
Romans 1:20; Hebrews 3:4
If you think my discerning this is without evidence, you will need to demonstrate that.

 

[nPeace]

So interesting that you are able to admit this. That every assumption we can possibly make about God, based on the tales of believers (again, the only form of evidence for any god), will end up working in the atheist's favor. This is extremely telling.

Please do not start twisting my words.
I hate lies, and those who repeatedly ... about what I did say, gets on my "bad side", and I stop speaking to them.
So if you want an honest discussion, don't twist my words and then say I said that. Okay?

I said...
What would we expect to see if God does not exist? What???
That requires so many assumptions doesn't it, and you know what... Every assumption will be correct... to the Atheists, thus working in his favor.

That's far different to what you are claiming I admitted to.
I did not admit that every assumption we can possibly make about God, based on the tales of believers (again, the only form of evidence for any god), will end up working in the atheist's favor.
Get it right, please.

You are the one with flaws leaking through your every word here. It isn't at all, that "nothing existed until they discovered it" it is precisely that (pay attention now): they hadn't discovered it until they discovered it. Do you see what I am saying? This is not how "God" works. You claim to have discovered it before you have actually discovered it. Each and every god claim works exactly like that. In essence, that is the entire problem in a nutshell!

Well now.
I said...
If scientists went that route, nothing today existed... until they discovered it.
Are you thinking this through. Seeing the flaws in your argument yet?

You said..
And then, of course, what are the implications if God does not exist? What are the things we expect to see?
So, in other words, if scientists suggested 'What would we expect to see if gravity does not exist? We expect to see what we see today. Therefore, gravity does not exist."
In a case like that, gravity did not exist.. until they discovered it.
Pay attention... please. Or are you having trouble keeping up.

Speaking of discovering. They discovered many times over, that what the Bible said was true. When they were sating there is no evidence for it.
That counts as evidence

The previous paragraphs I have written in this reply should demonstrate to you that it is most definitely yours.

Note that you never once refuted that God must necessarily work as I said He does regarding premature births. If He has the power to intervene, secretly, and so without disturbing anyone's "free will", and has the desire to save baby humans' lives, then what is stopping Him?

See @Hockeycowboy's post. Maybe he would be happy to answer you.
I don't mind taking the break, since my pc is giving some trouble.

Women smoking? Plastic? Remember the statistics I gave you. What is it that is overpowering God in this situation?

Nothing is overpowering God. That's impossible.

If you can't answer, then are you so sure that I misrepresented the situation? And whose situation is it!? Is it yours, or God's? How could I be straw-manning some argument of yours when I am discussing the implications of God's action or inaction? How is that even possible?

You read my post, so you can't be pretending you don't understand that you created the assumptions.
I'll repeat.
You started with an assumption, which you conclude must be right, and then you build your case on that assumption, thus you have already create a formula to go in your favor... based on faulty or incorrect assumptions.
Does that help?

You gave an insufficient, bogus answer, which I refuted with the statistics and realities of premature births, reasons for such, and how that does not match up with your ridiculous claims. Of course, you want to be able to boil that all down to "bias". Well no, you were wrong, and found to be claiming things foolishly.

No need to repeat myself. You'll just repeat the same ... um... thing.

Opinion based on observation of reality where God does not appear to be present, and literally cannot be demonstrated to be. And we can pretty much guaranteed that your opinions of God are not, at all, based on such observation of reality, because, again, you have no more evidence that can be shared with anyone else than the words you speak or the words that someone else wrote. That is objective fact. Unless it isn't... and you have such evidence that breaks from mere words. So how about it? Do you have such evidence?
I wish you could understand that you are not really saying anything here. Just metaphors for something you only hope will "work" for your intended mark. And in my experience, I am far more well-adjusted, content/happy, grateful for life and accepting of all types of people (not necessarily their ideas, mind you, but ideas are not people) than any believer I have ever met in my life. And this is based on the words they, themselves, have spoken to me that relay that they turned to their faith because there were facets of life that they found too difficult to accept without "help". So many stories... and so many of them indicating a fundamental inability to cope - with death, with poverty, with their own previous inability to stop "sinning". And even the way they frame their arguments to me, or how they frame the ways in which Christianity "can help" - it all indicates a fundamental inability to cope with various aspects of life without pretending that "help is on the way". Even yours here, telling me that I could reach some fantastical "peace" or "righteousness" - all the while assuming that I can't, or haven't achieved this myself. Assuming that I have some faults that I believe need "fixing". Meanwhile, my disposition offers me endless coping, as far as I have experienced thus far. I am sure there is a limit, but I haven't found it yet.

I have to leave this until later. Don't have the time to carefully read it.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

God doesn't even need to "control the world" in order to enact some of the things I am talking about here, and I believe you know this. Yet you decided to frame it as "God controlling the world" - in order to make that sound negative, like something we wouldn't want God doing, right? Sort of like straw-manning the issue, in order to easily be able to hand-wave it away as undeisrable.

What I have specifically been saying is that God could easily intervene on behalf of babies being prematurely born, such that He could save them from any issues that cause such deaths, and He could do so without His involvement even being known! This is just simple logic inferring from the belief that God has the power to do so, and the idea that He wants babies to live.

Would saving a premature baby, entirely in secret, be "controlling the world"? Be honest now.

Uh... that's what I have been asking.
Then I insist that these are very, very poor reasons. Do you advocate the punishment of progeny for acts committed by their ancestors? As in, if you accrue credit card debt, do you believe that your children should be on the hook to repay it? You were the one who created the situation, but your children should be the ones to pay the price? Is that fair? Is that "good" behavior? Is that moral in any way? Can you describe to me why it is moral if you deem it so? Or is it only moral if God does it? And if that is the case, then how can you ever argue for objective morality? If God can do things that are moral that would be immoral for a human to do, then the "subject" in question determines the morality of the action - which is the very definition of subjectivity! And completely negates objectivity!

And did all the babies who die from premature births also "choose independence from God" do you think?

So God just doesn't help then? What is prayer about, I wonder? None of this stuff can remain consistent, and I believe this is precisely because it is all being made up.

This is one of the big problems faith-based belief has. It is demonstrated not to remain consistent by the words of the believers themselves. When this is pointed out, insufficient or illogical justification is given for why it seems contradictory, or nothing but inadequate insistence that it is consistent when, again, it demonstrably is not.

So, we literally need the guidance, but He isn't going to give it, right? You just said the answer God came up with was to "stay out of the picture". Are you starting to see why I have problems with the consistency of the statements of believers? This kind of stuff is rampant in their words all the time. Literally, always. I never, ever come away feeling like I got adequate descriptions and answers that actually make sense. Never. And you can try and make this out to be "my problem" all you want. Until you actually answer some of these questions with things that make sense (which would, of course, mean that you would have answer them at all in the first place, let's remember), they are most definitely still your problems. You want people to believe this stuff... it is going to need to make sense. As it stands, it does not.

So the guidance is in the book then? And that's where we're expected to go when we literally need "Jehovah God’s guidance"? And how does this help babies about to die from premature births, I wonder? Can they go to the book to try and live? Also, with respect to abortion - if God doesn't like abortion, but he's not willing to do anything about it, and His book actually doesn't say much about abortion except that there are instances where it is okay to literally risk one to find out the guilt of a potentially adulterous woman, or that an unborn baby isn't to be considered as worthwhile as the mother's life for purposes of doling out consequences by law, and this book is the only place we can actually turn to for His guidance, according to what you're saying here, then what's our recourse? Listen to the complaints of believers? Listen to their interpretations of other parts of The Bible that aren't talking specifically about abortion, but seem to perhaps have some relevance to the value of life in general? This is all very tenuous, and, again, doesn't make much sense. And what say should God have in a matter that He leaves entirely up to humans to resolve?! Again... no specific mention of abortion as a bad thing in The Bible. And specific mentions of abortions (deaths of the unborn) specifically cast the value of the fetus as lesser than the living people involved. Do I just take a believer's word on this? There quite obviously isn't any other help on the matter forthcoming!

What? I thought He was staying out of it? I mean... that part at least made sense, since He is nowhere to be found in anything going on here on Earth. He is just demonstrably absent. Or, at least, no one can provide any good evidence that God was to be found acting (in secret) in any of the goings on of Earth. And that's just it... if He is willing to act in secret (which you would have to claim is the case, since His presence literally cannot be verified or known for sure), then why not save those prematurely born babies?! If He wants babies to live so badly that He can't abide by abortion, then why can't He secretly save some premature dying babies? Again... this makes absolutely no sense.

I don’t think you grasped what I wrote. We all either benefit or suffer from the choices our parents make.

God’s control was challenged, and millions of angels were watching this rebellion unfold. A&E should have chosen to be loyal… they knew the penalty. Instead, they chose independence & became imperfect before having kids. As their offspring, we suffer from imperfection as a result.

How God handled it, is handling it, is wise: stay out of it & let humans rule themselves. That was the main issue raised. Just read Genesis 3:1-6; can you see that?

Each of us only live 70 to 90, or 100 years. So the pain we may go through, is short really, in the grand scheme of things. For some w/ physical ailments - cancer, etc. - it’s considerably shorter.

But then, what happens? We die, but that’s only ‘RIP’ing until the promised Resurrection comes. Acts of the Apostles 24:15

What will life - on Earth - be like, at that time, under God’s Kingdom rule (Matthew 6:9-10, “Let Your will, be done on Earth”)?…
*Wicked people will be history. Psalms 37:10-11

*No more sickness. Isaiah 33:24

*Endless life. Romans 6:23 ; Revelation 21:3-4

*No more hunger. Psalms 72:16

*War will be gone. Psalms 46:9

This is all part of the “good news of the Kingdom” that Jesus spoke of. Matthew 24:14

Take care.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I’ll discuss your points individually:

God doesn't even need to "control the world" in order to enact some of the things I am talking about here, and I believe you know this. Yet you decided to frame it as "God controlling the world" - in order to make that sound negative, like something we wouldn't want God doing, right? Sort of like straw-manning the issue, in order to easily be able to hand-wave it away as undeisrable.

it was not my intent to make it sound negative, but it’s true….
I quoted some Scripture to prove just the opposite: He is not controlling this world, right now.

What I have specifically been saying is that God could easily intervene on behalf of babies being prematurely born, such that He could save them from any issues that cause such deaths, and He could do so without His involvement even being known! This is just simple logic inferring from the belief that God has the power to do so, and the idea that He wants babies to live.

He will, once the issue of sovereignty is settled. Right now, events are left to the outcome of the choices / decisions people make.
As it usually is, births are fine. Premature birth many times is caused by people abusing their bodies. (Not all the time, I know.) And they “reap what they sow”. But the promised Resurrection will right all those wrongs that caused death.

Would saving a premature baby, entirely in secret, be "controlling the world"? Be honest now.

“A” baby? Just one? Wouldn’t that be prejudiced? So He saves all babies. And where would the line be drawn, after that? Saving people from wicked regimes, like the Nazi’s? Or Pol Pot? Or Idi Amin?

No, Jehovah - and His son Jesus - have both completely stayed out of human affairs… intervening would simply give His human enemies, fodder to say, “See, things aren’t that bad!”
Actually, for many, life is still enjoyable in many aspects..

But intervening would just prolong the issue of sovereignty….the proof that man can’t rule himself successfully. We’re about at that juncture. Men are “destroying the earth.” Revelation 11:18

Then I insist that these are very, very poor reasons. Do you advocate the punishment of progeny for acts committed by their ancestors? As in, if you accrue credit card debt, do you believe that your children should be on the hook to repay it? You were the one who created the situation, but your children should be the ones to pay the price? Is that fair? Is that "good" behavior? Is that moral in any way? Can you describe to me why it is moral if you deem it so? Or is it only moral if God does it? And if that is the case, then how can you ever argue for objective morality? If God can do things that are moral that would be immoral for a human to do, then the "subject" in question determines the morality of the action - which is the very definition of subjectivity! And completely negates objectivity!

As I said before, all of us have either benefitted or suffered from the decisions our parents made - even before our birth.

And regarding what’s moral… God can read hearts. We don’t have that ability.

And did all the babies who die from premature births also "choose independence from God" do you think?

The Resurrection will rectify all the wrongs we’ve endured.

Looking at the state of the world even back in the Apostle John’s day suffering under Roman abuse, and aware of the actions of Yahweh / Jehovah in Scripture, where He killed quite a few pagan peoples.. yet John said what at 1 John 4:8? “God is love.” Why could he say that? Because he knew Jehovah’s promise of a Resurrection, when all people will be given an opportunity to live again, and learn the truth about God & Jesus. All sources of obfuscation will be removed!

So God just doesn't help then? What is prayer about, I wonder?

Jehovah does give help at times to those seeking him in faith. Hebrews 11:6. (He never gave anybody a million $ I don’t think. Hehe.)

None of this stuff can remain consistent, and I believe this is precisely because it is all being made up.

This is one of the big problems faith-based belief has. It is demonstrated not to remain consistent by the words of the believers themselves. When this is pointed out, insufficient or illogical justification is given for why it seems contradictory, or nothing but inadequate insistence that it is consistent when, again, it demonstrably is not.

I can’t control what others were taught to believe; there’s a million different teachings out there! But we should expect a lot of differing and confusing beliefs, if 1 John 5:19 - “the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one” - is accurate. Also Revelation 12:9. The facts seem to bear this out.

So, we literally need the guidance, but He isn't going to give it, right? You just said the answer God came up with was to "stay out of the picture".

We have it… He’s given us His Word, which tells us how to live a successful life. It requires some restraint, ie., self-control, which many people don’t like…I’m mostly talking about sex….but when you think about it, coupled with guidance on how husbands and wives should treat each other, it’s the best outcome and life for children.
While Jehovah “stays out of the picture.”
My wife & I are happy (most of the time); we have great relationships with others too.

Are you starting to see why I have problems with the consistency of the statements of believers? This kind of stuff is rampant in their words all the time. Literally, always. I never, ever come away feeling like I got adequate descriptions and answers that actually make sense. Never. And you can try and make this out to be "my problem" all you want. Until you actually answer some of these questions with things that make sense (which would, of course, mean that you would have answer them at all in the first place, let's remember), they are most definitely still your problems. You want people to believe this stuff... it is going to need to make sense. As it stands, it does not.

As I said: There’s no “consistency” because Christendom has no unity; beliefs are all over the spectrum! They’ve taught many lies, one of the biggest being Hellfire…what a God-dishonoring tenet!
And many others. Again, 1 John 5:19. C.f. 2 Corinthians 4:4

and this book is the only place we can actually turn to for His guidance, according to what you're saying here, then what's our recourse? Listen to the complaints of believers? Listen to their interpretations of other parts of The Bible that aren't talking specifically about abortion, but seem to perhaps have some relevance to the value of life in general? This is all very tenuous, and, again, doesn't make much sense. And what say should God have in a matter that He leaves entirely up to humans to resolve?! Again... no specific mention of abortion as a bad thing in The Bible. And specific mentions of abortions (deaths of the unborn) specifically cast the value of the fetus as lesser than the living people involved. Do I just take a believer's word on this? There quite obviously isn't any other help on the matter forthcoming!

I agree with a lot of what you said. There are factors we can take into consideration when trying to search for those who might have an accurate understanding of Scripture…
Let me ask you this: didn’t Jesus say his disciples should “love” each other? But if those “believers” kill each other… you think it would be wise to listen to them? Not me…nor any others who want to follow Jesus.
As Jehovah’s Witnesses, we appreciate the Bible & try to live by it.

He is just demonstrably absent. Or, at least, no one can provide any good evidence that God was to be found acting (in secret) in any of the goings on of Earth. And that's just it... if He is willing to act in secret (which you would have to claim is the case, since His presence literally cannot be verified or known for sure), then why not save those prematurely born babies?! If He wants babies to live so badly that He can't abide by abortion, then why can't He secretly save some premature dying babies? Again... this makes absolutely no sense

Me either, until I began an intense scrutiny of the Scriptures with JW’s.
Once I learned about those issues raised in the G of E, and what the Scripturs really said about the Resurrection, I began to better understand God’s actions.

i hope this didn’t sound too disjointed

Have a good day.