Sorry for replying with the same meme template

Truste, when you say nothing, it's something. When she says nothing, it could be fatal

You've met my ex, I see.

I used to tell my ex "It's not you"... that was a lie, it was definitely him.

I treated my wife terribly. If she said something, I took her at her word. Nothing big or major like buying a motorcycle, but little stuff. I told her I was going to subscribe to Playboy, and she said go ahead, then got pissed when the issues started arriving.

Raising kids was fun. She'd tell them to ask me if they wanted to go to a friend's or such. If I didn't see a problem with it, I'd say sure. Shed reade the riot act saying that she didn't want the kids to visit their friends. I told her she should have told the kids that. I never held the kids responsible for asking me to do something. If they asked me first, I'd ask the missus if their was any reason they couldn't go. She usually had some reason (chores) but by being proactive in not letting them whipsaw like she tried to do, they turned out okay. Trying to keep the grandkids in line when I visit them. One missed her weekend with Grandpa by not finishing her chores after I told her. My daughter appreciates the help.

I would have been grateful if my ex only looked at porn, instead he was f***ing our neighbor. He spent all our money on toys (guns&computers) and lying about paying bills to the point we almost got evicted several times (I was forced to use my college money to keep a roof over our heads instead of going to school). He even sold my car without telling me. I just came home from work one day with him standing on the sidewalk with some guy. He asked me if I had all my stuff out of the car, then without a word, took my keys from me and handed them to the guy who preceded to get in my car and drive away. Then he took our other car and refused to let me use it. I got injured pretty badly and he refused to take me to the clinic. I ended up walking 16 miles in FL heat on a broken foot to get treatment. Not only that, but he drove past me walking on the side of the road and didn't stop, just left me there. He would go work on his motorcycle, then bypass the kitchen sink with the orange hand cleaner, go in the bathroom and wipe the car grease on my shower towel then re-fold it so I didn't see the grease, and I'd smear it on myself after bathing. He would use my facial cleanser sponge to clean the shower instead of a regular sponge and put it back as if it were still clean. I could keep going but you get the idea. The therapist I went to during the divorce didn't believe me at first, thought I was delusional because 'no one can be that mean' then I brought in one of the towels he greased up. She realized I was't lying and was floored.

I agree. that guy was a bastard, asshole and dick.

[image deleted]

I'm not a therapist, but I can believe you. I've seen guys like that. I learned a lot on how to NOT treat a woman. The biggest problem my wife and I had over the years is I like to withdraw from people. I usually jumped into a book or newspaper. Not much of a socializer, nor drinker. I wasn't a saint, but she knew I wasn't a major skirt chaser. When her sister's husband left for a lady he found on the internet, my wife wasn't worried about the time I spent here. I never kept my marriage a secret and stayed the living hubby. When she met some of my online friends IRL, it was like they were old acquaintances.

Oh well. At least two of the three kids have rallied behind me in support, as well as the grandkids.

I'm far from perfect, but now I'm just taking my time. I have a couple "FWB" ladies that stop by on occasion, but they understand grandkids first. The grands don't have a problem with my lady friends, and realize that I may remarry someday, or shack up. Even my kids are understanding of that now that they're adults.

As for your ex, when you're ready and want a man, I hope you find one worthy.

Thanks Swiggys.
I actually don't consider it how not to treat a 'woman', but how not to treat any person. I wouldn't even treat a stranger that badly. Mistakes are one thing, I know I made a few, but his behavior was vicious, underhanded and deliberate.

I'm an intr-extrovert, most photographers are. We want to be where the action is, but not be directly involved in it. :)

I never had kids. An inept ER doctor took that choice away from me when I was 17 after a bad car accident. Truthfully I'm grateful that I didn't have kids with him, especially with all the divorce nightmares I've heard about.

I tried the FWB thing, but ended up just feeling used and unsatisfied (physically and emotionally) If it works for you and your partner(s), go for it.
As for me, well I'm looking, but not hard. I used to internet date, which was mostly disappointing. Now I feel that when things are right, it'll fall into place. In the meantime, I have my own kind of toys to play with.

That's the way to look at it. I like the idea of having a partner, but I also like the idea of having a bond. It's not something you can really explain to young people that are more enamoured with romance than their partner, but you get the idea

Right now, I'm just stepping back. "The Noodle", my youngest daughter, ended up a single mom because her ex decided to step out. I have my hand in raising her girls, now, and I've been invited to move in by the friends she stays with. I've passed on it, and don't have an much argument, although I suspect that may change in the next year or so. Her business partner's wife has already had 3 strokes so I play chauffer when their on the road, plus his daughter has Down Syndrome. It surprised them that the first time she hugged me and called me Grandpa, I didn't have a problem with it. My ex was mortified by my granddaughters having such a friend.

Now to see if I burnt my tarts to bad. First try.

Daaaaaaaman! I'm soooooooooo sorry for you! :( (and that's not sarcastic)

Thanks, I'm ok now :) and I'm grateful that I know that not all men are like that. It was just him.
I had a friend who got divorced from a man (that everyone told her not to marry, including me), and she became a bitter man hater. Really wouldn't surprise me if she attended one of those women walks.

Call the cops on him!!!

I made it a meme. Thanks for the chat :)

To his credit, though, he remembered to add the whipped cream.

I was in science and, ironically learning about the Big Bang... :D

Better than a lot of other theories I've heard.

You should try this one with a philosoraptor meme

The problem of beginnings is the biggest thorn in the side of any cosmogeny that does not allow for the supernatural.

You are mistaken on the theory. It doesn't state that there was nothing. You're a special kind of misinformed aren't ya? Get on Netflix and watch Cosmos. All 13 of them. Keep in mind that everything they tell you is a verified fact. Enjoy the learning. It feels good.

Saying that there was "something" in the beginning of what we now call the universe only sets aside the problem one step -- if there was "something", what was the origin of that "something", and how did it get into that state? You can postulate any number of fanciful theories, but ultimately it had to *start* somewhere, somewhen. Every effect has a cause -- the universe (or multiverse, if you prefer) of space, time, and matter is an effect. The Cause must be beyond the limits of space, time, and matter in order to bring them into being.

Note that there is nothing here that says *which* god or gods accomplished this feat of unlimited power and complexity, only that it must have had such a beginning. But I may watch the Cosmos series, it will be interesting to see how they managed to "verify" something that happened (supposedly) billions of years ago. If they managed to unravel the paradoxes of time travel and get a video of the big bang in progress, that's something I'd like to see.

You seem to take known history as all possible history. Cosmos is an excellent place to start. Watch it on a big tv. It's very well produced. Thanks to Set McFarland.

I am old enough to have watched the original Carl Sagan Cosmos series. And I still found nothing compelling about his statements and explanations about science and naturalism. And in other occasions when I have seen Tyson under a full head of steam I found him to be a rather narcissistic blowhard -- but that is, of course, an ad hominem and takes nothing away from the truth or falsehood of the information he presents. I will do my best to make time to watch an episode or two, but while I do, consider this:

Scientific fact is not determined by consensus. The phrase "most scientists believe" is usually a prefix to a statement that someone wants to have weight, but for which there is no definitive proof. If "most scientists believe" that there is no deity, that is not, in and of itself, proof that it is true. Science, as Octavia_Melody has well and reasonably stated, is the study of the natural, and can make no pronouncements about the existence or actions of the supernatural. On the question of origins, all science can do is take what they observe happening in the present, and project in time, "running the film backwards", using logic and data. And there is nothing wrong with that, as a means of coming up with a theory. Some things, though, cannot be explained by current science. Some may, in the future, become evident as science advances. But some can never be explained except by breaking through the limitations of what we can observe -- multiple universes, "branes", and stable singularities which inexplicably came into being and even more inexplicably became unstable and exploded.

None of this can be proven, it is just an example of how far a mind will go to avoid the existence of something that not only cannot be explained in scientific terms, but might actually want something of us. The one thing we must do away with at all costs, is the idea of personal accountability.

I don't mean to imply that scientists establish facts. They use facts to build consensus. But on that consensus further research can be conducted. If the research shows part of what was previously believed to be false then scientists don't have a problem correcting the record. The theory of gravity applies to us all. Many deists enjoy pointing out the THEORY of evolution as if that proves uncertainty. At that point you're arguing definition with someone who is just being bratty. I don't think that applies to you but you seem to seek to find out what happened before the big bang and science is still trying to piece together the history of the universe as it exists in our dimension. Nothing is ever going to get me to a deist view unless I see the things that deists talk about start happening. And truthfully I would probably think I was being tricked. Hitchens famously asked "Which seems more likely? That the natural order would be somehow suspended or that a Jewish mynx might tell a lie?"

A devout Jewish man would rather die than tell a lie. But that is a false dichotomy -- of course it is more likely that a person would lie than for a miracle to occur. The question is more like, "which seems more likely -- that a state of utter chaos produced the orderly, predictable universe we see, or that it was designed by something or someone with intelligence, intentionality, rationality, and purpose?"

There are enough design flaws in the human body alone to show that it wasn't intelligent design.

I'll up vote the whole exchange!

[img]1i9e9y.jpg (click to show)[/img]

I've seen the Cosmos and Through the Wormhole and highly recommend both. Great conversation.

We've made existence relative to human life, a birth, a lifespan and a death. We have been creating understandings relative to how we exist. There will be no end of the universe only it's state yet human life will come to an end as it relies on goldilocks conditions (that's 1 of 3) The lifespan stage is now and the only 1 of the 3 we can observe. The "beginning" to me is only relative to life forms not existence.

Not yet in existence? Pending? Potential? I think Tyrone is suggesting that our reality exists inside the larger reality of a higher being and the evidence for that supposition is even less than the other deist ideas I've heard. Granted I don't go very far exploring deist ideas. I lose interest when the grandiosity kicks in.

I like to see conviction and structure in opinions. There's no answer sheet for these theories. I relate more to your arguments in this case but again appreciate conviction and thought provocation especially when it is addressed without insulting distractions.

Not all atheists believe so, perhaps not even a majority. But atheism rather handily does away with anything that could be called an objective standard of behavior. As we can observe throughout history, any number of unspeakable evils are possible (even probable?) when an individual, a tribe, or a culture rejects the idea of a universal moral code. And we need not go to Nazi Germany to see it in all its depravity, there was enough stupidity in Catholicism to generate both the Crusades and the Inquisition -- because that sect of the church set itself up as the only arbiter of "truth" and forbade the common people to read the Bible for themselves in their own languages.

But I digress. Civilization can exist in some form without a bedrock moral grounding, just out of enlightened self-interest if nothing else. But if history is any guide, all cultures (with or without clear spiritual guidance) tend to get worse and worse, rather than better and better, over time. Atheism does away with that objective yardstick, and facilitates redefinition of justice, law, and morality to suit the zeitgeist. The cultures will still decline, but they don't have to bulldoze a culturally-accepted set of spiritual norms to do it.

Admittedly, now we are into philosophy rather than science, but it is part of the discussion. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hamlet, act 1, scene 5.

And here we have Virgin Mary-Madonna chiming in on theological versus scientific discussions!

<3

Ummm.. not so much. Bad people will do bad things. It takes religion to get good people to do bad things. This universal moral code is surely not found in the bible. The first 5 commandments are arbitrary actions prescribed to show obedience to this incredibly flawed god. The last 5 are just societal norms that prevail in groups or cultures that adopt most of them. Simply, it's evolution. Groups that killed each other, well they didn't last. To keep the violence down, well don't steal... you can see where I'm going here. Make now mistake, Nazis paid lip service to christianity. If anyone thinks the bible is a perfect book of morals.. please read it. It is all about blood sacrifice, even human sacrifice, torture, genocide, rape, slavery, and portrays god as all too human. Petulant, easily angered.. the phrase god's anger was kindled appears waaaaay to often in the OT. Also, god let Moses rebuke him? Moses had to remind him of his promises? god is portrayed as a petty bronze age tribal leader for the most part because that is who wrote the stories.. they wrote what they knew.. which was not much. Think of all the scientific errors in the bible.. cosmology stuff. There is not one phrase of revelation beyond what a goat herder could observe within a few miles of where he lived. Nothing on DNA.. germs, solar system, engineering, math.. nothing. the bible is a rated R version of lord of the rings or something like that. Civilizations have come and gone with and without god. All of the points about singularity not being nothing. Kudos. religion is easy, thinking is hard. Religion settles easily with the lazy and stupid. Science does not claim to know everything. But, scientists look for the answers. Religion claims to know it all already. Any gap in knowledge, they just add a dollop of god and voila! Atheists want to be good. Religious people are afraid to be bad.

How thoughtful of you. Now did you plagiarize that from Christopher Hitchens, Neil Degrasse Tyson, or did you just summarize a list of prominent atheists from memory?

So many errors, so little time.
(1) You obviously have made no study of the Bible for yourself and are just quoting what others have told you about it or what you have read. Otherwise you would have remembered that it's the first *four* commandments that are about God, and the last *six* that are about dealing with our fellow man. A beginner's error.

(2) You have obviously never read in the Old Testament about how simply it all boils down. "He has told you what he wants from man -- what does God require of you but to act justly, be merciful, and walk humbly with you God?" (Micah 6:8) Which is parallelled in the New Testament, "“In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets." and "Love does no wrong to a neighbor -- therefore, love is the fulfillment of the law." (Mathew 7:12 and Romans 13:10)
(3) Nowhere, and I do mean nowhere does God ask for humans to be sacrificed as a blood offering to Him, nor did He ever accept such a sacrifice, and roundly condemned it wherever it was found, even among the people of Israel. (War isn't the same thing, and He did command His people in the Old Testament in some cases to go to war. Much too long an argument to go into here.)
(4) Scientific errors? How about "He stretches out the north over empty space And hangs the earth on nothing." Job 26:7, an accurate description for the people of that time, contrary to what was thought in other cultures, that the earth sits unsupported in space. Again, you have not researched it for yourself, you are just parroting what you've been spoonfed.

Nice try, though no cigar. Come back when you've looked at both sides objectively and can make the arguments without relying on the atheistic soothsayers on popular television.

Ok my friend. I have read multiple versions of the bible to be on the same page with different sects. I live near BJU and read their version. Version is such a curious word. But. as a wanna be textual critic, I understand the need for versions where no originals exist and very few Greek or Aramaic passages exist. So help me with math. 1. I am god. 2. no god but me. 3. no idols. 4. don't use my name in vain. 5 keep Sabbath holy. The reason for our confusion is that these commandments are split up between books and repeated and some of them run together. It's a common rookie mistake. Yes, I did plagiarize the "good people to do bad requires religion" but I am not sure who from. I don't think it was Hitch or Sam. (2) I have read the OT probably 30 times.. each book. OOOH and sir you are so wrong, if I have to, I will get you chapter and verse, but remember in the OT, in Judges, the Judge that asks god for victory in battle and will sacrifice the first thing through the gate if god helps him. Well you know he wins and his daughter walks through and he sacrifices her to god.. it tells how sad he is and how he gives her time to prepare.. surely you have read this. God did order his people go war.. ok that is reasonable I suppose. But, why then would god "harden the hearts of the amorites, hittites, sometites, against conversion to avoid slaughter. god made them resist so they would be killed.. supposedly because their women would bring Ashur and Baal to the tribes. Which makes me think god thought those gods were real. He certainly was afraid of them. His kings, the best kings, destroyed the "high places" of the other gods. Josiah? Then of course he was whacked by the Egyptians. Sir, I have not been spoon fed anything.. I have read your books.. Matthew 5:17-18. Jesus says himself that he is not changing the laws, that the laws, every jot will be in place until the end of heaven and earth. These are the laws of the OT. Jesus was a Jew and clearly referring to Jewish law. If you stick with any literal interpretation of the OT, you will look like a fool. The NT, well most of it was allegedly written by one man, trying to keep expanding a franchise. But the message is muddled. Even the gospels, have different accounts of the same event. Not that we know who Mat Mark Luke or John were, or who wrote their stories... someone wrote their stories, not them.. think about that.

Well...I am moderately and pleasantly surprised, and I mean that in the best possible way. For me to encounter someone at random on the interwebs who has a working knowledge of the scripture even though remaining an unbeliever. I tip my hat to you sir, genuinely and sincerely.

I would absolutely love to continue this dialogue/debate with you, for I may learn even from those with whom I ardently disagree. However, I am sure you will agree that imgflip is not the appropriate forum for such discussions, nor is it particularly easy to use in that regard. I don't know if there is a private way to swap e-mail contact information, but if there is I would welcome the chance to continue.

in the interim, I wish you nothing but the best -- in life as well as the afterlife. :)

Well thank you sir... I think.. for the other comment. It would not let me reply to it... I have no problem giving you my email address: [email protected] Cheers and I wish you the best as well sir.

So much win!

Perhaps, but not for the team you expected.

*Seth