Since: Feb 12

Ramstein-miesenbach, Germany

#581653 Jan 3, 2013
Here to try and help you out a bit I will provide you with the definition of an agnostic.

ag∑nos∑tic (g-nstk)
n.
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
adj.

So if I had bit on your little game and said that I believed that God did not exist I would not be agnostic but atheist. Had I said I did believe in a God then I would not be agnostic but a theist.
Since I did neither I am agnostic.

Understand now?

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#581654 Jan 3, 2013
This Sandy Hook story keeps getting more and more twisted, It turns out the car the alleged shooter Adam Lanza was claimed to have used actually belongs to a guy named Chris Rodia not Adams mother as reported.

http://www.dailypaul.com/267414/more-info-on-...

OK WHAT? Is this Chris Rodia the guy they chased into the woods? What does he have to do with this?
If it was his car why was it reported to be Lanzas and that Lanzas weapon was in it?
There's something going on.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#581655 Jan 3, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Right since we know eternal has no meaning in physics,
we can say since the time duration of space/time is possibly infinite and that it is evidence of santa clause could be real.
Actually we have a definitive timeline for the age of the universe though we could have error in this figure the evidence does point to a beginning , rendering your whole scheme not only pure conjecture but inventive of nonexistent evidence based on the fantasy of your beliefs.
Get back to me on this when cause is explained becuase until then there is no real difference.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#581656 Jan 3, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
1. The guns "probably" were the reason
2. The issue of who decides what constitutes a life "saved " by a gun? As an example one could argue that George Zimmermans life was saved by a gun. See?
And one could argue that if zimmerman didn't have a gun, he would have left the matter to the police, a teenager wouldn't be dead and he wouldn't be facing charges.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#581657 Jan 3, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya, because of a crazy man.
With an assault weapon.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#581658 Jan 3, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, shit. There's over 80 million Americans that aren't Christian....
That's a lot of people to shoot up schools, theaters and abuse babies....
So now your claim is that christians NEVER do those things?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#581659 Jan 3, 2013
UR BS wrote:
<quoted text>
Please if you wonm't be honest with the people on this forum at least be honest with yourself.
You know that the usage of IT to describe a person is offensive and you meant as such. Do not be such a wimp that you won't admit that it was indeed ment as an insult, if it wasn't then you need somone to help you understand the written language better.
Your insecurity is showing throiugh not mine. You called the otherv poster an IT that does not reflect humanity when directed at a person if you are too ignorant to ubderstand that then I pity you.
I am being honest, if you want to accuse someone of lying you should present evidence lest you become the liar by default.

I don't know it's offensive, because I don't care if it is or not. It does not offend me, why should it? I am still human even if someone calls me "it," and I would not fault them for it at all, unless they can prove otherwise, "it" is the most appropriate pronoun for anyone. If someone demonstrates they are a liar, then I have no reason to take their word for anything, and thus the neutral gender pronoun becomes honest.

It's fascinating how important you make gender, and labels, you seem to worship them, or you are obsessed. I am still uncertain of which. But either way, it demonstrates a severe lack of self esteem when one becomes so offended by such.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#581660 Jan 3, 2013
UR BS wrote:
Here to try and help you out a bit I will provide you with the definition of an agnostic.
ag∑nos∑tic (g-nstk)
n.
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
adj.
So if I had bit on your little game and said that I believed that God did not exist I would not be agnostic but atheist. Had I said I did believe in a God then I would not be agnostic but a theist.
Since I did neither I am agnostic.
Understand now?
I am agnostic atheist, I cannot say that no god exists, that is honesty. But there has been no evidence presented of any of the specific claims of a god, therefore I am atheist to all of them. You are atheist to all but one, that's over 3,000 gods you are denying, actually. By claiming your particular god is real, and the others are not, though all are lacking in evidence, you are also displaying hypocrisy.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#581661 Jan 3, 2013
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, didn't know about that. Seems to me that you can't be accused specifically of murder when you didn't kill a person, and legally a fetus is not a person. Ergo, those prosecutions will probably not pass muster with a higher court.
"If it's not a crime for a mother to intentionally end her pregnancy, how can it be a crime for her to do it unintentionally, whether by taking drugs or smoking or whatever it is,"
Makes sense to me.
That is some sick sh!t.

Gee. I wonder if it's religiously motivated?

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#581662 Jan 3, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text> Get back to me on this when cause is explained becuase until then there is no real difference.
Yes there is a big difference.
Not knowing what a cause is , or even if causality applies to it.
Does not mean there is a imaginary bearded man behind it.
There could be a bearded man behind it , but what would make you think there was?

Being everything we know says , bearded men did not exist till billions of years later.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#581663 Jan 3, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
This Sandy Hook story keeps getting more and more twisted, It turns out the car the alleged shooter Adam Lanza was claimed to have used actually belongs to a guy named Chris Rodia not Adams mother as reported.
http://www.dailypaul.com/267414/more-info-on-...
OK WHAT? Is this Chris Rodia the guy they chased into the woods? What does he have to do with this?
If it was his car why was it reported to be Lanzas and that Lanzas weapon was in it?
There's something going on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =uz5DkTF2RW8XX
The Rodia video/article has been removed.

Wonder why?

I'm actually quite surprised and shocked to find that you are a conspiracy theorist.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#581664 Jan 3, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
So now your claim is that christians NEVER do those things?
Perhaps RR needs reminding that leaves there are around 230 million christian Americans, any one of which could easily shoot up a school or theatre.

Adam Lanza - Christian
James Holmes Ė Christian

That also means there are an awful lot of and a lot of christian priests/ministers/pastors etc to abuse children

I know you donít need to be christian to go off your head bit it seems to help

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#581665 Jan 3, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Murder and manslaughter are legal terms, not biological terms. To a biologist, they are the same - killing ... death.
Once upon a time, women, children and slaves could be killed, but not murdered. In the future, the law may protect pets and call killing them murder. None of this affects biology at all. What a fetus is in biological terms is unrelated to the law. Calling its death manslaughter does not change a fetus into a baby. Being born does.
A fetus is not a literal baby. Although it does have a literal face, think of referring to a fetus using the word "baby" a form of metaphor.
Ok, so you kill an unborn child & it's manslaughter or murder. But how? You say it's nit a life...

So if you crash into a couple of trees, that's murder...

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#581666 Jan 3, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> We are fighting a prenatal paramilitary force , who uses nonexistence as an evasive maneuver to deny the parasitical well being of all guns and knives ability to
dismember society on a comical basis.
HA!

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#581667 Jan 3, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Close. Once the cord is cut the baby can't FORCE the mother to take care of it. It relies on the mother's willingness to nurture it.
It doesn't have to be the mother who nurtures a baby. ANYONE could nurture a born baby.

But it IS only the woman who when she is pregnant can nurture the z/e/f.

BIG difference between nurturing while pregnant and a born baby being nurtured.

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#581668 Jan 3, 2013
UR BS wrote:
<quoted text>
You should really call someone and at least get a clue about what you are saying prior to posting idiotic drivel like this one.
Here I will help read this,
http://www.ehow.com/list_7483847_laws-killing...
Here is just a little excerpt from that law.
"anyone who causes the death of, or injury to, an unborn child at any developmental stage is guilty of not only harming the mother but also, as a separate offense, of harming the child. In these cases, the court can convict perpetrators of two separate cases of bodily harm or murder."
Notice the word CHILD? Not any of those other terms you and your ilk like to use to dehumanize the child.
It is called a Child in utero.
YOU get a clue. I don't care WHAT you choose to call it.

However, to call a z/e/f a baby is no different than calling an acorn an oak tree or an egg a chicken and they are just as senseless as calling a zygote, an embryo or a fetus a baby and not withstanding the terminology used in law.

Calling something what it is is NOT dehumanizing a child. Obviously, a HUMAN who is pregnant is pregnant with a human zygote, a human embryo or a human fetus. However, until there is a live birth, there is no child just as until there is a death, there is no corpse.

Regardless of ANY of this, the point remains that there would be nothing right about women being legally forced to remain pregnant against their will in order to be legally forced to give birth against their will.

And as always, the bottom line is simply this:

Not your body? Not your uterus? Not your pregnancy? Not your z/e/f?

Then not your choice, not your decision and NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#581669 Jan 3, 2013
Clementia wrote:
Hey guys, watch this video about the formation of a fetus, my lecturer showed us at uni, it's soooo bloody awesome!! Life is too cool!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =_2MFFzldkYQXX
That was cool!

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#581670 Jan 3, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
What karl said was, "Your (personal) willingness to see children die, so that you can "feel" more like a man is disgusting."
Sorry, but them's the facts.{{{SNIP}}}
See? This is why you get the f_ck you!

I have no personal willingness to see children die.

F_ck you!

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#581671 Jan 3, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
The Rodia video/article has been removed.
Wonder why?
I'm actually quite surprised and shocked to find that you are a conspiracy theorist.
I'm not but there are so many inconsistencies it makes you wonder.
I have to evaluate the crap too, I googled and posted a link different than the one I first saw.

I don't make this shit up, and if it is made up why?
Or it's true and if true why?

http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2012/12/23/sa...

One possible explanation is it that it is error.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#581672 Jan 3, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
I disagree. That's just not credible. Nobody would subject their family to that risk knowing what you know if they weren't afraid to live unarmed.
Furthermore, you're not credible about what your motives are. You're clearly playing the ostrich here.
It's not about being afraid, it's about being protected...

Having a gun in your home is like having a condom in your wallet or purse. It's better to have one when you need one....

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Josh Glidewell Lifetime Exteriorz roof. One sat... 3 min Edward Bellvue 1
60s Hippy Freaks Ruined America! (Aug '07) 3 min lightbeamrider 351
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 min Michael 584,128
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 11 min WasteWater 3,393
What do u think of Jesus Christ?(God) (Oct '06) 42 min lightbeamrider 70,145
News Who is an atheist? (May '10) 1 hr Richardfs 9,319
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 1 hr Classic 2,261
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 1 hr karvinman 176,528
Why Iím no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 2 hr Oxidant 442,862
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 8 hr karvimaker 611,843
More from around the web