Prove there's a god.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620187 Apr 27, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
You really do have absolutely no clue what negative reinforcement is.
Is that supposed to refute what I said?

lol, it didn't.

Prove me wrong that ANY ONE of the three examples I gave were not examples of negative reinforcement.

Try.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620188 Apr 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree. It's all about control. Of our money and of our rights.
The whole "plastic bags are bad for the environment" argument is a moot point while plastic water bottles are so prolific.
I see people at the grocery store, with their little "environmentally friendly" reusable bags. I watch as they stuff them full of plastic; drink bottles (of all sorts), TV dinners, candy, chips, etc.
It always makes me chuckle and I ask myself what the hell the point is.
Oh, money.
Really... you see a plastic bag tax as a form of "control," but you don't mind the patriot act. There government is trying to subvert our rights and mess with our money in much more sinister ways, and you worry about a plastic bag tax, because it's "leftist." Stop being so partisan.

And yes, there are many more things we should be doing to help the environment, or at least reduce our impact, but one thing at a time RR. You can't expect for plastic to go away overnight. Taxing plastic bags is a good way to get people to really think about whether they really need to put 20 plastic bags into the trash every time they go shopping.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620189 Apr 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say they were socially supported the same, did I?
Don't call me a liar if you don't wanna read correctly.
<quoted text>
You guys bring in on yourselves.
You don't wanna leave well enough alone, so we fight back.
Like how your kind tried removing a cross in my town. A cross that's been there since 1906....
Y'all lost, of course. But it leaves a bitter reminder to us how much atheists want it their way - with no regard to how anyone else wants it.
If you can't take the heat.........
You said "atheism is also socially supported." Where was the part where you qualified that statement? The fact is, it's not. It doesn't require social support to exist. It does not need to be "propped up" by social validation, because it doesn't require us to believe in things that directly contradict reason, logic, and evidence.

Atheists don't want it "their way," they want it the way that the founders wanted it - a seperation of church and state. I don't know about the specifics of the cross that has you so upset so I can't comment, but religious symbols shouldn't be displayed on public land. What if the US became majority muslim overnight? Would you defend crescent moons being displayed in front of courthouses? Or "in allah we trust" on our money?

Also, there is a big difference between advocating for seperation of church and state and discriminating. The removal of a cross, no matter how much sentimental value it has, does not count as discrimination or an attack on your religion, and it is not "our" fault that your faith is so fragile that it depends on public displays thereof. Atheists are actually discriminated against - I can turn on the radio or the TV and find a pundit talking about how school shootings happen because "we took god out of schools" or someone talking about how atheists are causing the downfall of america.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620190 Apr 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
God has the 'ability' to change an outcome of your life, but not the 'desire', so he never does.
Making your life full of choices and free will.
Your point? I know he has the ability. Yet he allows his little simulation to run, knowing full well exactly how many of his beloved creations will end up burning in hell for eternity.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620191 Apr 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand what you're saying, totally. I'm trying to get it through your thick skull that God allows you free will.
He allows everyone free will - including Satan.
I don't know why you feel the need to add the word "approval" into it...
I understand that you want to force free will in to the equation. I even allow for it for the purposes of this discussion, even though it's logically impossible given the properties god is said to have. That doesn't change the fact that everything that happens, by definition, has god's tacit approval. If it didn't have his approval, then, by definition, it would not happen. Simple as that.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620192 Apr 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You have kids?
Does it matter if I have kids? You seem to think that making a child automatically makes you an expert. As you have demonstrated, this is not the case.

Babies don't learn in the way that adults do. You seem to think they do.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620193 Apr 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
What the f_ck is it with this generation that thinks babies are stupid?
Didn't say they were stupid. They also do not have fully realized brains.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620194 Apr 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
HA HA HA!!
Ya, dude. OK...... "babies don't manipulate"....
HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!
Wow.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620195 Apr 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
So then you advocate spankings only when the child is mature?
Doncha think that's a little too late to start?
<quoted text>
BINGO!
The baby learns very quickly that they can't throw a fit when you take a toy away at bedtime, or when they refuse to eat their food and throw it on the floor, or when they yank on the dog's ears....
<quoted text>
Get your mind out of the gutter - this debate is not about a baby crying, it's about their actions.
You specifically said that you hit your baby for crying. They do not make the connection that you seem to think they make. They learn "crying gets me hit." Not "crying for 'no reason' gets me hit."

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620196 Apr 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
HA HA HA!!!!
Sorry, timn. I had to stop ya there.
You think liberals "defend our rights"????
Then why the f_ck are they trying to deny us our right to bear arms?
Amongst many other rights the liberals want to take away - like the right to use a God damned plastic bag at the grocery store if I feel like it.
When I said "damned liberals," I wasn't referring to the overall left, I was referring to myself, which is why I put it in quotation marks.

But ok, you go along on your plastic bag crusade and your penis compensator protest, and I'll worry about the important things, like the government turning the US into a paranoid police state perpetually at war with the enemy of the week.

But I like how you avoided everything I said.

Since: Mar 11

Australia

#620197 Apr 27, 2013
saidI wrote:
<quoted text>
This doesn't ever prove the existence of a God. This proves that guy was really lucky.

RR wrote:
Prove it.

saidI wrote:
The man is alive after falling 8 floors. There's your proof that this guy is really lucky.
Anon

Cleveland, OH

#620198 Apr 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I know they don't. They come out with a still-developing brain.
And it's the parent's job to teach, train and develop them.
Not to be their bitch.
The parent's are in charge, not the child.
That seems a difficult concept for "lefties"...
My system for child rearing is quite simple. I sold my son to the gypsies.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620199 Apr 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
"We turned on eachother and allowed the government and the media to instill paranoia and fear in us all"
Did "we" do that?
'cuz I remember quite differently.
Because you are a white american who was caught up in the go team america nonsense. It was pretty dangerous to look muslim after 9/11. And when I say "we," I am talking about people in general. We turned on people who looked a little different than us, and we allowed ourselves to become desensitized to the murder of innocent people.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620200 Apr 27, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
They've got to keep their rich buddies in the military industrial complex rolling in green.
I think some of those people breathe money.
Yep. Pretty much. The US isn't even a democracy anymore, it's a corporatocracy. People get elected by big money, and then they owe big favors.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620201 Apr 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I know they don't. They come out with a still-developing brain.
And it's the parent's job to teach, train and develop them.
Not to be their bitch.
The parent's are in charge, not the child.
That seems a difficult concept for "lefties"...
No, hitting a child for crying seems to be a difficult concept for "lefties."

Remember, I'm not a "lefty." I'm not a big fan of the partisan bickering that the right vs. left dichotomy creates in this country. It's a great way to keep people distracted from the issues that actually matter. Case in point - you consider a plastic tax more important than the patriot act, simply because of your knee jerk reaction against anything on the "left."

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620202 Apr 27, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Nevermind, I was mixing up negative reinforcement and positive punishment.
The point is, spanking a 6 month old child for crying does nothing but create a fear of crying.
I agree, which is why I've never spanked a 6 month old baby for crying.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620203 Apr 27, 2013
timn17 wrote:
And yes, there are many more things we should be doing to help the environment, or at least reduce our impact, but one thing at a time RR. You can't expect for plastic to go away overnight. Taxing plastic bags is a good way to get people to really think about whether they really need to put 20 plastic bags into the trash every time they go shopping.
OK, RR understands that.

And agrees.

One thing at a time.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620204 Apr 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
There it is again....
"You don't understand"
UGH!
Here, read psychology.about.com
It'll tell ya all about it.
Dude, don't try to school me on psychology. It's a stupid mistake that's easy to make. I don't get my knowledge on this from google.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620205 Apr 27, 2013
timn17 wrote:
You said "atheism is also socially supported." Where was the part where you qualified that statement? The fact is, it's not. It doesn't require social support to exist. It does not need to be "propped up" by social validation, because it doesn't require us to believe in things that directly contradict reason, logic, and evidence.
OK, that's a nice opinion.

It's funny how atheists always think themselves smarter amd superior to us lowly theists.

Of course without any reason, logic, or evidence...
Atheists don't want it "their way," they want it the way that the founders wanted it - a seperation of church and state.
HA! You did not just go there, did you?

The founding fathers wanted the separation so they'd be free to practice their religion.

They held Congress in a church, wanna go back to that?
I don't know about the specifics of the cross that has you so upset so I can't comment, but religious symbols shouldn't be displayed on public land.
"shouldn't be"? Why not? It's not illegal...
What if the US became majority muslim overnight? Would you defend crescent moons being displayed in front of courthouses? Or "in allah we trust" on our money?
No, but I wouldn't persecute it either. If that's what the majority wants, so be it.
Also, there is a big difference between advocating for seperation of church and state and discriminating. The removal of a cross, no matter how much sentimental value it has, does not count as discrimination or an attack on your religion,
I absolutely is an attack on religion. It absolutely is discrimination. It absolutely is bigotry.

But I see your thinking - as long as it's pointed towards religion or a religious symbo, that's ok.
and it is not "our" fault that your faith is so fragile that it depends on public displays thereof.
It has nothing to do with frailty, it has to do with respect - a trait atheists just won't grasp.(as that sentence showed)
Atheists are actually discriminated against - I can turn on the radio or the TV and find a pundit talking about how school shootings happen because "we took god out of schools" or someone talking about how atheists are causing the downfall of america.
LOL, you consider that discrimination? That a man, a "pundit" is voicing his opinion?

Whouldn't you just love it if we all shut the hell up? Oh well...

Or we can do it your way; "It is not "our" fault that your faith in atheism is so fragile that it depends on public opinions agreeing with you."

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620206 Apr 27, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Your point? I know he has the ability. Yet he allows his little simulation to run, knowing full well exactly how many of his beloved creations will end up burning in hell for eternity.
*shrugs* Hey pal, that's your choice.

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
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 1 min nanoanomaly 48,851
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 20 min Steve III 646,682
opinions needed 48 min mannersmom 1
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 1 hr WasteWater 2,072
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr Pegasus 281,267
How to solve racism (and sexism) once and for all 1 hr A human being 1
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 1 hr Just Think 105,632
More from around the web