Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#626427 May 26, 2013
harpocrates wrote:
<quoted text>you don't "believe" isolation is cultural or vengeful?
I don't mean put them in a cell by themselves forever. I mean "isolated" from general society, and we are talking about a very specific case, not criminals in general. And no, I don't think that keeping particularly dangerous individuals away from society is vengeful, I think it is rational. I believe that they should be offered a chance to be treated and re integrate, unless the crime is particularly heinous.

“THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD;”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#626428 May 26, 2013
Skitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I think I was posting there at some point. That was a fair while ago. Time changes a man lol. I don't remember your good self, but pleased to meet you again.
Yes, it was many moons ago. The "new Atheist" trend now days is nothing compared to X, and micah and a few others back in the day.

I was posting with a different name, "Curious2no" back then. I left topix for a while, and forgot my password so i couldnt get my account back.. Show's how long i was gone,lol.

Anyways, thanks and likewise pleased to meet ya again...

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#626429 May 26, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
And what of those who are wrongly executed?
The process is far from perfect now , but to speed it up invites more wrongly executed people. That is a crime as bad as the punishment. Indeed many believe execution is barbaric and an unneeded punishment in a modern world.
Yep. Even with the long period of time we have between conviction and sentence today, we still get it wrong a lot. The thought of putting an innocent man to death is absolutely unthinkable, and we do it regularly. Absurd.
harpocrates

Williamsburg, KY

#626430 May 26, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>I don't mean put them in a cell by themselves forever.
no suggestion of a time line was implied.
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>I mean "isolated" from general society, and we are talking about a very specific case, not criminals in general.
we isolate people so they don't harm. what better way might there be?
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>And no, I don't ###think### that keeping particularly dangerous individuals away from society is vengeful, I ###think### it is rational.
you mean it's rational for you but how do you "believe" it's rational for them?
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text> I ###believe### that they should be offered a chance to be treated and re integrate, unless the crime is particularly heinous.
you "believe" life is about natural selection and natural law but for some of nature's other creatures it's about rational thinking only?

you don't think you can over rationalize something?
harpocrates

Williamsburg, KY

#626431 May 26, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Yep. Even with the long period of time we have between conviction and sentence today, we still get it wrong a lot. The thought of putting an innocent man to death is absolutely unthinkable, and we do it regularly. Absurd.
but isn't that natural selection in action and nature at her best? what happened to the objective observer?

“THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD;”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#626432 May 26, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
And what of those who are wrongly executed?
The process is far from perfect now , but to speed it up invites more wrongly executed people. That is a crime as bad as the punishment. Indeed many believe execution is barbaric and an unneeded punishment in a modern world.
I said "afer" they have been found "guilty" of it. I know they are cases still pending,thats happened decades ago where they didnt have all the forensic of the DNA process, and other means of proving evidence. You guys are overlooking it, when i say "have proving them guilty" beyond a reasonable doubt.

And what has happened to these innocent children and women by these sicko's isn't barbaric and evil??

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#626433 May 26, 2013
harpocrates wrote:
<quoted text>no suggestion of a time line was implied.
<quoted text>we isolate people so they don't harm. what better way might there be?
<quoted text>you mean it's rational for you but how do you "believe" it's rational for them?
<quoted text>
you "believe" life is about natural selection and natural law but for some of nature's other creatures it's about rational thinking only?
you don't think you can over rationalize something?
Is this supposed to mean anything?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#626434 May 26, 2013
harpocrates wrote:
<quoted text>but isn't that natural selection in action and nature at her best? what happened to the objective observer?
WTF are you talking about?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#626435 May 26, 2013
harpocrates wrote:
<quoted text>but isn't that natural selection in action and nature at her best? what happened to the objective observer?
Why do you religious nutjobs always make the mistake of assuming that a "belief" in evolution necessarily leads one to amorality?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#626436 May 26, 2013
psalms 23 wrote:
<quoted text>
I said "afer" they have been found "guilty" of it. I know they are cases still pending,thats happened decades ago where they didnt have all the forensic of the DNA process, and other means of proving evidence. You guys are overlooking it, when i say "have proving them guilty" beyond a reasonable doubt.
And what has happened to these innocent children and women by these sicko's isn't barbaric and evil??
Plenty of people have been executed after being found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt."
harpocrates

Williamsburg, KY

#626437 May 26, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Is this supposed to mean anything?
you answer questions with vague questions? and expect an answer to boot?

welcome to the human race. you can never win
harpocrates

Williamsburg, KY

#626438 May 26, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Why do you religious nutjobs always make the mistake of assuming that a "belief" in evolution necessarily leads one to amorality?
because excluding radicals isn't rational even if it makes you comfortable.

fyi i'm an atheist and i don't practice an organized religion.

and again i never stated that "believing" in evolution leads to amorality.

i believe in evolution. i don't believe in over rationalizing.

nature is impartial even if you aren't

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#626439 May 26, 2013
harpocrates wrote:
<quoted text>because excluding radicals isn't rational even if it makes you comfortable.
fyi i'm an atheist and i don't practice an organized religion.
and again i never stated that "believing" in evolution leads to amorality.
i believe in evolution. i don't believe in over rationalizing.
nature is impartial even if you aren't
Yes, it is. If we know that someone has shown the ability and desire to brutalize others, it is rational to isolate them so that it doesn't happen to anyone else.

You're being an idiot. Are you suggesting that it is "rational" to allow "natural selection" to take it's course by allowing murdered to roam the streets, culling the population? Really?

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#626440 May 26, 2013
Skitz wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm from the UK. We have also a huge variation in accents. Yeah like American accents, it's just I struggle with spelling anyway, let alone have to deal with an American spell check! LOL.
I quite like the Cally accent as it goes :)
The worst Brit accent has to be the Birmingham accent. Google it.
Holy crap, you're right. They DO talk strange.

http://youtu.be/fw7Mm1bF3Cs
harpocrates

Williamsburg, KY

#626441 May 26, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, it is. If we know that someone has shown the ability and desire to brutalize others, it is rational to isolate them so that it doesn't happen to anyone else.
so isolating someone basically takes away their free will to do anything and everything they want but what else does it force them to do? without that rage, anger, apathy towards others where does the focus go? that energy can't be destroyed; so where does it go?
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>You're being an idiot.
cool, i'd rather be an idiot in your eyes than live like you do. with the self-righteous pretension that you're above it all.
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Are you suggesting that it is "rational" to allow "natural selection" to take it's course by allowing murdered to roam the streets, culling the population? Really?
you obviously promote the idea of natural selection as nature's ideal, what happened to the ideal?

i never suggested culling anything. i asked a question. you're the one making assumptive remarks. that isn't rational. you're acting out of ignorance when you act irrational because that is subjective.

natural selection allows for the idea of the evolution of all things; which includes consciousness. bigger doesn't always mean better. stronger doesn't always mean better; then how do you focus that energy if bigger and stronger aren't necessarily better?

you rethink your opinion, point of view, your position, and then you test it.

it's simple

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#626442 May 26, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>We were all created in the image of God, male and female. If God is both male and female, and is not a hermaphrodite, God must be female. Eve was created from a rib taken from Adam and was called Woman because she was taken out of Man. Women are also men but men are not women. The serpent was an earthly creation for sexual purposes.
Well first, if God is a female, why do we call him Father?

Second, what the f_ck is this?!

"If God is both male and female ... God must be female"

O_o

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#626443 May 26, 2013
xianity is EVIL wrote:

and If man was made from dust,why is there still dust?
You know the strangest thing happened, I made a sammich with bread from my pantry.

When I was done, there was still more bread in the pantry.

Odd, I know.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#626444 May 26, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>Of course not. That is not what I wrote, rottencrotch.
Um, ya you did.

Huh wrote:
<quoted text>Nope. It's fun smacking you idiots around.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#626446 May 26, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>All life came from one life is incorrect. It was shown to you yet you continue to repeat it. This makes you willfully dishonest, Koresh.
A common ancestor is an organism which is the shared ancestor of two or more different descendant groups of organisms, yes?

ToE claims that all life on earth has a common ancestor - basically that all life came from one life, one common ancestor.

There's no evidence if that, but you buy into it.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#626447 May 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:

I don't believe God created Himself so I can't entertain that question.
Huh wrote:
Then what did?
What makes you assume an eternal being needs to be created?

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
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 min Anthony MN 542,644
Return of the Jedi 1 min Blagoja 1
Should Black People in the USA Leave America an... (May '13) 2 min Tony17 573
Last Word + 2 6 min Blagoja 719
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 13 min STU PIDE ASS Xposed 95,521
Hot gays in Abu Dhabi (Nov '13) 18 min Roger Paul 852
gay skype boy ;) 20 min Txsupguy 6
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr RiccardoFire 259,536
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr Gordon 227,554
Sims 4 Key Generator (Oct '13) 10 hr Joana 150

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••