“Michin yeoja”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#636722 Jul 5, 2013
Forum wrote:
<quoted text>
We cannot survive without God.
People are evil.
Caving should not be taught to the public,
especially children and teens.
It is as dangerous as climbing walls.
Fear evil.
Fear children. After all, they will determine your final repose.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#636723 Jul 5, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
Even if it did, I wouldn't waste my time arguing with them.
It wouldn't feel strange to you? That's... strange.

You can't say that. You have no idea what it's like to be a nonbeliever surrounded by the unwarranted intrusions of belief. I'm pretty confident that if you had to worry about your child not receiving a quality education because of nonsensical "teach the vampiric controversy" campaigns, you might feel compelled to speak out against it.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#636724 Jul 5, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
What's wrong with that? Seriously, if 95% of the people believe in a god, why not have it on the currency?
Why should 95% cater to the 5% and lose out?
IF 95% of people were satan worshipers, would you be cool with "in satan we trust" on our money?

How are you "losing out" by not plastering your religious sentiments on everything? It affects your faith if you don't have your belief affirmed by a piece of currency?

Furthermore, in this country, yes, the majority is expected to refrain from publicly favoring the majority religion. It is not "catering to" anyone to follow the constitution.

I guess you only believe in the principals this country was founded upon so long as they don't infringe on your "right" to mix the state with the majority religion.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#636725 Jul 5, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Bullshit. The humanists' primary importance is to the self. "In Me I Trust" would swoon them fantastically.
"Humanism is a group of philosophies and ethical perspectives which emphasize the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers individual thought and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith (fideism). The term humanism can be ambiguously diverse, and there has been a persistent confusion between several related uses of the term because different intellectual movements have identified with it over time.[1] In philosophy and social science, humanism refers to a perspective that affirms some notion of a "human nature" (contrasted with anti-humanism). In modern times, many humanist movements have become strongly aligned with secularism, with the term Humanism often used as a byword for non-theistic beliefs about ideas such as meaning and purpose, however early humanists were often religious, such as Ulrich von Hutten who was a strong supporter of Martin Luther and the Reformation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

It is primarily focused on affirming human rights and humanity in general. There is nothing egocentric about it. It's not "I'm special," it's "humans and their rights are important and should be respected and defended."

In modern times, it has come to be associated with the idea that we should favor rational thought over faith, which is not egocentric anyway.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#636726 Jul 5, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Ever seen Bruce Almighty? Remember the part where he answered YES to all prayers? Remember the chaos that ensued?
I know it's just a movie, but that's what would happen.
1,000 people will die no matter what, God chooses not to intervene on us, He gives us free will to make our choices and destiny.
Did you really just use bruce almighty to explain why god allows people to suffer endlessly?

No one is saying that god should answer literally every single prayer, such a thing would probably lead to a pretty chaotic environment. However, there is no reason why a just, loving, omnipotent god should allow people to have atrocities visited upon them.

Free will is impossible if we are dealing with a god as described in the bible, but that's neither here nor there. It is worth mentioning, however, that you just finished saying that even your god has his limits and that he cannot contradict the basic rules of logic and mathematics - he can't make a square triangle and he can't make 2 plus 2 equal 5. So in light of this assertion, it would seem that it would also be impossible for your god, described as all knowing and all powerful, to also allow free will to exist. Free will is not compatible with these attributes - god and free will are completely mutually exclusive.

Anyways, saying that your god chooses not to intervene to preserve our free will is a load of poppycock. Ignoring the fact that free will can't exist in your god scenario, it is not so sacred that it's preservation warrants the unthinkable things that have happened and continue to happen to sentient creatures (not just human beings). Would you rather have your free will preserved in almost all situations, only to have it removed in situations where your god prevents terrible tragedies from befalling you; or would you prefer the complete "free choice" of having you and your entire family swept up by a tornado? Is total free will so important that it justifies the fact that human beings just like you and I (or our loved ones) are regularly captured, tortured, raped, and killed - often all as part of a package deal? And even if free will was so important as to justify these things - how does that explain why these things exist in the first place under the watch of a (so called) loving, merciful, all powerful god? Surely he could have prevented serial killers; tornados; early death; aids; cancer; heart disease; genocide - or any manner of meaningless pain from ever existing in the first place.

Scratch that. I forgot that he's mysterious.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#636727 Jul 5, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That's exactly my point. Drugs, crime, etc wasn't so bad until you liberals started imposing all the social understanding and compassion towards criminals.
Crime deserves harsh punishment. Period.
WTF? You think that the war on drugs is "compassion?" Are you nuts? The war on drugs is barbaric - it ruins lives - oftentimes for the "crime" of being an addict or the "crime" of wanting to experience a different state of mind. Drugs weren't so bad until "us liberals" got involved? The war on drugs is decidedly not a liberal initiative, and drug use is unchanged since it began decades ago. Billions of dollars later.

And again - we *have* harsh punishments. We put people to death. That's the definition of harsh punishment. And yet, there has never been a single legitimate piece of proof that correlates the existence of deterrents with a reduction in crime. Again - if your hypothesis was correct, drugs would no longer exist in singapore, among other places, where they put people to death for trafficking. In Iran, you can be put to death if you are caught growing poppies or weed for personal use more than once. And yet, people still get high.

There is nothing liberal about our justice system. It's exactly what you should like - pure retribution with almost no focus on rehabilitation. And our crime rates remain higher than most of the developed world, albeit down slightly from years past.

Finally, what is wrong with wanting to rehabilitate criminals? I loathe the worst ones as much as the next guy, but the thing is, when we lock somebody up for a crime and expend almost no effort trying to fix their behavior and offer them help, what do you think we end up with when they come out of prison? We end up with an older criminal. It's not about compassion for these types of people (although compassion can't hurt, and is oftentimes necessary to prevent us from dehumanizing human beings), it's about compassion and concern for society as a whole. It is to our collective benefit that we try to improve the behavior, lives, and overall outlook of our criminals. They aren't all bloodthirsty maniacs, some are just people who had some bad luck, shoplifted a few times to feed their family, and ended up in jail for life because of the absurd 3 strikes law. What do we gain by enacting this backwards form of "justice" upon our criminals, the vast majority of which do not commit violent crimes? I can tell you what we lose - we waste money and we lose the chance to help someone become a productive member of society, among other things. As for the gain? Maybe it satiates the apparent societal need to see the "wicked" get their comeuppance - even though such a view is totally without nuance.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#636728 Jul 5, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That's right, I forgot. Crackheads are crackheads because of the punishments...
You dumb ass liberals make me sick.
Did I say that? The focus on punishment and the lack of focus on rehabilitation certainly makes it easier for crackheads to stay crackheads, but our punishments in and of themselves aren't directly responsible.

The point is that what we are doing clearly isn't working - we have very high drug abuse rates even after a decades long "war." Why lock up someone for having a drug problem? Why not try to help them become a productive member of society?

Locking up addicts without helping them only creates older addicts - if long jail sentences really had any deterrent effect, you would think that the overall rate of drug abuse in the US would have declined significantly since the 80s.

What makes me sick is that you believe in punishing people for having a mental disorder. Our system certainly does nothing to improve the problem of drug abuse.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#636729 Jul 5, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, 2 scientists and 99.9% of their colleagues agree with them...yet you don't. Hence, their colleagues have come up with a multitude of new hypotheses in an attempt to tie the Cambrian animals back in with the Precambrian, including the Ediacarans, which they currently can't prove are ancestral. seems kinda like they have an agenda...you know...to give credence to the TOE. No Precambrian rabbit necessary. Without evidence of an ancestral tie...How will they explain the diverse phyla? Yes...they need an answer so they do have an agenda.
As for projecting...lol...why would I need to project? If they had 100% proof that there is no God...what have I lost? would I still question evolution? Yes...I would. Most Christians don't give evolution a second thought. They simply believe in God...end of story. That is not me. Otherwise, I wouldn't be on here questioning the whole theory.
And last, NO...I am not bound by creationism. I can choose to deny God at any time...therefore, I am not bound. Faith is believing and trusting in a God I have no tangible proof of.
99.9 percent of their colleagues agree that the cambrian invalidates evolution? What are you talking about? The lack of definitive ancestral lines for many of the phyla present in the cambrian does not affect the overall theory at all. There are many, many reasons for why we might not have definitive fossil evidence from the precambrian, and none of them involve god. The precambrian was a bad time for fossil formation, for one, and many precambrian creatures did not fossilize well.

Searching for an answer does not indicate an agenda. That's like saying that searching for the graviton proves that physicists have a pro gravity agenda. Their only agenda is to follow the evidence and to create coherent, robust, falsifiable theories which explain this evidence well. The word "agenda" has negative connotations - such as deceit and the desire to prove something in spite of any evidence to the contrary. ID, for example, perfectly fits the definition of science with an agenda.

I said that you were projecting because it was quite apparent that you were. You would be heartbroken if it turned out that your belief in an anthropomorphic, loving, perfect sky father (happily awaiting your arrival in heaven) turned out to be false. And you projected this sentiment onto me in saying that it would upset me terribly if evolution was proven wrong.

I find it very hard to believe that you would still question the TOE if you weren't a christian. It is perhaps better supported than special relativity, but I don't see you railing against that. Many christians deny evolution - you aren't unique in this respect - and many find no issue with other scientific theories that don't seem to contradict their faith.

You are bound, by definition. Your unquestioning faith necessarily binds you to religion, there's really no two ways about it - you can't have blind, evidence free faith and also be open to denying your religion. Faith is defined and instituted in such a way as to offer an built in excuse for the believer who finds any contradictory evidence or begins to question the nonsensical nature of the bible. "Have faith - it's supposed to be this way. Have faith that god is real in spite of the lack of evidence."

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#636730 Jul 5, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>.
Perhaps we should change our name to the Divided States of America because we are trying to change everything that our forefathers put in place. And No, I don't believe the majorityshould impose their will on others..yet they do it all the time. I wonder does it bother you when majority and even minorities try to impose their will on us...outside of religion?
The founding fathers wanted us to be a theocracy? News to me. I guess that establishment clause was put in there for shits and giggles.

Yes, of course it bothers me when anyone tries to impose their will on the rest of us. Why wouldn't it? There are many exceptions to this rule, obviously, which would have to be discussed on a case by case basis. For example, there is a vast difference between the majority religion trying to inject religion into public life and children being taught evidence based science, even if it does offend jeebus.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#636731 Jul 5, 2013
waaaz up wrote:
<quoted text>
And how do you "know" that, for certain?
Lemma guess, because Science said so, or guessed so?
You cant even answer your own claim, so what makes you think i would want your time?
Of course you wouldn't. You woild not even know what I am saying. Dude, I would eat my shorts if you can pass 8th grader physics in an exam. Discussing anything else with you is a waste of time

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#636732 Jul 5, 2013
True Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
If you choose to let a serial killer live, then by default, you would be supporting that serial killer with your tax money. You obviously wouldn't say "I choose to support this poor murderer guy over my daughters education", but that is the ultimate outcome.
Capital punishment is not about happily and enthusiastically killing criminals. It's about sending a message that the government will not tolerate murderous behaviour and supports the ideal that honest and innocent citizens inherit the land.
It of course isn't effective applied just on its own. The government has to actively try to ensure financial equality to show that not only is it punishing crime, but doing what it can to not put its citizens in a position where they are tempted into crime.
I agree, the end effect would be my money going to support a killer - I was just saying that it's not as simple as a choice between spending our money on a killer vs spending our money on education.

It's about holding society as a whole to a higher moral standard than each individual. I'm sure you would agree that vigilantism is barbaric - a lynch mob going after a killer is no better than the killer, even if it does send quite the message, which seems to be your primary argument for capital punishment. What's the difference between a lynch mob that is sure of their victim's guilt and a state sponsored execution?

More importantly, a correlation between harsh deterrents and crime has never been shown to exist, so we are effectively killing these people not to prevent more murders, but so that the state can act as a "civilized" lynch mob. Capital punishment serves only one purpose in my mind - it sates our collective desire for retribution against those who break our rules. To some people, that might be a good thing, but to me it's barbaric.

I do agree that it's very important for the state to attempt to provide financial stability for most of it's citizens, but I would go further and say that it is important and healthy for society as a whole that we attempt to rehabilitate our criminals. Certainly, there are some that can be said to be too far gone, but the vast majority deserve some chance to improve their lives, which would benefit society as a whole. Now, we typically only execute those who might not benefit from rehabilitation, or at least for whom the very idea of rehabilitation (with the intent of reintroduction to society) is so repulsive as to render it totally undesirable, but I don't see this as a good argument for the death penalty. So what if there are certain people that have no right to live among us? That's just how things are, unfortunately. Should we kill them if there is no hope for their reformation, especially considering the fact that execution does not act as a deterrent?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#636733 Jul 5, 2013
TT -

Also, there is the not so pleasant fact that we routinely execute innocent people. Assuming that I could be swayed to agree with the death penalty, there is no way to justify it's existence until we can read minds or something - so that we can always know with 100% certainty that we are not killing an innocent man. Any potential positive benefit that comes from the death penalty (I don't think there are any) is completely outweighed by the responsibility we have to not kill innocent people.
Dianne Matthews

Penrith, Australia

#636734 Jul 5, 2013
Apocalypse666 wrote:
Come on and do it.
Prove there's a god.
Don;t read off scripture or anything like that just prove there's a god.
I can. What is the date? 5th July, 2013. 2013AD. What does AD after the date mean. Well BC means before Christ, or before the birth of Christ (God). Well AD means after the death of Christ. So why would our whole date system be after something that does not exist. That's just stupid. So something as simple as the date proves that God exists.
Hope this information has been helpful.
Dianne

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#636735 Jul 5, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya, ya, ya.... You softie liberals have been trying that for several decades.
And the crime rates skyrocket.
Coincidence?
The problem with the death penalty debate, is that people argue with their feelings and emotions, rather than their minds. Truth be told. Those idiots that planted the Boston bombs, killing that boy, I would love to tear that man open with a rusty knife. I would make "Saw" and "Hostel" look like a Disney animated film. Jigsaw ain't got shit on me.

But in such a debate, one needs to examine facts, rather than feelings. And here are some:

Fact: Countries that do not have the death penalty instated have a lower crime rate than those that do.

Fact: You cannot release a dead man from prison and bring him back to his family is you make a mistake

Fact: No forensic test or examination is 100% infallible. Mistakes can be made

Fact: There have been innocents who were executed, only for their innocence to be revealed later

Fact: Family members of an innocent victim of capital punishment would sue you for the price of an Iraqi war

Fact: Violent crime shows that there is a problem within the system itself.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#636736 Jul 5, 2013
Dianne Matthews wrote:
<quoted text>
I can. What is the date? 5th July, 2013. 2013AD. What does AD after the date mean. Well BC means before Christ, or before the birth of Christ (God). Well AD means after the death of Christ. So why would our whole date system be after something that does not exist. That's just stupid. So something as simple as the date proves that God exists.
Hope this information has been helpful.
Dianne
False.
It means Anno Domini or Latin for "In the year of our Lord".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#636737 Jul 5, 2013
Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets do it a little different and you can do the work.
You prove that there isn't any God.
So far the vast majority of the people living on earth believe there is a God. So it would appear that the ball is in your court to prove that there is not a God.
Oh, fit shire.

Are you new here, or do you really not understand the whole burden-of-proof thingy?

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#636738 Jul 5, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
What's wrong with that? Seriously, if 95% of the people believe in a god, whhy not have it on the currency?
Why should 95% cater to the 5% and lose out?
Because what if you are the 5%?

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#636739 Jul 5, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That's right, I forgot. Crackheads are crackheads because of the punishments...
You dumb ass liberals make me sick.
Crackheads are crackheads because of poor socionomic conditions. Fix that, before buying nooses

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#636740 Jul 5, 2013
Dianne Matthews wrote:
<quoted text>
I can. What is the date? 5th July, 2013. 2013AD. What does AD after the date mean. Well BC means before Christ, or before the birth of Christ (God). Well AD means after the death of Christ. So why would our whole date system be after something that does not exist. That's just stupid. So something as simple as the date proves that God exists.
Hope this information has been helpful.
Dianne
Hi Dianne. After about 600,000 replies, we have heard some insanely stupid answers.

Yours, I am proud to say, takes stupid to a new level.

Congratulations. You win the "Poorest Comment Ever" award.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#636741 Jul 5, 2013
True Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a shocking difference between what the Quran says, and what many Muslims believe, due to the ignorant and unwarranted preaching of Maulanas and Shaikhs and all kinds of other nonsense hierachy. Many Muslims don't even read the Quran's meaning, and when they do, they partially translate it.
"Lo! Those who believe, and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them, neither shall they grieve."
—Qur'an, Sura 2 (Al-Baqara), ayat 62[5]
"Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Sabians, and the Christians, and the Magians, and those who associate others with All&#257;h – surely will Allah decide between them on the Day of Resurrection. Lo! Allah is a witness over all things." - The Qu'ran 22:17
Whenever people read the Quran, they don't translate the words "Muslim" and "Islam". Those are old words. "Islam" means submission and "Muslim" means, "One who submits".
"And Abraham instructed his sons to do the same and so did Jacob, saying, "O my sons, indeed Allah has chosen for you this religion, so do not die except while you are Muslims." -[2:132].
Now that was long before Muhammed or even Jesus existed. So what are Muslims doing in that time? But it makes better sense, when the whole thing is translated:
"And Abraham instructed his sons to do the same and so did Jacob, saying, "O my sons, indeed Allah has chosen for you this religion, so do not die except while you are of those who submit."
"Yes, whoever submits his face in Islam to Allah while being a doer of good will have his reward with his Lord. And no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve."-2:112
"Yes, whoever submits his face in submission to Allah while being a doer of good will have his reward with his Lord. And no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve." -:112
And today's Muslims know very little about evolution. It's very weird, considering that evolution was well known to Muslims from even before Darwin. Ibn Khaldun even had the theory that we are distant cousins of monkeys and apes.
Good grief, I'd forgotten ibn-Khaldun. Must be 30 years since I read him.

"The higher stage of man is reached from the world of the monkeys, in which both sagacity and perception are found, but which has not reached the stage of actual reflection and thinking. At this point we come to the first stage of man after (the world of monkeys). This is as far as our (physical) observation extends."

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
Hot gays in Abu Dhabi (Nov '13) 5 min jojo321 982
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 7 min KiMare 228,644
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 9 min Chuck 545,272
Are You A Friend Or An Enemy To Humans? Read Th... 9 min End Of Days 6
Wake up, Black America!! (Sep '13) 10 min yon 3,361
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 11 min Aura Mytha 260,298
Israel's end is near, Ahmadinejad says (Jun '07) 25 min islam the real evil 36,931
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 44 min mike 601,453
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 1 hr NEWS-FLASH 174,213

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE