Prove there's a god.
Myth Buster

Prescott, AZ

#642362 Jul 18, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
That's why OJ got away with it, the police tainted the evidence.
The defense wanted the jury to believe that ALL of the blood evidence was tainted. It was a ludicrous argument, but the jury desperately wanted to believe that ALL of the blood evidence was tainted.

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#642363 Jul 18, 2013
True Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
I assume at some point when you were at the church, you were paying tithes. 10% of so I presume? And okay, after all your "soul searching" or whatever, you concluded Christianity is nonsense, and so you left the church.
So, what happened to those tithes? If you had decided "Christianity is nonsense, I'm not paying for this scam", why didn't you decide further "Okay, from now on, I'm not paying to the church, but I'll start my own 10% saving and make an impact my own way, since I still care deeply for humanity"?
You could've done that. But you didn't. And you are not a lawyer, and there's not much rights left to fight for in South Africa even if you were. How many rallies for rights did you attend, at least as a minion holding a placard?
And this is where your credibility goes, especially in the third world. Many people observing just look at, for example, what a prominent Christian is doing. An observer looks at perhaps the Christians frugal lifestyle (I'm talking about one of these proper Christians), or how much he forsakes to help others, the sacrifices, the basic but crucial life skills he imparts on others. Such an observer can be taken aback and think "If this is what Christianity turned that man into, I want to become a Christian". They overlook the many things that don't make sense, and focus on the effort.
You can't just be crying secular humanism. You have to get down to the basics and put your money where you claim your ideals are. That's one thing I admire about Richard Dawkins. Sure, I disagree with a lot of what he says, but he has his own foundation and he is putting his own money into the secular humanistic endeavours he claims to believe in.
I never gave that much whilst a churchgoer. Always gave one of the shiny coins. Now, I actually give a lot more. But to seperate charities. I give to PAP (the anti-poaching folks), sometimes to a children's home near me, mostly to the shark convervation projects. Do I keep the account seperate? No.

What I like about this, is I get allocate where the money goes. I am not buying a preacher a Mercedes SL or Toyota Prado. I am not paying for sermons to people, telling them how great a certain mythology is.
Myth Buster

Prescott, AZ

#642364 Jul 18, 2013
True Bullshit wrote:
Moreover, humans will never completely be logical, since humans are emotional beings as well.
No brainwashed religious godbot is capable of being logical regarding their cult's dogma or they'd abandon their self-degrading cultist lifestyle. You'll never be man enough to be logical, kid.

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#642365 Jul 18, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well said, my good friend.
Thank you, kind sir

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#642366 Jul 18, 2013
WTF?

I get up this morning and there are actually some intelligent and rational discussions going on.

Nah.. I must still be asleep.

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#642367 Jul 18, 2013
Myth Buster wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know if Zimmerman received any Neighborhood Watch training. If he had been advised not to be armed or confront suspicious characters then he should have been convicted, but not of the charges filed against him.
This case demonstrated the need for improved Neighborhood Watch training. It also demonstrated the hypocrisy of the media in reporting a non-black on black crime as if they were trying to provoke a race war.
Yo.

This side we have a very tragic shooting incident involving Oscar Pistorius, the Paralympic hero. I believe the general public are far to casual with a weapon capable of ending a life.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#642368 Jul 18, 2013
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/07/1...

This ought to boost enrollment in the Catholic Church.

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#642370 Jul 18, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No. You mean it involves no natural law or explanation that we know of.
This is how the atheists seem to see it - I f we can't explain it,***magic***.
<quoted text>
In your oh-so-closed mind, sure.
Your first point is utterly stupid sorry to say. By saying that, we can call ANYTHING simply a natural law we do not yet understand. For example, Potter flies on a broom. "It is not magic, it is simply a natural law we donot yet understand." That is a ridiculously stupid argument.

Genesis 1 conforms to no natural law. Period. Much of it is defined as magic, as per your definition.

As for your second point: the fossil record shows snakes appearing 200 million years ago. Modern humans only 200,000. What natural law do you think we have wrong now?

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#642371 Jul 18, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
WTF?
I get up this morning and there are actually some intelligent and rational discussions going on.
Nah.. I must still be asleep.
You can thank the South Africans on the thread

:)

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#642372 Jul 18, 2013
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Your first point is utterly stupid sorry to say. By saying that, we can call ANYTHING simply a natural law we do not yet understand. For example, Potter flies on a broom. "It is not magic, it is simply a natural law we donot yet understand." That is a ridiculously stupid argument.
Genesis 1 conforms to no natural law. Period. Much of it is defined as magic, as per your definition.
As for your second point: the fossil record shows snakes appearing 200 million years ago. Modern humans only 200,000. What natural law do you think we have wrong now?
Yup, there's more of that atheist childishness. Y'all love to compare the Bible to Hairy Pooter or Santa becuase you need it dumbed down to understand it - or you just like talking shit - or you just don't understand what you're talking about so you poke fun.

Really? 200 million years? I've read otherwise. I've seen as early as 50,000 years ago to 150 million years, but never 200 million. I've also read that the origin of snakes is unknown. What say you?

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#642373 Jul 18, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup, there's more of that atheist childishness. Y'all love to compare the Bible to Hairy Pooter or Santa becuase you need it dumbed down to understand it - or you just like talking shit - or you just don't understand what you're talking about so you poke fun.
Really? 200 million years? I've read otherwise. I've seen as early as 50,000 years ago to 150 million years, but never 200 million. I've also read that the origin of snakes is unknown. What say you?
1) You have a figure that bends or breaks laws of nature. That, according to your definition, not mine, is magic. Plain and simple. Bo getting away from that.

2) The guy who said unknown is not to be believed. The guy who said 50,000 years is a loon. 150 mya is about right. The earliest transitional fossils show dates at roughly 200 mya. That is the transitional fossil though. From there, they became more snake like. In fact, If some palaeontologist tells us that the first modern snakes lived 150 mya, I would say that jibes with the hypothesis.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#642374 Jul 18, 2013
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
1) You have a figure that bends or breaks laws of nature. That, according to your definition, not mine, is magic. Plain and simple. Bo getting away from that.
2) The guy who said unknown is not to be believed. The guy who said 50,000 years is a loon. 150 mya is about right. The earliest transitional fossils show dates at roughly 200 mya. That is the transitional fossil though. From there, they became more snake like. In fact, If some palaeontologist tells us that the first modern snakes lived 150 mya, I would say that jibes with the hypothesis.
1. No, I posted the definition of magic as "The power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces". If you want to consider "God magic", that's your call.

2. The "guy" who said unknown is Wikipedia. I can't post the link right now, but google 'snake wiki', it's in section 2.1,'origins'; "The origin of snakes remains an unresolved issue."

How is 150mya 'about right' and 200mya is also right? That's a 50 MILLION year difference....

Judged:

13

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#642375 Jul 18, 2013
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
1) You have a figure that bends or breaks laws of nature. That, according to your definition, not mine, is magic. Plain and simple. Bo getting away from that.
2) The guy who said unknown is not to be believed. The guy who said 50,000 years is a loon. 150 mya is about right. The earliest transitional fossils show dates at roughly 200 mya. That is the transitional fossil though. From there, they became more snake like. In fact, If some palaeontologist tells us that the first modern snakes lived 150 mya, I would say that jibes with the hypothesis.
http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~brm2286/locomot...

Snakes understand physics.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#642376 Jul 18, 2013
http://jeb.biologists.org/content/140/1/1.ful...

I think there is EM in there somewhere.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#642377 Jul 18, 2013
http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/18/news/economy/...

Am I supposed to have sympathy for OPEC from that article?

Am I supposed to be happy paying $4 for a gallon of gas so they don't have social problems in their countries?

CNN is a bit liberal oriented.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#642380 Jul 18, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>If Martin was a 5'11" white kid and Zimmerman was puny black guy Eric Holder and Obama wouldn't have made a point of swaying public opinion about the case, "trying" to make sure Zimmerman couldn't be found innocent.
The Oval Office insisted on making this tragedy about race.
BTW, Zimmerman isn't white, moron.
He's mixed race white, and he self identifies as hispanic. I never said he was white anyway. I'm just making a point. If this was a little white kid that got shot, with zimmerman the same color, his self defense claim would be laughed out of court. People believe it because black people are "savages." I mean, yeah, he only had a scratch, but in another 2 seconds martin would have eaten his heart out, right?

Also, his height doesn't matter. What does being 5'11 have to do with anything? I'm about that tall, and being 5'10 or 5'11 doesn't make you an imposing figure, and it doesn't excuse people for shooting at you just in case.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#642381 Jul 18, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>I see you like fantasizing about Zimmerman to make him a monster in your own head. I've never heard mention of him messing with an underage girl or wearing klan outfits; why would he? He's not white. There are blacks that have been calling him Peruvajew. Geez, wake up and get a clue.
" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Tray... ;
Trayvon was no sweet, innocent little boy, but an eager burglar-in-training and looking at being a convict soon himself. I would say the same thing about a white or hispanic teen who was caught with a burglary tool on him.
Not racist much at all, are you?
I'm guessing that when Mexico has completed its invasion of America and the Hispanics are ruling the hood with an iron fist you'll be trying to blame that on white people too?
You need to try and use your own brain to reason things out and stop letting that shithead Al Sharpton define reality for you.
Good thing we killed him, right? He was a menace to society. What we need are more vigilantes with hero fantasies!

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#642382 Jul 18, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
BTW, I had a girl friend once with a teenage son who was quite the thief. His buddies told me that. Quiet, liked music. Much like the description of Trayvon. But he was quite white. He did like the pot, too
I took him under my wing a bit, used him for help where he could make money, and even got him to take his GED test, which I paid for, and he did pass.
After his mother and I had a breakup he broke a window in my van to steal a gun he thought I kept in there, having seen me put it in there at one job. He didn't know I carried it all of the time otherwise.
Quiet. Liked music. Pot smoker.

All the signs were there. How did we miss it?

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#642384 Jul 18, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Quiet. Liked music. Pot smoker.
All the signs were there. How did we miss it?
Poor Timmy.

He thinks his moral outrage means anything to anyone else other than him.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#642385 Jul 18, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
1) Really..tell that to the children who are no loner being beaten because their abusers are now behind bars. Tell that to the kids whose parents went to jail for cooking meth in their kitchen and exposing them to fatal chemicals and putting them at risk of being blown into a thousand pieces. yeah Timn...it is.
<quoted text>
2) No, I posted the link...I didn't leave it out. Again...those stats refer to those that rehab actually works for...if they referred to the 50% or greater that it doesn't work for...then it couldn't possibly be cost efficient. Use your brain. Those stats didn't damage my argument at all...I agreed...sure rehab is cost efficient...WHEN IT WORKS? That article didn't include the stats that also tell us 40-60% of the users actually relapse within the first 6 months...which pretty negates the reduction in cost because when they relapse...the costs still exist. Do you disagree with that? Or are you just having a "hard time understanding" that logic?
<quoted text>
3) Again, only when it works. Should we ignore that it doesn't work over half the time? Unlike you, I addressed this issue when I said, "I'm not against rehab...but we need to rethink our programs and implement something that actually works."
<quoted text>Did I ever say I was "cool" paying for the drug war as it is now? No..I didn't. And since when was it inhumane to place someone in jail for repeatedly breaking the law?
<quoted text>
4) I was addicted to cigarettes for years. It was not a disease...it was a vice, as you say. It was an addiction and a weakness on my part...Certainly, I had a chemical addiction...but in no way was it a disease...I had a choice to stop or continue...it wasn't easy...but I wasn't mentally ill. Depriving yourself of food as a means of being socially accepted or for any other reason, is significantly different than doing drugs...anorexics don't put others lives at risk...drug abusers do.
1) Do you even know what the term 'harm reduction' means in regards to drug use? This isn't even a debate. Jail is not harm reduction. Harm reduction starts from the premise that people are going to use drugs and there is nothing we can do about it (which all of human history bears out), and that the best thing we can do is offer tools and services to make it as safe as possible.

2) Go back and read the article. The study is for the institution of rehab in general, not just the people it works for. Where are you getting that from? You're making it up. For every dollar spent, 3 dollars are saved in other ways. So, for example, if one person is relieved of their addiction with a 20,000 dollar investment, that person will not go on to cost us 20k in health costs and 40k in an auto accident. Understand? This goes for rehab costs in general.

3) I never said that rehab works every time. But jail *doesn't work at all.* You keep ignoring the fact that the drug war has not produced a single appreciable effect when it comes to reducing drug use or the costs associated with it.

4) It is inhumane to put people in jail for breaking a law that shouldn't exist. Do you think you should have been jailed every time you were caught with a pack of cigarettes? If you lived during prohibition, would you consider your treatment humane if you were locked up for having a drink?

I know, it's "different." Because you chose a drug that society deems acceptable, you were in the right, but because some people choose a drug that has been outlawed for no reason, they are criminals to be punished. Am I getting the logic right?

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
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 11 min MUQ2 45,806
Weed Dundee Scotland (Mar '16) 22 min DundeeDank 5
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 35 min andet1987 3,383
Electing a president.......with NO POLITICAL EX... 41 min andet1987 2
The Future of Politics in America 44 min macholibre 177
Black vs White sperm fertility 48 min andet1987 3
what do americans think of mexicans? (Sep '08) 55 min macholibre 512
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 1 hr Clearwater 87,945
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 hr truth 665,182
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 5 hr Pegasus 284,497
Christians cannot debate with ATHEISTS 7 hr Devil number 666 466
More from around the web