Prove there's a god.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#777943 Sep 7, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
You're right, hawks don't normally hunt at night. We are assuming it was done at night. The only critter around here that would pose a threat to the chickens would be a possum that we've seen here and there. But possums don't usually eat the chicken, they'll kill the chicken and eat the eggs. There was no body, no dismembered body parts, just a few feathers as if something scooped it up and took off.
Your condolences are appreciated. And you're absolutely right, even chickens can be missed...
It was probably an owl. Or a human.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#777944 Sep 7, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Atheist values....
The Telegraph (Feb 29, 2012)
KILLING BABIES NO DIFFERENT FROM ABORTION, EXPERTS SAY
"Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are 'morally irrelevant' and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued."
(...)
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
What theholyfuck is wrong with these people?!
"The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.
The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/...
This may clarify some things here. Just take a moment to read.

An open letter from Giubilini and Minerva

"It was meant to be a pure exercise of logic: if X, then Y. We expected that other bioethicists would challenge either the premise or the logical pattern we followed, because this is what happens in academic debates. And we believed we were going to read interesting responses to the argument, as we already read a few on this topic in religious websites.

However, we never meant to suggest that after-birth abortion should become legal. This was not made clear enough in the paper. Laws are not just about rational ethical arguments, because there are many practical, emotional, social aspects that are relevant in policy making (such as respecting the plurality of ethical views, people’s emotional reactions etc). But we are not policy makers, we are philosophers, and we deal with concepts, not with legal policy.

Moreover, we did not suggest that after birth abortion should be permissible for months or years as the media erroneously reported.

If we wanted to suggest something about policy, we would have written, for example, a comment related the Groningen Protocol (in the Netherlands), which is a guideline that permits killing newborns under certain circumstances (e.g. when the newborn is affected by serious diseases). But we do not discuss guidelines in the paper. Rather we acknowledged the fact that such a protocol exists and this is a good reason to discuss the topic (and probably also for publishing papers on this topic).

However, the content of (the abstract of) the paper started to be picked up by newspapers, radio and on the web. What people understood was that we were in favour of killing people. This, of course, is not what we suggested.(...) In fact, we personally do not agree with much of what the media suggest we think. We do not think anyone should be abused for writing an academic paper on a controversial topic.

However, we also received many emails from people thanking us for raising this debate which is stimulating in an academic sense. These people understood there was no legal implication in the paper. We did not recommend or suggest anything in the paper about what people should do (or about what policies should allow).

We apologise for offence caused by our paper, and we hope this letter helps people to understand the essential distinction between academic language and the misleading media presentation, and between what could be discussed in an academic paper and what could be legally permissible.

Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva
http://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2012/03/0...

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Manhattan Beach, CA

#777945 Sep 7, 2014
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>In my experience the men tend to say inappropriate things, joke around in a way the women don't. I didn't like it.
I would never do that.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#777946 Sep 7, 2014
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>It's amusing that you blame murders on a god you insist doesn't exist.
Perhaps you ought to go back and read again what I posted.

Just so you don't make any further misconceived projections.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#777947 Sep 7, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously?
See: Stalin for one great example of the bad things that can happen when atheists gain power.
Stalin was a great example of bad things that can happen when moustachioed men gain power.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#777948 Sep 7, 2014
Cheetah wrote:
<quoted text>
Being baptized or raised in a religion in childhood doesn't mean anything. Many atheists, including some here, were raised so. Hitler abandoned the Catholic religion when he was still in his teens and gradually grew to hate Christianity. This is well documented, so I don't see why you atheists keep insisting and denying the obvious to suit your dishonest agenda.
The Jewish question had nothing to do with religion, Hitler considered them as an inferior race, same as he did with gypsies and to a lesser extent Poles even though these were Christians, which proves your argument false.
Hitler's ideology was not based on religion but on race, and thus completely materialistic and atheist.
When I understood I was atheist, I actually went to the Church where I was baptized at age 13 or 15, I forget the exact age, and requested I be removed as a member, and that I not be considered a component of Christianity, the Christian faith, a Christian et al.

I was told that they do not and will not do that, and as far as that faith was concerned it was much like the gang term, "blood in, blood out". Meaning, they never would consider me not baptized, saved, insert applicable phrase--->>>( here ). I do know for certain all faiths/churches are not like that, but many are.

Which places me in the statistical numbers given for total adherents in the U.S.

And I'm an atheist, too, although there is no number that I am definitively counted as "atheist".

But in the faith I was raised in, when they are contacted for estimates about total members, they keep an updated tally that I am a part of and is reported, specifically.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#777949 Sep 7, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I would say "and," not "then," and disagree. Yes, please help prevent unwanted pregnancies form coming to term. Do we really want people in this world whose mother's don't want them?
Why stop there? Do we really want people in this world whose children don't want them?

It's not up to you to decide that a child doesn't deserve to live based on whether ANYBODY finds their existence repulsive. There are already millions of "people" living today whose mothers regret having them, you are probably one of them. Your opinion is dehumanizing to them. Maybe we should abort them all based on your sentiments? When you talk this shyt of yours in front of children it plants the seed of contempt for life, contempt for their own, by you. It suggests their value as humans is based on whimsy, or whatever is most convenient at the time, that if mom had been in a nasty mood they just might not have been allowed to "be". Children don't deserve to be considered equal to a wart or mole.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#777950 Sep 7, 2014
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee, think of the possibilities. We can go out and worship other Gods, say Godamn and other cuss words using Gods name, we can forget the Sabbath, make graven images of Him....just all kinds of things we couldn't do before.
Are we still allowed to stone people to death for minor offenses? And can we covet now?
It's kinda' interesting how Christian interpretation of so many things in the Bible have changed. Over the years. I have paid attention to some Christian people I know and what they would say about their church over time and how interpretations in paper and magazines that report on religious matters. Funny stuff.
</
Yeah, it often occurs to me that the majority of Christianity as practiced today is not the Christianity practiced by my Grandfather. I'll venture that what he practiced was not the Christianity that - his - Grandfather practiced either.

For reference, my Grandfather was born in 1897, my other Grandfather was born in 1910.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#777951 Sep 7, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, is that what the Bible says, atheist?
Athiest?

If, by that, you mean someone who doesn't believe in the particular god that you've chosen to worship, nor indeed, anyone else's god or goddess - then I'm guilty as charged.

Yes, that's what the Bible says:

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
-Gen 2:7-

"By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And by the breath of His mouth all their host."
-Psalms 33:6-

"Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord God; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live.10 So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army..."

"13 And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves, 14 And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the Lord have spoken it, and performed it, saith the Lord."
-Ezekiel 37 9-10, 13-14-

"If he should set his heart to it and gather to himself his spirit and his breath, all flesh would perish together, and man would return to dust."
-Job 34: 14-15-

There you have it. According to the Bible, breath is life and we are not alive until we have taken that breath,

Mind you, I can fully understand your rejection of such superstitious mumbo jumbo in favour of the view from science.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#777952 Sep 7, 2014
Cheetah wrote:
<quoted text>
You are obviously confused through ignorance. That is why they are called the Old and the New Testaments. When a new testament is made the old one is automatically revoked, just ask any lawyer. Also like when a new law supersedes and replaces an old one, due to changing circumstances and other reasons.
I could explain to you the difference between the New and Old Testaments in detail, but this won't be of any value to you.
SO what you're saying is the Bible god once wanted all homosexuals dead but it's OK now because he's changed his mind.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#777953 Sep 7, 2014
Jake from State Farm wrote:
<quoted text>
With all due respect , you know the answer to that question.
Christ would not have died on a cross if we were to just die. He (God) knows the afterlife consists of either a Hell or Heaven, and the Hell is what He died for so that we could avoid it, and He also did it so that we could go to Heaven......it's not just to avoid Hell. Do you think He would go through all of this if we were to just die? And go nowhere?
You know I'm right. Quit acting silly.
.\~Yes, yes, yes, because the concept of a supreme being turning itself into a human by way of a supernaturally arranged "virgin birth" just to sacrifice itself to itself to save its own creations from the wrath of itself makes complete and logical sense~/.

.\~I mean, there had to be a human sacrifice and blood produced - the deity needed that - because there must be a ritual performed~/.

PRAISE PANGU!

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#777954 Sep 7, 2014
Jake from State Farm wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus was real and is still real and alive. Until you take out "if he were real" in your post above, you'll continue to be considered a satanbotic closed-minded idiot by anyone who can legitimately answer your calculated, deceptive, and diversionary questions.
Hopefully the answer to your question will be read by someone who honestly (and with an open mind) seeks the answers.
Jesus is still alive?

I thought he was supposed to have died.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#777955 Sep 7, 2014
Cheetah wrote:
<quoted text>
More sweeping, ignorant statements, without any basis or proof.
Christians have strict moral rules to guide them. What moral rules do atheists have? None. Which is why they hate Christians, because they don't want to be under any moral rules.
This does not mean that there are no bad Christians or any good atheists, the difference is that one has clear rules of behaviour while the other doesn't have any.
You just follow orders.

If your god told you that he's changed his mind again and that he wants you to kill homosexuals, you'd obey him in a New York minute.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#777956 Sep 7, 2014
Cheetah wrote:
<quoted text>
The ten commandments still hold and were never taken away. The other requirements like stoning and condemnations were taken away. Jesus even saved a woman from being stoned.
You obviously want to remain in wilful ignorance so you can mock. If you read the gospels about Jesus you can easily understand. You can't let your homosexual lust rule your life.
Which Ten Commandments are you referring to?

There were more than one set.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#777957 Sep 7, 2014
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
.\~Yes, yes, yes, because the concept of a supreme being turning itself into a human by way of a supernaturally arranged "virgin birth" just to sacrifice itself to itself to save its own creations from the wrath of itself makes complete and logical sense~/.
.\~I mean, there had to be a human sacrifice and blood produced - the deity needed that - because there must be a ritual performed~/.
PRAISE PANGU!
He like nails .

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#777958 Sep 7, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
Please don't waste my time asking me if God can create a stone so heavy He can't lift it. That's a logical impossibility, like a married bachelor.
I didn't. Please don't waste my time bringing it up again.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#777959 Sep 7, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
. Old Testament law has been fulfilled by Jesus, those laws don't apply to Christians anymore.
That's up to them, not you. Most of them are still reciting Old Testament law, ofter while wagging their fingers at somebody else. They tell me that those laws should be hanging in schoolrooms and courthouses, and that I would be wise to heed them. Those people would tell you that you are going to hell for your heresy. Let no man change one word!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#777960 Sep 7, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
Nope. Sure can't dispute em. "Parasites, unlike predators, are usually much smaller than their host. They reproduce at a faster rate than the host." Because as we all know, human fetuses reproduce at a very fast rate...
You seem desperate in this argument. You can't pick your preferred definition and make all the others go away.

http://snipurl.com/298g5pz : "Parasite - an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense."

That includes fetuses, tapeworms, and Joyful. They all derive nutrients at their hosts' expense.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#777961 Sep 7, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
Indeed. Atheists have been trying to remove Christianity for as long as Christianity has been around. What y'all are doing now ain't no different from what atheists did before you.
If you think that, then you're in a coma. You only have a few years left to make your case from the majority status. It'll all be uphill after that. Christianity is headed for where the Druids, flat earthers, and Zeus worshipers have gone. They all still exist. What great victories for them all.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#777962 Sep 7, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:

Stilgar Fifrawi: Chopping up posts to make them seem to be something they aren't is against Topix TOS.

IANS wrote: So, you're accusing me of an impropriety but not bothering to provide any supporting evidence. All right. If you think that's what I did, please demonstrate it. You'll need to print out the original (with a link to it) beside my edited down version (with link) and show us how you were misrepresented. Bare claims are worth bupkis. I can help you with the last part. This is what I quoted:"The only impossible god is God" http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TOCO8TE... Then , when you're through showing how I injured you with this, if you think you have a valid case, please report me to Topix. If not, report yourself. Deal?
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
You actually wanted me to answer that? Seriously? I've already told you that I never said I was going to report you, I just reminded you that it was a violation. Don't be such a scaredy-cat.
You're a f*king liar and a coward. You make drive-by accusations and run from them like a pussy. When you do that with me, it's never for free. You might want to think about that in the future.

Now please produce the evidence of your claim so that I can let this rest. It's not going away until you support your claim or confess your sin.

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) 2 hr Aura Mytha 123,792
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 3 hr Aura Mytha 7,791
Baiting Up Email For Scamming 3 hr Resist the urge 1
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 3 hr onemale 286,558
Why do we live life when we have to die anyway? (Jul '13) 4 hr UnderstandPeople 298
Muslim airlines, Qatar, attempting stake in Ame... 5 hr Doctor REALITY 9
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 5 hr Anthony MN 681,922
More from around the web