Prove there's a god.

“True Blue”

Since: Jun 13

Opal-Hearted Land

#778008 Sep 8, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I judge your religion and its petty, vengeful, violent, vindictive, sadistic, bloodthirsty, genocidal, infanticidal, narcissistic, misogynistic, homophobic, filicidal, pestilential, petulant, slavery condoning, rape condoning, megalomaniacal, insecure, needy, capricious, lying, panty-sniffing, bully god, and there isn't a damned thing you (or it) can do about it apart from showering the thread with empty threats of hell after death. This is the same god that people like you claim throws tsunamis and hurricanes at us in anger, but at the same time supposedly lets people like me blaspheme it at will. Your church is slated for irrelevance, and your god will lead the way.
U haven't been hit by a lightning bolt from the Xian god yet, Ians. Neither has Thor or Jupiter Optimus Maximus launched one.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#778009 Sep 8, 2014
ROCCO wrote:
<quoted text>
I left that part in to see how well you paid attention.
Some parasites do reproduce at a faster rate than their host.
Human fetuses are not "some" of them. Never were, never will be.
Want to talk about reproduction?
A fetus is what it is, whether you call it a parasite or not.

Do you think anyone is fooled by your insistence on calling it a parasite?

Obviously, it is not motivated by a desire to be accurate. If it were so, you would say that a fetus has some similarities to parasites, but it not a parasite. It also has similarities to a fish, but that doesn't make it a fish.

No, the agenda is clear. You want the connotation which is carried by the name "parasite".

It's your desire to dehumanize the unborn.

This is a common pro-abortion tactic. It is of a kind with the calling of the unborn child a "pregnancy"; a "tissue mass"; or "products of conception".

I know your kind like I know the back of my hand.

You would have been right at home as an administrator of the extermination camps, Vernichtungslager, in Auschwitz, Dachau, Flossenberg. You are too much of a coward to be with the troops lighting the ovens.

You would be behind the scenes, assigning the victims to the various death sites.

ukdirector

London, UK

#778010 Sep 8, 2014
Excuse me but you 'Stilgar Fifrawi' are a madman, away with the fairy's, out of your mind, crazy, but you are also a rather nasty person spouting off about your crap that you believe in. I don't give a rats arse what you are saying personally, just don't belittle others and force your crap on others, because that would be wrong very wrong...

I'll be watching you :-/

“True Blue”

Since: Jun 13

Opal-Hearted Land

#778011 Sep 8, 2014
Godwin's Law overdrive.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#778012 Sep 8, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I think it is: "an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense."
But what difference does it make if a fetus fits the definition of a parasite? If it is loved and wanted, then some parasites are loved and wanted, right?
<quoted text>
This is faith? Whatever it is that I've embraced in this life since leaving faith, it's served me well. I', a lucky guy, Buck. I somehow escaped what still confounds you - religious faith. There's not a single good thing about it. Once you eject it, you have maximized the religious experience.
Yes, I agree you are a lucky guy, I-man.

And yes, your affinity for applying the term "parasite" is doctrinal.

You know the definition you are using is superficial, omitting important technicalities. You are intentionally being scientifically inaccurate to buttress a faith-based view.

General Parisitology, textbook:

"A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a hetero specific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host).- Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology

In summary, a parasite is from another kind of species, is an invading organism coming from an outside source, making direct contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved (intestinal lining, lungs, connective tissue, etc.).
A parasite is an organism that, once it invades the definitive host, will usually remain with host for life (as long as it or the host survives), with few exceptions, a parasite will remain a parasite for it's entire life. It cannot survive without a host.

It is scientifically inaccurate to associate a human fetus with a parasite.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#778013 Sep 8, 2014
ROCCO wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, those are certainly definitions of "parasitism", and I'm certainly not unaware of them.
Bully for you.
But the discussion has been about "parasites", not "parasitism" -and neither of us has given all the likely definitions of either.
That aside, Buck, no matter how much you continue to clamor for my attention, you are going to continue to find you won't get much of it.
This was an overly large dose, probably about 75 words or so more than the typical dose.
You are mistaken.

I'm not after your attention.

I'm proving you a liar and a fool.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#778014 Sep 8, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
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.
You guys are really warming up to each other.
Jewbacca

United States

#778015 Sep 8, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
Cell phones should be reserved for teenagers of driving age or older.
Cell phones or smart phones?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#778016 Sep 8, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I am the host. I'm on the board, and I have keys.
<quoted text>
Who told you that? We don't necessarily respect fetuses. Nor human gall bladders, nor appendices, which are human and alive before excision.
Why don't you let us tell you what we believe.
How many gall bladders have been excised which were genetically distinct from the human being from which it was excised?

Kermit Gosnell went to prison. The jury found that he was not excising gall bladders.

He could have excised gall bladders and remained free for life.

Hippocratic Oath:

"I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art."
Jewbacca

United States

#778017 Sep 8, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
The great Eye, lidless, wreathed in flame?
That's how it's rendered.

“The Bible is no science book”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#778018 Sep 8, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are lying.
The science says you are lying.
A human fetus is of the same species as the mother, homospecific. A parasite is heterospecific. A human fetus is produced by the mother herself, with the aid of a fertilizing cell, and is not an invading organism. The fetus is an evolutionary benefit, propelling the mother's genes to the next generation.
It is scientifically NOT a parasite. You latched on to a superficial definition in order to form an inaccurate conclusion.
What you are doing is the immoral act of degrading a human being in the womb to something like a tapeworm so you can feel better emotionally about claiming a right to kill it.
This is the exact technique Hitler and Mengele used for degrading the status of Jews and justifying eugenics and medical experimentation.
It is also the same rationilzation slaveholders used for enslaving black people.
You not only deny science when it suits you, you deny the rights of human beings of a classification you feel is expendable, and worthy of no rights.
Another in the long list of reasons atheists should not be allowed power and influence.
Your moral dishonesty is a flashing warning light.
Just using your own method of "word salad" to point out how you and RR argue over one stupid word to the "ad nauseam" stage. You don't like it. See how you just responded? You will argue a month over infinite or finite. RR over meteor/meteorite.

Now if I can just push all your buttons for the month of September, maybe I can be as irritating as you two in your arguments.
Jewbacca

United States

#778019 Sep 8, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You claimed absolute certain knowledge that all gods are fiction.
Otherwise, you would have said "I believe all gods are fiction", or "I think all gods are fiction".
You said "are", not "believe".
That's a claim of certain knowledge.
You won't even stand behind your own claims.
You claimed absolute certain knowledge of what I would have said.

Otherwise, you would have said "I believe you would have said...", or "I think you would have said...".

You said "would have", not "believe".

That's a claim of certain knowledge.

That's how I know you're a liar.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#778020 Sep 8, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You aren't free to choose the definition for others. No definition that corresponds to any of the way that the word is actually used is more accurate than any other. If something meets any definition of a parasite, it´s a parasite.
Interesting.

Meeting "any definition" of parasite makes something a parasite.

Here is one definition of "doctor":

noun; "a cook, as at a camp or on a ship".

Another definition makes a fly a doctor, as it is used in fly fishing.

Since those meet one definition, we now know a fly and a cook are both doctors.

Wanna' bet I can't find a definition making a fetus an insect?

But a fetus is not an insect. it is also not a parasite.

What does this new rule do for your definition of atheism?

Remember, if you meet any definition for atheist, you are an atheist. Right?






Jewbacca

United States

#778021 Sep 8, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm starting to see that the ethics of atheism is more vile and deceitful than I had earlier known about.
We see it by the atheists right here on this thread, how they try to redefine words, try to rewrote history, rewrite biblical meaning and now trying to say that a human being is a parasite.
It's ugly and it's appalling.
Atheists can never again gain power.
You're a bigot, and a big idiot.
Jewbacca

United States

#778022 Sep 8, 2014
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
There are no shortage of trees. There are 12 million more acres of forest today than there was 60 years ago. Thats only in North America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#778023 Sep 8, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
She was obviously willing to carry him to term, which makes her situation irrelevant to women that aren't.
Incidentally, that's a great rebuttal to the argument for reproductive autonomy for women. How would the world have functioned had Ray's mother had aborted him?
Enter, a new abortion weasel - word..."reproductive autonomy".

You guys have a million such diversions.

Anyways, you changed the subject.

The question you posed was whether we want people in the world who are not wanted by their mother.

The obvious answer is yes, we do.

How would the world have functioned had Ray's mother aborted him?

Just fine.

It would also function fine if someone murdered you.

Another diversion.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#778024 Sep 8, 2014
Jewbacca

United States

#778025 Sep 8, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously?
See: Stalin for one great example of the bad things that can happen when atheists gain power.
No, that's an example of the bad things that can happen when a man gains power.

Clearly, women should be in charge of things.

I used to work for a really nice woman, Ann Solo. Then she died, and her son took over the business. The deadbeat couldn't stay out of debt, and was always getting into trouble with you know who.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#778026 Sep 8, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Secular humanists not only have ethics, they are superior to Christian ethics. We believe in tolerance, but that does not mean that you can hit us in the cheek and expect our other cheek. If you fk with the bull, you should expect the horn.
http://divedesk.com/blog/09/bullhorn.jpg
I don't have any more faith in humanists being loyal to their stated ethics than I do for Christians being loyal to theirs.

Less, actually.

People are generally untrustworthy. The ones I trust I can count on one hand.

I find that people are motivated largely by resentment. It is an unspoken motivator, but present in nearly every endeavor.
Jewbacca

United States

#778027 Sep 8, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
My story has always been straight, I've never said that God created everything, nor does He create everything still. Look to your left and to your right, do you see walls? Maybe windows? Did God create those or did man?
Now look into your pantry, do you see canned soup filled with sodium? Do you see Cheetos? Do you see Red Bulls, maybe Pepsi? Do you see manufactured cheese in your fridge? Look in your medicine cabinet, are there prescription drugs? Take a drink of that tapwater, did God create that nasty ass tapwater?
The answer is no. God didn't create any of those things listed above, humans did. We've created our own mess, our own diseases and our own cures. That's exactly what God wants us to do. Live and learn, investigate, become smarter - more intelligent.
Your god is indistinguishable from nonexistent.

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
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 min Regina 646,915
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 10 min Peter Ross 49,390
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 32 min KellyP in Jersey 2,102
The Red Sky prophecy. 42 min reader 1
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 59 min here 281,288
how long after taking the Vivitrol shot can i f... (Nov '12) 2 hr Swim 165
ye olde village pub (Jun '07) 2 hr Ann Bonney 53,830
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 3 hr Lbj 105,674
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 4 hr ChristineM 445,751
topix drops human sexuality forum.......this be... 9 hr patsy the shared ... 26
More from around the web