Danarchy
YOU CAN'T CUT BACK ON FUNDING! YOU WILL REGRET THIS!
Posts: 15854
Registered: 01-01
geo said: To Christians they think semin = unborn people. That's why the church doesn't believe in condoms. You're Hitler if you let all of those sperm die.... When logically its just less messy when you...
LOL there was something on the news years ago about a man that kept all of his sperm is freezers because his religion taught him masturbation was wrong because it killed potential babies... so he kept it all so he wouldn't be a murderer. He went to court against his power company that had a power outtage and his sperm died. People are interesting. Judge threw his case out because there is no dollar value to a human byproduct.
Thanks man :-) Did you thank her? Most girlfriends give you a vial of their blood when they convince you to have period sex.
Anyway... Showed this 180 movie to another friend. My friend thought this was about turning people from Nazi haters into Nazi lovers... He was disappointed to find out that its about abortion. Then he went back and said this guy is looking for soldiers, because he brings up if people would have killed Hitler. Well if Hitler killed so many people what does an abortionist do? You'd kill Hitler right?
So my friend drew a line that this guy is thinking about killing abortionists he just needs pawns to do it for him.
geo said: To Christians they think semin = unborn people. That's why the church doesn't believe in condoms. You're Hitler if you let all of those sperm die.... When logically its just less messy when you...
Actually, no. It was presumed that sperm was the "seed of humanity" at one point in time, but has since been denounced. Contraceptive are frowned upon because it enables sex without conception. Intercourse can only be had if procreation is intended.
Lower populations have more offspring Like puppies and chickens... Humans seem to be having a lot of twins now a days. Oh and congrats we have 7 billion people on Earth!!! Hurray Earth for having so many parasites living off of you.
My previous post shows the anti-abortionists retarded outlook on the situation.
Man, looking at the discussion I think I'm just going to skip the video, lest I embarrass myself by watching it.
Some people just make me want to skip the pro-life/pro-choice debate altogether and just go with mandatory fertility control based on intellectual prowess. Jesus christ. I used to wonder; are there countries where people do not know about... Isaac Newton? Napoleon Bonaparte? Mohandas Gandhi? I'd laugh the question off but alas, I guess the answer lies just across the motherfucking Atlantic.
spank said: I used to wonder; are there countries where people do not know about... Isaac Newton? Napoleon Bonaparte? Mohandas Gandhi? I'd laugh the question off but alas, I guess the answer lies just across the motherfucking Atlantic.
Yep, all Americans are ignorant fools. Everyone in Europe is more intelligent and informed than we are. Gotta love stereotypes. Cool story, bro.
spank said: Man, looking at the discussion I think I'm just going to skip the video, lest I embarrass myself by watching it.
Some people just make me want to skip the pro-life/pro-choice debate altogether and just go with mandatory fertility control based on intellectual prowess. Jesus christ. I used to wonder; are there countries where people do not know about... Isaac Newton? Napoleon Bonaparte? Mohandas Gandhi? I'd laugh the question off but alas, I guess the answer lies just across the motherfucking Atlantic.
He also asked college kids in a state known to have the most sun stroked people. Since America is so big, you have the smartest and dumbest people. Just like India. Half of the country can't read or write, but the other half are scientists.
Creaphis said:
This is obviously wrong, but even if it weren't, physical evidence shouldn't be used as a basis for faith, anyway. This is a contradiction of terms. We have faith in the things for which we have no evidence.
That sounds like a contrived, derivative or political definition of faith that tries to make it oppose or be compatible with modern science. On one hand, it can be used to oppose science by negating intrusive evidence, on the other, to find some use for faith outside scientific skepticism by separating it from material knowledge. But faith is generally based on evidence from phenomena, examples, experience, writings (scriptures) or feeling.
Perhaps some who lose faith in most things due to so much critical evidence start to define faith as something without any evidence, to sustain it at all costs. In that sense, the lack of evidence becomes an evidence of the object of their faith, such as God. That is interesting because it's similar to the "pointless" and abstract art that becomes pivotal in advanced modernity, which arguably happens for similar reasons when technology and replication affect traditional art.
First... Hitler was a believer in Christianity. Even if I artificially conceded that he wasn't a Christian, the majority driving military force of Nazi Germany, and indeed the civilian population, at the time was.
fraggle said:
People have criticized Richard Dawkins for refusing to take part in debates with creationists, and with this in mind it makes a lot of sense.
I'm pretty sure Richard Dawkins has equated it to giving the opponents position a look of 'legitimacy'. Would a chemist debate... an alchemist, a heliocentrist a geocentricist, a geologist a flat-earther, etc... was the basic vibe.
deathbringer said:
An, er, interesting person on another site I go to once said she couldn't understand how religious people could be right wing (as all religions basically tell you to be kind and charitable to each other) but also couldn't understand how atheists could be left wing (as they ought to apply cold scientific logic to everything, such as 'wasting' free medical care on people who will die anyway). It was an interesting view to take, I thought....
What...? What religions was she talking about? Paying lip service to peace is one thing, but then to have contradicting accounts throughout the history of their holy scripts/books/basis-of-their-belief-systems is another.
Snakes said:
What's more, your simile fails once you consider the amount of moral lessons that can be taught in various religions. How people fail to use or see them properly is another subject entirely.
Are you arguing for the utility of religion? They are either true in their teachings, or they are not, "all the good" that might be "credited" to them aside.
Concerning scientific views possibly changing on the subject of morality, I'd recommend these two videos for watching.
Who Says Science has Nothing to Say About Morality?
E.J. said: I'm pretty sure Richard Dawkins has equated it to giving the opponents position a look of 'legitimacy'. Would a chemist debate... an alchemist, a heliocentrist a geocentricist, a geologist a flat-earther, etc... was the basic vibe.
Well, yeah that's the public answer. But really it's both. You don't want to give someone like Ray Comfort legitimacy.
I looked through the comments on one of the videos E.J. posted, and I found possibly the dumbest serious YouTube comment ever written:
Thechristiancullen said: Yes - historical evidence, gospels, Paul's letters, Jewish writers but somehow I think that even Jesus turned up at your door; you would still tell him that there is no evidence that he is Jesus.
180... The short Text Version:
Do you know who Hitler is?
Your thoughts on the holocaust?
Would you bury someone alive if your life was at stake?
Are you pro abortion? (NOTE: If you are you're Hitler...)
How can you live with yourself you baby killer?
The whole argument is one sided. Women have the right to do what they want and no Christian is going to convince me otherwise.
Bucket
ROCK & LOAD COCK BEEN BLOWED IN YOUR MOUTH, MANJUICE EXPLOAD
Posts: 3786
Registered: 01-04
I was confused about the "killing Hitler" point. All this time, I've been told that God let the Holocaust happen because he has a plan and we can't begin to understand it. At the very least, we can see God's plan involves having the Jews exterminated, so who am I to go against that?
EDIT: Question to pro-lifers: would you go back in time and tell Mrs. Hitler to abort baby Adolf?
11-03-11 17:18 
