I'm pro-choice!! (But lets be specific) I mean the choice for a woman to have sex or not. That's the womans choice. When your already pregnant your choice has already been made women!!
Funny they always characterize it as a "right to choose" well Choice come before actions, after the consequences, comes responsibility. A woman has 6 choices over three stages I think that's enough. Right, only animals kill their own, humans don't. Yup , we see unemployment as a economic disfranchisement, they see it AS a franchise for their voters.
I am pro life. Why? Because motherhood is a divine calling, not a life taking responsibility. Take responsibility for you actions and raise your children to do the same. A lot of pro choice women just wanna have sex without consiquences. How morally backward is that?!
Opposing abortion does not require religion. It only requires a bias towards life. (Yes, we do learn this from reliigon, as we learn the need to help others. For that matter, opposition to slavery was mostly from religious fanatics. But if the premise is accepted, then a perfectly good secular argument can be made.)
@zvi303 If we accept (as the Jews did but not the Romans*) that a newborn, although different from a baby, is human, and that a reproductive cell is not, the question is - where to draw the line.
A bias towards life tells us to draw it as early as possible.
(*)See the anti-semitic tract, "On the Jew"s, of Tacitus the Roman historian. One of the things he finds weird is that Jews consider infanticide a crime.
@GodFamilyCountryCorp Everyone is born and dies according to Gods plan. God knew when you would be born, before you were even conceived. He also knows exactly when and how you will die. This is all according to his plan for each individual human being. So, if a child is aborted, isn't that part of God's plan for that individual? And if you try to stop it, aren't you defying God's will?
@eyeh8u1 No, you are confusing Man's Will with God's Will..... God knowing everything that's going to happen doesn't change the fact that we still have agency, that one person can influence the life of another for good. God knows another is going to try and stop an abortion, thus that's in the Plan also. God doesn't want any of his children to sin. It's still a sin. The liberal doesn't like the right to self defense with guns, or killing a seal, but they will kill a baby.
@antipryzm Wrong. You see, you have been given an Atheist revision of history, you have been lied to. Why? Because Atheists can lie. There is no rule that says you can't lie. Our Founding Fathers believed firmly in the Bible, so much so, that Washington pledged his oath on it. So much so, that 10,000 copies were printed for schools, by the Congress. So much so that 2 official chaplains have recided in congress since Day 1... actually BEFORE. These are facts. Historical. You have been fed a lie.
@worldofgrim Yeah they believed in all of that soooooo much that chose to not to have a national religion and to include freedom of and freedom from religion. Sorry, the constitution was founded on secular logic not "Judeo-Christian philosophy" Ahhh American Christians. Lying for Jesus since 1776! You guys should put that on a t--shirt and sell it at one of your hokey creation museums! You'd make a fortune!
@eyeh8u1 There is nothing in the constitution about freedom from religion. There is nothing in the first amendment that gives any rights to atheists. And in any case there is no case, the Supreme Court's fantasies about the 14th amendment notwithstanding, that would apply the Establishment clause to the States.
P.S. I am not a Christan. Go peddle your narrow-minded, irrational bigotry elsewhere.
@Descipleofchrist101 As the Talmud states, you are reliable regarding yourself only.
I am sure there are tolerant atheists out there. But somehow the bigoted ones tend to do the posting. Christianity is the majority religion in the US; how could I be intolerant of it? I'm not Christian.
@zvi303 Freedom OF religion is freedom FROM religion dumbass. And, it doesn't have to, otherwise the constitution would essentially be saying "we dont care if you dont believe in christianity as long as you subscribe to a religion." Not of this matters to you however, as your comment about the14th amendment shows your true colors as the narrow minded, bigot you accuse me of being.I take comfort in knowing that with each passing day religion and by extension, you become more and more irrelevant.
@eyeh8u1 Actually, the US is very religious. You are clearly a narrow-minded, irrational bigot, and have now descended to second-grade language. Having a differing opinion about a constitutional doctrine is only bigotry in your fevered imagination.
As I said, I know there are good, tolerant atheists out there. It is a shame that the bad apples like yourself tend to post.
@zvi303 I never said the U.S. wasn't religious. Yeah, of course I am. I'm the one who "descended to second-grade language" after you called me a narrow-minded bigot. Way to go genius! Only bigotry in my mind? Lets see, you want the ability to force your religious views on everyone, hence your despising of the 14th amendment. and yet, I'M the bigot?
@zvi303 I, however, do not and will not tolerate religion. It has no right to be respected. It is simply not entitled to it nor are its followers. It should be mocked at every opportunity until we as a people have rid ourselves from the taint of that vile bronze age fairy tale that has done nothing but harm humanity at every step of our history. It delivers false hope, is demeaning and gives its adherents license to interpret its scripture in anyway they see fit to achieve whatever they wish.
@eyeh8u1 What about the religion of atheism that you support? You are up against 98% of the world, good luck with all your disrespect and mockery, I'm sure you'll go far. You don't even see how contradictory your statement would be if you practiced it. Even if your last sentence were true, how would that be different from atheists making up any morality they want?
@1980PintoMan Atheism is a religion? Thats like saying NOT-smoking cigarettes is an addiction. As for making up morality, sorry thats religions job. You don't know the first thing about morals other than your moronic belief that they come from "God" so don't lecture me about morals. Christians have higher rates of divorce than atheists and have higher percentages of incarceration in prison than atheists. Trust me, religion is the last entity in the world to be lecturing anyone on morals.
@eyeh8u1 A morality rant from a user with the name "I hate you". Very telling. Your unwillingness to tolerate those with opposing views shows the level of your anger and immaturity. I tolerate people of different religions and lifestyles and support their right to free speech because that's what a free society is. For all your finger-pointing about how intolerant the religious are, you are pretty intolerant yourself. You have just proven our point and ceded the moral high ground. Great job.
@SSPspaz Tolerate opposing views huh? So if someone approached you and argued that murder should be legal, you would tolerate that? Too crazy? Ok, what if Buddhists or Hindus or Muslims suddenly demanded that their version of how the universe came about be a mandatory part of science class? Are going to sit there as a christian and tell me that you would tolerate that? If you did, then you sir are a liar.
@eyeh8u1 Obviously, you have no grasp on the natural human rights as outlined in many constitutions. Murdering should never be legal, regardless of your viewpoint because it deny's someone elses right to life, liberty and property. It isn't a religious issue and it's a stupid question. As for your name, the fact that you chose "I hate you", is probably a pretty good indicator as to what kind of person you are.
@SSPspaz Murder is wrong? Well thank you captain obvious!! Since my post clearly flew over your head I'm thinking that you do not have the mental capacity for a proper debate. Therefore, I shall have nothing else to do with you or this thread. Once you've mastered reading comprehension perhaps we can continue at a later date. In the mean time god bless!
@eyeh8u1 Don't blame me for answering your question. You asked an intentionally ridiculous question and I provided a clearly logical answer. Sorry if that didn't meet with your approval. Nice way to cop out from having a real discussion about your intellectual dishonesty. Run along now.
@SSPspaz Second, my name has nothing to do with morality. Lastly, and what I find the most laughable is how you imply that religion and its followers are "tolerant" of others view points. Religion has no tolerance for others view points and has no interest in tolerance and less of course its on the news whining about being the "victim" or how its under "attack." *sob* "Other groups want their religion to be recognized during the holidays. When will this madness end???!?!?!" *sob*
@eyeh8u1 Also, nobody said that I'm a Christian, but for the sake of the argument, let's say that I am. You once again show intolerance by making unilateral assumptions about all religious people everywhere. Of course there are tolerant and intolerant religious people just as there are tolerant and intolerant (such as yourself) atheists. If I'm a Christian, tolerance doesn't mean agreeing with everyone, it just means that what others do is their own business and I am fine with that.
@eyeh8u1 The phrase "freedom of religion" means that you are free to choose any religion, or lack thereof, that you so desire. The phrase "freedom from religion" implies an encouragement to be an atheist. The two phrases do not have identical meanings.
@worldofgrim Who's bible? Catholic, lutheran, protestant, puritan, anglican? Some believed in the bible, some were deist. Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Adams.. all deists firmly against religious interference in government. James Madison argued against chaplains: "Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In the strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative."
@antipryzm You seem to mistakenly believe that 18th century deists did not believe in the Bible. I seem to recall a paper from one of the people you mentioned about the cubit, that clearly indicates he believed the Deluge account. Please note that the seal of the US contains the eye of divine providence (conspiracy theories notwithstanding).
The greatest freethinker of them (his term) all was probably Abraham Lincoln, and his Second Inaugural reads like a Church sermon.
@zvi303 You seem to mistakenly think that it matters. No matter what their religious conviction, they were secularists. Secularism is not in exclusion of personal religious belief.... Their personal belief was that, no matter what a person's belief in god, god had NO place in the united states government. Too many xians fail to realize that xians of different sects in those days assaulted one another.. today, its all one big happy family as long as you aren't catholic or mormon.
@antipryzm Well ,if your facts are wrong, your arguments are hard to accept.
No, secularism is an anti-religious religion. I agree that the US is a de jure (but not de facto) secular country, and that it does not have a religion. But this is not to say that religion has no place in shaping the laws of the country. Otherwise we would stil have slavery, among other thing. (No, I don't think that the Bible is anti-slavery. But the abolitionists did.)
@zvi303 doesn't matter if the abolitionists thought the bible was anti-slavery, many other christians of the same period believed the bible was pro slavery.
And you're wrong about secularism, it was invented specifically to define the separation of government and religion. "Holyoake invented the term "secularism" to describe his views of promoting a social order separate from religion, without actively dismissing or criticizing religious belief."
@antipryzm You misunderstood my point. The point is that if religion was understood to be improper as a source of legislation, then slavery would not have been abolished for quite some time after.
We all have sources of what we consider right and wrong. To consider religion improper here is to make atheism the state religion, which is rediculous in a country as reliigous as the US.
@antipryzm You are forgetting that before the 14h amendment and the (mistaken) doctine of inclusion, none of this applied to anything but Congress. States were free to have blasphemy laws, established chuches, religious tests, etc. In the city I lived, Baltimore, I could not have started a synagogue without swearing an oath to Jesus. So, it did not matter because the Federal constitution was not very relevant to people's lives or the laws they lived under.
@zvi303 And yet the very constitution itself states that it is the highest law of the land.. and the first amendment of that law makes all those examples you listed unconstitutional. doesn't matter to me if no one fought them at the time, they were still as unconstitutional as 'under god' in the pledge is now.
@zvi303 My belief is Article 6 and the 10th amendment support my opinion, but fine I'll throw you a bone.. Oh doesn't matter, the 13 original states all have religious freedom articles in their own constitutions.
@antipryzm (Note: God is a Proper noun, and therefore capitalized. I do not believe the messiah to be divine, but if I use it as a name, I capitalize it.)
It's the reverse. We have freedom of religion because the conservative religions realized no-one would win, and therefore they needed to leave each other alone. But the liberal religions (including atheism) try to force their theology (everything is relative, no-one has the truth, etc.) on everyone.
@zvi303 god is not a proper noun unless its specifically being used to denote the christian diety.
atheism has as much right to "force itself" on everyone as religions do. its so hard for theists to have to deal with the innumerable arguments against the existence of any higher power, while having nothing but their trivial dogma to use in retort.
@antipryzm Aside from the entertaining stories, we also have mathematics, and the laws of probability to use in retort. It sure would be easier to be an Atheist; no rules, no one to answer to, or any of that. Unfortunately, though, Atheism just requires far to giant a leap of blind faith to truly believe in it.
@OneChristianView Atheism requires a leap of... evidence, which religions lack. You have mathematics? Like the math 'proving' the world is only a couple thousand years old? Or that the sun revolves around the earth?
Atheism requires nothing more than a skeptical, logical mindset that asks questions and demands answers. Religion... well none of those apply. It requires blind, unquestioning faith. If you question it, you better beg forgiveness or you go to hell!
@antipryzm No, like the mathematics involved in the laws of probability. As I've pointed out to that hateful chap that keeps posting here, the millions of completely accidental perfect mutations that would have had to occur daily over the course of millions of years to get us to the state in which we are today is contrary to the laws of probability, which is math, and math is the language of science.
@OneChristianView It is your personal belief that evolution would have to consist of "millions of completely accidental mutations". If it were actually a plausible theory, evolutionary scientists would believe it too. Theists seem to forget the job of scientists is to DISPROVE theories, until it can either be proven absolute or just cannot be disproven. Math is not a theory, the laws of math have been proven no matter who and where you are.
@antipryzm Well, most of what you just said seems to support my stance a little better than it would yours. I disagree with your view of the scientists job, though. I'd say that their job is more to objectively test theories. I never said that math is a theory; I completely agree that math is an absolute; that's probably why it's the "language" of science. It provides a solid base from which to start.
@OneChristianView Do you not understand that there's a reason it is still the most espoused theory of life? That any and every single scientist that works on it would love to be the one to prove it absolutely false? It doesn't matter that they would have to find a new theory, or even say "Well maybe this god thing has merit..." Because they would be immortalized for it. The whole point is to try every possible means to prove it wrong... they haven't yet.
@antipryzm What's the most espoused theory of life? Evolution? Ok... I've never disputed that. My point is that the entire evolution, from absolute nothingness to the current state of life, was either an impossibly long series of completely accidental, perfect mutations, OR that the entire evolution was a planned event. There is no other reasonable option. If one accepts the latter, as I do, one must accept the existence of a Planner.
@OneChristianView Completely accidental? Depends on how you define accidental. Adaption through survival is not what I would call accidental mutations. As for impossibly long series, that depends on certain things. Namely the age of the Earth, which I believe to be over 4 billion years old. Plenty of time for adaptation to take its course, when a generation of an organism could be as short as a couple minutes, or as long as a few millennia.
@antipryzm Accidental: Happening by chance or accident. (accident: an unplanned event)
"Adaption through survival" assumes a life in place that needs to survive. But, before that life could exist, there first had to be a place for that life to exist, and that place had to have the proper conditions to sustain life. This opens up a new string of chance events, which serves to compound the mathematical improbabilities, especially when considering the infinite complexities involved
@OneChristianView what mathematical improbabilities... A billion billion planets in the universe... You keep mentioning mathematical improbabilities. What would you say the odds of life on a planet being? billion to 1? that's a billion planets in the universe with life on it. Trillion to 1? That's 1million with life.
Scientists have already discovered a couple planets in the habitable zone of their sun's orbit. No, sorry, I disagree.. it really doesn't take much for life
@antipryzm But there are many other factors. They have already found that many of these planets do not have life or the 22 necessary amino acids to live. Also, why are humans the only super advanced species. We use advanced speech, we have a large capacity for thinking, We can build large structures. Why are we the only ones that evolved like this? Can it all just be coincidence?
@peanutman5240 Not the point. Point is, on a historic/cosmic scale we have just begun searching and have already found a couple dozen planets that have the basic necessities for supporting life. As for amino acids, some have been found in comets. So just because you claim none are on the planets so far found, does not mean future hz planets would not contain them. As for human reasoning.. simple, we evolved that way because it suited our survivability.
@peanutman5240 Going to assume you made this statement under the assumption that man was "created in god's image". Human's survivability is based on the ability to reason and the opposable thumb, that's it. An enraged chimp would tear Brock Lesnar in half, imo. Birds have greater eye sight, dogs have better noses.. yadda yadda. If a god created man, he was drunk off his ass... if we're in his image, he's imperfect himself.
@Peterman5240 Just do a little tiny bit of research into the growth of a fetus and you will come to see that there can ONLY be a God that could possibly create a baby from two cells. Educate yourself before spouting off like you know what you are talking about... I watch the miracle of births happen quite regularly and it is not by happenstance nor by an imperfect God, but by divine appointment.
@kellymacdoula You do know that the science of human pregnancy has been studied for almost a century and is pretty well understood. I'm sure claiming it as a miracle from some sky being is a good way of covering your own ignorance, myself I'd rather just claim to have slept through health class and had little interest in the subject to rectify my own.
@zvi303 It boils down to the notion of Free Will, which is a very Christian concept, although it seems to have been forgotten, at least in practice, in many of today's Christian Churches.
God wanted man to follow Him of his own free will, as opposed to being forced to. If man followed God freely, it would be a sign of love. The founding documents, along with making reference to a Creator, strongly reflect the notion of Free Will.
@OneChristianView Free will was a contested ideal among catholics, and one not even accepted by quite a few protestant sects. The originators of some of the more powerful non catholic sects would have a heart attack if they thought their followers believed in free will.
Just to clarify, the Declaration is not a founding document and is the one the Creator is mentioned in.
@antipryzm Without the concept of free will, a Christian is left with predetermination, which removes all personal meaning of life, and renders the concept of "decision" meaningless, as well. Such an idea reduces us to robots, and makes a great majority of the Bible pointless, as well.
Yes, I am well aware that it is the Declaration that makes reference to the Creator. I am also well aware that it IS, indeed, a founding document. It declares our status as an independant nation.
@OneChristianView All it does is declare a separation from King George's government, and declare the 13 colonies as separate independent states. When the war was won, they wanted to make Washington king of America. The Constitution established the the US as an independent nation.
I've come to the decision that the founding fathers were all native "indians" since they used the term Creator... if they were true christians, they would've said Jesus son of God the Almighty I Am.
@antipryzm You say that as if separating from King George was of no consequence.
Separating from England and declaring our independence was the first step in the foundation of our nation. The Declaration of Independence is very much a founding document, in which are listed ideals that the Constitution seeks to preserve.
I suspect that the term "Creator" was used to appease Jefferson.
@OneChristianView So, a modern christian admitting Jefferson wasn't a theist? Interesting. No need to appease him, he wrote it. I think we are using different standards for defining 'founding document'. The DOI is not a legal document and had nothing to do with the founding of the USA. It was the declaration that 13 of king george's colonies were seceding from the empire to form their own independent states. So, IMO, its not a founding document.
@antipryzm I've often heard Jefferson described as a Deist, Unitarian, or Agnostic (which are all close the same thing). I freely admit that he was not a Christian. No point in claiming that he was. The comment on appeasing him was tongue in cheek, btw.
I would suppose that you and I use different standards on a variety of topics, which is fine. While I disagree with your view that the Declaration is not a founding document, I will respect your entitlement to that viewpoint.
@antipryzm Good google search! I can bust you even more. Amazing desperate Atheist coddled in liberties of Christians, to bite the hand that feeds it. You lie well. Picking little needles in the haystack of their Christian beliefs. Everyone of them went to church, Jefferson ran services on Sundays in Congress. Whose Bible? Ahhh... actually they're all very similar. Any will do, though I like the ESV & Apologetics ones... READ!!!
@worldofgrim That's the thing with Bibles; I find it beneficial to review multiple translations of the Bible in order to gain a better idea of the meaning of whatever passage I am looking up. Though, I do avoid the version created by the Jehovah's Witnesses. There is no accountability in the translation.
@worldofgrim As for Washington.. it was his choice to make the oath on the Bible, just like its peoples' choice to swear on a bible in a courtroom. The presidential oath does not mention god, and the 6th article in the constitution specifically prohibits religious tests for any office. the original pledge of allegiance was written by a minister, yet did not say anything about god that was added later by commie fearing mccarthyists.
Personally, I believe that oaths of office should be sworn on a handwritten copy of the constitution and bill of rights, written down by the person taking office. Maybe the country wouldn't be in the crapper if both parties were forced to read and write the very words they're swearing to protect.
@antipryzm But then they would need to follow it exactly, which would mean not paying social security benefits, and this would be unfair to those like myself who paid into it all of their lives and will depend on it to keep from starving to death. Even Ron Paul said he wouldn't do that, so presumably he will be breaking his oath. If I were President, I would affirm.
@antipryzm This, my Atheist friend, is something that I fully agree with. This should apply even if there swearing in for a second term. Or third. Or fourth. Etc.
@antipryzm Whie I disagree with your attitude, it is true that ther constitution explicity allows affirmation instead of swearing (which would mean also no Bible and no "so help me..."); but this is because there were people (Quakers) whose religion frowned on swearing (as does mine, being Jewish).
People had good reason to fear Communists, being as they were atheist fanatics who killed 100 - 200 million people, more than all of the religions in all of history.
@zvi303 Communists, like the imperial french, replaced religion with worship of the state. Worship is a poison that turns one human against another for nothing so much as belief without evidence.
I don't believe in any gods, due to a complete lack of evidence. I do believe in a republic form of government backed by free and equal humans engaging in free market capitalism to keep that republic strong... due to overwhelming evidence that supports it. I identify with the republican party, due to historical evidence showing the positive influence (most) of their positions have on american life.
@antipryzm OMG... you are using talking points. OMG!!! The 6th article was for fear of Baptists vs Lutherans vs Presbytarians but did you know Christians believe in tolerance and choice and limited Govt? So you Atheists think that means their non-religious!? Did you know every state Constitution even then, has 'God' in them, and that the Feds KNEW THIS. 'Blessings of liberty' what does that mean in Constitution? Thanksgiving proclamation by George Washington...LOOK IT UP. Commies hate God, yes!
@worldofgrim If christians truly believed in tolerance and choice, there would not have been any need of Article 6, or the first amendment. Xians own bloody history proves you wrong. Religion poisons everything.
Commies may hate god, but atheists don't believe in it, so there's nothing to hate.
@antipryzm Firstly, to my knowledge, Peter wasn't a Christian at the time, in fact the new testament did not exist until pentecost therefore your argument is flawed, he was learning how to be a Christian and was not exactly a Christian at that time.
@jabroni1223 That's severely circular logic. Peter had just undergone THE sacrament, the very first one, with his Holiness (pun intended) himself doing the officiating. Are you telling me Peter had not been baptised in water? And had not undergone the sacrament? And did not believe Ieshua bin Ioseph was the living son of god?
Last I checked, those were what made someone a Xian, not the new testament. What about all those people who believed between the two times?
@peanutman5240 Its a pretty established fact that animals feel emotions, if you've ever owned a dog I don't see how you could claim different. As for reasoning, that's a matter of our evolution, our cousins can reason pretty well. Chimps even have limited tool use, hell even non primates can reason to an extent.
But I've already said our ability to reason and our thumbs are the only reason we're top of the chain.
Actually, the very extent of our self awareness and cognitive ability exceeds all other creatures on this planet to an extent that makes your stance seem rather untenable. Seriously, why is their nothing else even remotely close? There are a number of apes that are at a similar stage of evolution but nothing even close to humans and our self awareness/cognitive ability.
@eyeh8u1 You worship many many MANY things, but you will never worship the one God of the Bible. You worship the god of success, of sexual liberation, of science, the god of Govt... but you will never ever worship the God, the one and only God who will have no other, the God of the Bible. You believe that unborn children should not be a burden and that marriage isn't that important, you believe Christians should not evangelize in public or have an influence in Government. You are an Atheist.
@worldofgrim WOW!! Really? I believe all those things? Oh wait...I forgot the 10 commandments are more like guidelines for you guys to pick and choose and use to condemn others from your moral high horse, while not applying the same standard to yourself. Because if you did, you wouldn't have broken the 9th commandment in your last comment, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." Gosh darn it...theres that damn pesky, contradictory bible again. And you tried so hard too.
@eyeh8u1 Hey, you must know Jesus then, for he said exactly what you are saying. We are all sinners, and can never follow all the rules. So you are saying you are Pro-Life? And believe in traditional marriage only? And that Christians can speak morals as politicians in churches and govt offices as they see fit? Really? I got that wrong?
@worldofgrim "you believe Christians should not evangelize in public or have an influence in Government. You are an Atheist." I'm sure those christian founding fathers you talked about, that absolutely detested the thought of religious interference in government, would be shocked to find out they're both FIRM BELIEVERS IN THE BIBLE and Atheists.
@antipryzm You mean the one's that started the presidential office with an oath on the Bible? That printed 10,000 copies of the Bible for schools? That declared Proclamations of Thanksgiving To God? That have had 2 official chaplains in Congress since day 1, to pray each morning???? Those Atheists?
@eyeh8u1 You worship anything, ANYTHING, but the God of the Bible. You worship evolution, buddhism, Islam is a peaceful religion, movies, Lady Ga-Ga, Obama, science as ultimate truth...ANYTHING.
@worldofgrim How can one worship evolution?I worship Buddhism and Islam? News to me. Sure I like movies. Don't you? Or does liking them mean worshiping them? Lady Gaga? Obama?I voted for McCain. Science doesn't deal in truth, only facts. Since obviously I dont worship physical things on Earth, why would I worship an invisible being with no evidence save for a 2,000 year old incomplete book of dubious origins written years after Jesus died and whose readers continually interpret as they see fit?
@eyeh8u1 "Science doesn't deal in truth, only facts". Contradictory statement. A fact is truth.
"... invisible being with no evidence..." The pursuit of science has provided the evidence. With out the Intelligent Design of a Creator, our existence is a mathematical impossibility. You see, without the presence of a Creator, there is only an impossibly long series of trillions of complete accidents and perfect mutations every day over the past couple billion years. Not possible.
@OneChristianView The fact that you do not understand the difference between truth and fact helps explain why you so easily believe what you wrote next about creation. Science has not proven a creator. If it did, science would acknowledge it, well...real science anyway. Not creationists with made up credentials like Hovind. First you make the faulty assumption that the universe had to be created. Sorry,real science doesnt work like that. If you already know your conclusion why look for evidence?
@eyeh8u1 Provide a fact, any random fact, that is not truth. For that matter, please explain to me the difference between truth and fact. A Google search for "define fact" will show the word "truth" in the definition. Also, I did not say "Proven", I said "provided evidence". In other words, it provided convincing evidence to myself and others who have a concept of mathematical probability. You may recall that math is the language of science.
@eyeh8u1 Ok. I searched that. I found some interesting word play, and some philosophizing that seemed somewhat marijuana induced, but nothing that firmly made a distinction between the two words. If a fact is not true, then it must be false. And, if it is false, it cannot be a fact.
@OneChristianView "You see, without the presence of a Creator, there is only an impossibly long series of trillions of complete accidents and perfect mutations every day over the past couple billion years. Not possible."....Complete accidents and perfect mutations? You really have no idea what science actually says about the relevant subjects do you? Not possible? Why? Because you say it isn't? Because its too complex for YOU to understand, its therefore not possible? Oh dear...
@eyeh8u1 Yes, complete accidents and perfect mutations. If there exists no Creator, then everything is an accident. There is no other option. Either everything was created, or everything is an accident.
Mathematics says that current existence, happening by complete accident, is less probable than you jumping off of your house and successfully flying straight to the moon with out the aid of any contraption. So, yes, I read that to mean "impossible".
@OneChristianView Ohhhh I see! So while you dont argue against the theory of gravity, germ theory, heliocentric theory, the theory of electricity, magnetic theory, etc. Science has got it hopelessly and completely wrong when it comes to the theory of evolution. Or could it be that, out of all those, evolution just happens to contradict your christian world view and therefore it cant possibly be right.
@eyeh8u1 I never said "hopelessly and completely wrong". The idea of evolution does not contradict my Christian world view, at all. Basically, the idea of my position is that an unplanned, and therefore accidental, evolution was mathematically impossible. However, a planned evolution would be mathematically possible. But, if it was planned, someone had to plan it. The only logical explanation would be a creator.
@OneChristianView As for your little mathematic diatribe, evolution and the principle of natural selection are the complete opposite of chance or "accident" as you describe it. So yes, Mathematics would show that our "current existence" (ie we were created like this) is nigh impossible. Thanks for for refuting the existence of a creator. Tell you what, why don't you try and understand what you're arguing against. Until then, run along little boy, the adults are talking.
@eyeh8u1 Again, if it wasn't an accident, it had to have been planned. If natural selection isn't a complete accident, who planned it to be set in motion?
I do fully understand both what I argue against and in favor of. What's been apparent from the start, is that you clearly don't. This would be why you resort to personal attacks, and encourage me to leave the conversation.
@OneChristianView Oh and I forgot to mention. Evolutionary Biologists discarded the evolution through mutation model decades ago. If you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd know that, instead of showing up with your creationist talking points that you learned at bible camp.
@eyeh8u1 Scientists are constantly discarding models in favor of new ones. Especially the atheist scientists. One reason for that is that scientists are human, and are therefore fallible. Another reason for it is that, absent a Creator, none of the models seem to make sense under close scrutiny.
Not that it's relevant, but I've never attended Bible Camp. I have no clue what their talking points would be.
@rickrude757 Did they also pay for it to be extended beyond what they normally would have received? NO! Those that are still working have higher taxes withdrawn to cover it.
How can they claim to be mamma grizzlies and support abortion? Liberals can be so stupid. A mamma grizzly will kill to protect her young, not kill her young to protect her own selfish interests.
What about forced abortions in China? Do those women have the right to choose? If the left had any credibility they would be strongly against abortion in China if it's about "the right to choose." If telling someone they can't have an abortion is bad, telling someone they have to should be bad too. Abortion doesn't equal freedom. And abortion is also sexist. The overwhelming majority of aborted babies are female. Female abortions ordered as law by men in government. Where are you feminists?
What is the United States coming too? Liberals have to ruin everything. To bad my generation is so consumed with the left-wing media. And thinking against it would be bad. Peer pressure is alive, and not only for drugs.
@WhatsAfterThisPlace I understand where you are coming from. But lets face it. We are all human and have a price. At least we are not as bad as Mexico, for example. The question is, are we headed there?
@WhatsAfterThisPlace Liberals have a corrupt ideology and actions from the get go, so ultimately yes while corruption has ruined everything, it's liberal corruption that has done so. Not that a Republican can't ever be corrupt, but it's the exception to the rule, while with liberals it's the rule to be corrupt. Just look at whenever Obama speaks. He's lying about half of what he says trying to dress his liberal corruption as slightly conservative.
@hellomoto12354 Generally when someone talks about saltpeter they are talking about Potassium nitrate which is and oxidizer in gunpowder and a food preservative. At one time the common belief was the military was putting it in the troops food so they could not get it up if you know what I mean. There is no actual proof of this and is likely false due to all of the negative side effects from a large enough dose to get the desired results.
@GermanConquistador08 They used to use it on ships to keep the men's libetoes in check so they didn't to to homosexuallity.... for a while. They are saying they used it this time for Sara Palin's protection from a bunch of guys that would love to bang her. By making them as horny as Democrats and a tax cut.
I'm pro-choice!! (But lets be specific) I mean the choice for a woman to have sex or not. That's the womans choice. When your already pregnant your choice has already been made women!!
mindinsolitude 18 hours ago
Been staying away from youtube for some reason, glad to see your still at it. Made me smile. :)
NTW64 1 week ago
Funny they always characterize it as a "right to choose" well Choice come before actions, after the consequences, comes responsibility. A woman has 6 choices over three stages I think that's enough. Right, only animals kill their own, humans don't. Yup , we see unemployment as a economic disfranchisement, they see it AS a franchise for their voters.
carlindelco 3 weeks ago
Besides this version of Sarah Palin is much hotter than any of those Momma Grizzly's!
swstryker 3 weeks ago
The sarah Palin who did this rant....kinda painful to hear
.....but good job anyways Zoe
ForLawAndProphets 3 weeks ago
'Sarah'... what you say is oh so right on in 'Zo's video...
Theskybluelake 3 weeks ago
this is an old video.
kewldude90 3 weeks ago
Conservatives are missing a chromosome or two.
rickrude757 3 weeks ago
@rickrude757 As opposed to liberals missing a brain cell or fifty?
wormer104 3 weeks ago
It would be Great if the World was Blessed with Militant 'feminists' who could Not even get pregnant!
That would Save a Lot of Babies from being Murdered by those Evil Killers.
3martijns 3 weeks ago 13
LOL. Love it! Great imitation of Sarah.
But I think those Animals are Overgrown Mutant Rodents!
3martijns 3 weeks ago 6
Can I have a little of that saltpeter?
TheHounddog2020 3 weeks ago
I am pro life. Why? Because motherhood is a divine calling, not a life taking responsibility. Take responsibility for you actions and raise your children to do the same. A lot of pro choice women just wanna have sex without consiquences. How morally backward is that?!
realworldbycj 3 weeks ago
And - this is a terrific impersonation of La Palin.
Rondaria 3 weeks ago
Very sharp - the empowerment that comes with killing your babies. Right to the point.
Rondaria 3 weeks ago
Opposing abortion does not require religion. It only requires a bias towards life. (Yes, we do learn this from reliigon, as we learn the need to help others. For that matter, opposition to slavery was mostly from religious fanatics. But if the premise is accepted, then a perfectly good secular argument can be made.)
zvi303 3 weeks ago
@zvi303 If we accept (as the Jews did but not the Romans*) that a newborn, although different from a baby, is human, and that a reproductive cell is not, the question is - where to draw the line.
A bias towards life tells us to draw it as early as possible.
(*)See the anti-semitic tract, "On the Jew"s, of Tacitus the Roman historian. One of the things he finds weird is that Jews consider infanticide a crime.
zvi303 3 weeks ago
Liberalism is: supporting the right of your children to kill your unborn grandchildren.
augustc4 3 weeks ago
10 people got their picnic baskets swiped by Sarah Palin.
Descipleofchrist101 3 weeks ago
I hate abortion and I hate Sarah Palin
wmarcus1203 3 weeks ago
Conservatives make me sick with their obvious religious views tying in with their political views.
Hunter7023 3 weeks ago
Abortion is murder. But, to these evil people it is a choice. You do have a choice - Follow God's Law or follow the devil and commit murder.
GodFamilyCountryCorp 4 weeks ago
@GodFamilyCountryCorp Everyone is born and dies according to Gods plan. God knew when you would be born, before you were even conceived. He also knows exactly when and how you will die. This is all according to his plan for each individual human being. So, if a child is aborted, isn't that part of God's plan for that individual? And if you try to stop it, aren't you defying God's will?
eyeh8u1 4 weeks ago
@eyeh8u1 No, you are confusing Man's Will with God's Will..... God knowing everything that's going to happen doesn't change the fact that we still have agency, that one person can influence the life of another for good. God knows another is going to try and stop an abortion, thus that's in the Plan also. God doesn't want any of his children to sin. It's still a sin. The liberal doesn't like the right to self defense with guns, or killing a seal, but they will kill a baby.
leeuniverse 3 weeks ago
@eyeh8u1 Well then, I really don't understand why we should worry about getting serial killers off the streets by that logic.
traicetrak 3 weeks ago 2
Awesome. Atheism = Canannites = Pagans = sexual agenda, abortions, & all gods but God = DEMOCRATS.
worldofgrim 4 weeks ago
@worldofgrim Great post.
GodFamilyCountryCorp 4 weeks ago
@worldofgrim Hi there, I'm an atheist republican.
One's stance on religion has absolutely no bearing on their political beliefs.
The founding fathers would laugh at your comment.
antipryzm 3 weeks ago
@antipryzm Wrong. You see, you have been given an Atheist revision of history, you have been lied to. Why? Because Atheists can lie. There is no rule that says you can't lie. Our Founding Fathers believed firmly in the Bible, so much so, that Washington pledged his oath on it. So much so, that 10,000 copies were printed for schools, by the Congress. So much so that 2 official chaplains have recided in congress since Day 1... actually BEFORE. These are facts. Historical. You have been fed a lie.
worldofgrim 3 weeks ago
@worldofgrim Yeah they believed in all of that soooooo much that chose to not to have a national religion and to include freedom of and freedom from religion. Sorry, the constitution was founded on secular logic not "Judeo-Christian philosophy" Ahhh American Christians. Lying for Jesus since 1776! You guys should put that on a t--shirt and sell it at one of your hokey creation museums! You'd make a fortune!
eyeh8u1 3 weeks ago
@eyeh8u1 There is nothing in the constitution about freedom from religion. There is nothing in the first amendment that gives any rights to atheists. And in any case there is no case, the Supreme Court's fantasies about the 14th amendment notwithstanding, that would apply the Establishment clause to the States.
P.S. I am not a Christan. Go peddle your narrow-minded, irrational bigotry elsewhere.
zvi303 3 weeks ago
@zvi303
Bigotry-
"stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own."
Hey! Looks like we found something in common! :D *High Five*
Descipleofchrist101 3 weeks ago
@Descipleofchrist101 As the Talmud states, you are reliable regarding yourself only.
I am sure there are tolerant atheists out there. But somehow the bigoted ones tend to do the posting. Christianity is the majority religion in the US; how could I be intolerant of it? I'm not Christian.
Of course, I likely misunderstood you.
zvi303 3 weeks ago
@zvi303 Freedom OF religion is freedom FROM religion dumbass. And, it doesn't have to, otherwise the constitution would essentially be saying "we dont care if you dont believe in christianity as long as you subscribe to a religion." Not of this matters to you however, as your comment about the14th amendment shows your true colors as the narrow minded, bigot you accuse me of being.I take comfort in knowing that with each passing day religion and by extension, you become more and more irrelevant.
eyeh8u1 3 weeks ago
@eyeh8u1 Actually, the US is very religious. You are clearly a narrow-minded, irrational bigot, and have now descended to second-grade language. Having a differing opinion about a constitutional doctrine is only bigotry in your fevered imagination.
As I said, I know there are good, tolerant atheists out there. It is a shame that the bad apples like yourself tend to post.
zvi303 3 weeks ago
@zvi303 I never said the U.S. wasn't religious. Yeah, of course I am. I'm the one who "descended to second-grade language" after you called me a narrow-minded bigot. Way to go genius! Only bigotry in my mind? Lets see, you want the ability to force your religious views on everyone, hence your despising of the 14th amendment. and yet, I'M the bigot?
eyeh8u1 3 weeks ago
@zvi303 I, however, do not and will not tolerate religion. It has no right to be respected. It is simply not entitled to it nor are its followers. It should be mocked at every opportunity until we as a people have rid ourselves from the taint of that vile bronze age fairy tale that has done nothing but harm humanity at every step of our history. It delivers false hope, is demeaning and gives its adherents license to interpret its scripture in anyway they see fit to achieve whatever they wish.
eyeh8u1 3 weeks ago
@eyeh8u1 What about the religion of atheism that you support? You are up against 98% of the world, good luck with all your disrespect and mockery, I'm sure you'll go far. You don't even see how contradictory your statement would be if you practiced it. Even if your last sentence were true, how would that be different from atheists making up any morality they want?
1980PintoMan 3 weeks ago
@1980PintoMan Atheism is a religion? Thats like saying NOT-smoking cigarettes is an addiction. As for making up morality, sorry thats religions job. You don't know the first thing about morals other than your moronic belief that they come from "God" so don't lecture me about morals. Christians have higher rates of divorce than atheists and have higher percentages of incarceration in prison than atheists. Trust me, religion is the last entity in the world to be lecturing anyone on morals.
eyeh8u1 3 weeks ago
@eyeh8u1 A morality rant from a user with the name "I hate you". Very telling. Your unwillingness to tolerate those with opposing views shows the level of your anger and immaturity. I tolerate people of different religions and lifestyles and support their right to free speech because that's what a free society is. For all your finger-pointing about how intolerant the religious are, you are pretty intolerant yourself. You have just proven our point and ceded the moral high ground. Great job.
SSPspaz 3 weeks ago
@SSPspaz Tolerate opposing views huh? So if someone approached you and argued that murder should be legal, you would tolerate that? Too crazy? Ok, what if Buddhists or Hindus or Muslims suddenly demanded that their version of how the universe came about be a mandatory part of science class? Are going to sit there as a christian and tell me that you would tolerate that? If you did, then you sir are a liar.
eyeh8u1 3 weeks ago
@eyeh8u1 Obviously, you have no grasp on the natural human rights as outlined in many constitutions. Murdering should never be legal, regardless of your viewpoint because it deny's someone elses right to life, liberty and property. It isn't a religious issue and it's a stupid question. As for your name, the fact that you chose "I hate you", is probably a pretty good indicator as to what kind of person you are.
SSPspaz 3 weeks ago
@SSPspaz Murder is wrong? Well thank you captain obvious!! Since my post clearly flew over your head I'm thinking that you do not have the mental capacity for a proper debate. Therefore, I shall have nothing else to do with you or this thread. Once you've mastered reading comprehension perhaps we can continue at a later date. In the mean time god bless!
eyeh8u1 3 weeks ago
@eyeh8u1 Don't blame me for answering your question. You asked an intentionally ridiculous question and I provided a clearly logical answer. Sorry if that didn't meet with your approval. Nice way to cop out from having a real discussion about your intellectual dishonesty. Run along now.
SSPspaz 3 weeks ago
@SSPspaz Second, my name has nothing to do with morality. Lastly, and what I find the most laughable is how you imply that religion and its followers are "tolerant" of others view points. Religion has no tolerance for others view points and has no interest in tolerance and less of course its on the news whining about being the "victim" or how its under "attack." *sob* "Other groups want their religion to be recognized during the holidays. When will this madness end???!?!?!" *sob*
eyeh8u1 3 weeks ago
@eyeh8u1 Also, nobody said that I'm a Christian, but for the sake of the argument, let's say that I am. You once again show intolerance by making unilateral assumptions about all religious people everywhere. Of course there are tolerant and intolerant religious people just as there are tolerant and intolerant (such as yourself) atheists. If I'm a Christian, tolerance doesn't mean agreeing with everyone, it just means that what others do is their own business and I am fine with that.
SSPspaz 3 weeks ago
@eyeh8u1 The phrase "freedom of religion" means that you are free to choose any religion, or lack thereof, that you so desire. The phrase "freedom from religion" implies an encouragement to be an atheist. The two phrases do not have identical meanings.
OneChristianView 3 weeks ago
@worldofgrim Who's bible? Catholic, lutheran, protestant, puritan, anglican? Some believed in the bible, some were deist. Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Adams.. all deists firmly against religious interference in government. James Madison argued against chaplains: "Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In the strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative."
antipryzm 3 weeks ago
@antipryzm You seem to mistakenly believe that 18th century deists did not believe in the Bible. I seem to recall a paper from one of the people you mentioned about the cubit, that clearly indicates he believed the Deluge account. Please note that the seal of the US contains the eye of divine providence (conspiracy theories notwithstanding).
The greatest freethinker of them (his term) all was probably Abraham Lincoln, and his Second Inaugural reads like a Church sermon.
zvi303 3 weeks ago
@zvi303 You seem to mistakenly think that it matters. No matter what their religious conviction, they were secularists. Secularism is not in exclusion of personal religious belief.... Their personal belief was that, no matter what a person's belief in god, god had NO place in the united states government. Too many xians fail to realize that xians of different sects in those days assaulted one another.. today, its all one big happy family as long as you aren't catholic or mormon.
antipryzm 3 weeks ago
@antipryzm Well ,if your facts are wrong, your arguments are hard to accept.
No, secularism is an anti-religious religion. I agree that the US is a de jure (but not de facto) secular country, and that it does not have a religion. But this is not to say that religion has no place in shaping the laws of the country. Otherwise we would stil have slavery, among other thing. (No, I don't think that the Bible is anti-slavery. But the abolitionists did.)
zvi303 3 weeks ago
@zvi303 doesn't matter if the abolitionists thought the bible was anti-slavery, many other christians of the same period believed the bible was pro slavery.
And you're wrong about secularism, it was invented specifically to define the separation of government and religion. "Holyoake invented the term "secularism" to describe his views of promoting a social order separate from religion, without actively dismissing or criticizing religious belief."
antipryzm 3 weeks ago
@antipryzm You misunderstood my point. The point is that if religion was understood to be improper as a source of legislation, then slavery would not have been abolished for quite some time after.
We all have sources of what we consider right and wrong. To consider religion improper here is to make atheism the state religion, which is rediculous in a country as reliigous as the US.
zvi303 3 weeks ago
@antipryzm You are forgetting that before the 14h amendment and the (mistaken) doctine of inclusion, none of this applied to anything but Congress. States were free to have blasphemy laws, established chuches, religious tests, etc. In the city I lived, Baltimore, I could not have started a synagogue without swearing an oath to Jesus. So, it did not matter because the Federal constitution was not very relevant to people's lives or the laws they lived under.
zvi303 3 weeks ago
@zvi303 And yet the very constitution itself states that it is the highest law of the land.. and the first amendment of that law makes all those examples you listed unconstitutional. doesn't matter to me if no one fought them at the time, they were still as unconstitutional as 'under god' in the pledge is now.
antipryzm 3 weeks ago
@antipryzm Huh? So what? The first amendment only applies to the federal government. Read it. Your thinking is completely anachronistic.
zvi303 3 weeks ago
@zvi303 My belief is Article 6 and the 10th amendment support my opinion, but fine I'll throw you a bone.. Oh doesn't matter, the 13 original states all have religious freedom articles in their own constitutions.
antipryzm 3 weeks ago
@antipryzm (Note: God is a Proper noun, and therefore capitalized. I do not believe the messiah to be divine, but if I use it as a name, I capitalize it.)
It's the reverse. We have freedom of religion because the conservative religions realized no-one would win, and therefore they needed to leave each other alone. But the liberal religions (including atheism) try to force their theology (everything is relative, no-one has the truth, etc.) on everyone.
zvi303 3 weeks ago
@zvi303 god is not a proper noun unless its specifically being used to denote the christian diety.
atheism has as much right to "force itself" on everyone as religions do. its so hard for theists to have to deal with the innumerable arguments against the existence of any higher power, while having nothing but their trivial dogma to use in retort.
antipryzm 3 weeks ago
@antipryzm OK, you don't understand grammar either. I need to go to sleep. Feel free to continue to post your bigoted nonsense.
I could not care less what you believe. But if you are OK with the forced destruction of Judaism by the USSR, that shows a lot about you.
zvi303 3 weeks ago
@zvi303 Damnit, so close to Godwyn's Law... you couldn't have mentioned nazis instead?
No where did I ever mention violence, you did. The jews have always had it rough.. why stop at the soviets?
antipryzm 3 weeks ago
@antipryzm Aside from the entertaining stories, we also have mathematics, and the laws of probability to use in retort. It sure would be easier to be an Atheist; no rules, no one to answer to, or any of that. Unfortunately, though, Atheism just requires far to giant a leap of blind faith to truly believe in it.
OneChristianView 3 weeks ago
@OneChristianView Atheism requires a leap of... evidence, which religions lack. You have mathematics? Like the math 'proving' the world is only a couple thousand years old? Or that the sun revolves around the earth?
Atheism requires nothing more than a skeptical, logical mindset that asks questions and demands answers. Religion... well none of those apply. It requires blind, unquestioning faith. If you question it, you better beg forgiveness or you go to hell!
antipryzm 3 weeks ago
@antipryzm No, like the mathematics involved in the laws of probability. As I've pointed out to that hateful chap that keeps posting here, the millions of completely accidental perfect mutations that would have had to occur daily over the course of millions of years to get us to the state in which we are today is contrary to the laws of probability, which is math, and math is the language of science.
OneChristianView 3 weeks ago
@OneChristianView It is your personal belief that evolution would have to consist of "millions of completely accidental mutations". If it were actually a plausible theory, evolutionary scientists would believe it too. Theists seem to forget the job of scientists is to DISPROVE theories, until it can either be proven absolute or just cannot be disproven. Math is not a theory, the laws of math have been proven no matter who and where you are.
antipryzm 3 weeks ago
@antipryzm Well, most of what you just said seems to support my stance a little better than it would yours. I disagree with your view of the scientists job, though. I'd say that their job is more to objectively test theories. I never said that math is a theory; I completely agree that math is an absolute; that's probably why it's the "language" of science. It provides a solid base from which to start.
OneChristianView 3 weeks ago
@OneChristianView Do you not understand that there's a reason it is still the most espoused theory of life? That any and every single scientist that works on it would love to be the one to prove it absolutely false? It doesn't matter that they would have to find a new theory, or even say "Well maybe this god thing has merit..." Because they would be immortalized for it. The whole point is to try every possible means to prove it wrong... they haven't yet.
antipryzm 3 weeks ago
@antipryzm What's the most espoused theory of life? Evolution? Ok... I've never disputed that. My point is that the entire evolution, from absolute nothingness to the current state of life, was either an impossibly long series of completely accidental, perfect mutations, OR that the entire evolution was a planned event. There is no other reasonable option. If one accepts the latter, as I do, one must accept the existence of a Planner.
OneChristianView 3 weeks ago
@OneChristianView Completely accidental? Depends on how you define accidental. Adaption through survival is not what I would call accidental mutations. As for impossibly long series, that depends on certain things. Namely the age of the Earth, which I believe to be over 4 billion years old. Plenty of time for adaptation to take its course, when a generation of an organism could be as short as a couple minutes, or as long as a few millennia.
antipryzm 2 weeks ago
@antipryzm Accidental: Happening by chance or accident. (accident: an unplanned event)
"Adaption through survival" assumes a life in place that needs to survive. But, before that life could exist, there first had to be a place for that life to exist, and that place had to have the proper conditions to sustain life. This opens up a new string of chance events, which serves to compound the mathematical improbabilities, especially when considering the infinite complexities involved
OneChristianView 2 weeks ago
@OneChristianView what mathematical improbabilities... A billion billion planets in the universe... You keep mentioning mathematical improbabilities. What would you say the odds of life on a planet being? billion to 1? that's a billion planets in the universe with life on it. Trillion to 1? That's 1million with life.
Scientists have already discovered a couple planets in the habitable zone of their sun's orbit. No, sorry, I disagree.. it really doesn't take much for life
antipryzm 2 weeks ago
@antipryzm But there are many other factors. They have already found that many of these planets do not have life or the 22 necessary amino acids to live. Also, why are humans the only super advanced species. We use advanced speech, we have a large capacity for thinking, We can build large structures. Why are we the only ones that evolved like this? Can it all just be coincidence?
peanutman5240 1 week ago
@peanutman5240 Not the point. Point is, on a historic/cosmic scale we have just begun searching and have already found a couple dozen planets that have the basic necessities for supporting life. As for amino acids, some have been found in comets. So just because you claim none are on the planets so far found, does not mean future hz planets would not contain them. As for human reasoning.. simple, we evolved that way because it suited our survivability.
antipryzm 1 week ago
@antipryzm But wouldn't it suit all animals and their chance of survival if they had the same traits as humans. Why only us?
peanutman5240 1 week ago
@peanutman5240 Going to assume you made this statement under the assumption that man was "created in god's image". Human's survivability is based on the ability to reason and the opposable thumb, that's it. An enraged chimp would tear Brock Lesnar in half, imo. Birds have greater eye sight, dogs have better noses.. yadda yadda. If a god created man, he was drunk off his ass... if we're in his image, he's imperfect himself.
antipryzm 1 week ago
@Peterman5240 Just do a little tiny bit of research into the growth of a fetus and you will come to see that there can ONLY be a God that could possibly create a baby from two cells. Educate yourself before spouting off like you know what you are talking about... I watch the miracle of births happen quite regularly and it is not by happenstance nor by an imperfect God, but by divine appointment.
kellymacdoula 1 week ago
@kellymacdoula You do know that the science of human pregnancy has been studied for almost a century and is pretty well understood. I'm sure claiming it as a miracle from some sky being is a good way of covering your own ignorance, myself I'd rather just claim to have slept through health class and had little interest in the subject to rectify my own.
antipryzm 1 week ago
@zvi303 It boils down to the notion of Free Will, which is a very Christian concept, although it seems to have been forgotten, at least in practice, in many of today's Christian Churches.
God wanted man to follow Him of his own free will, as opposed to being forced to. If man followed God freely, it would be a sign of love. The founding documents, along with making reference to a Creator, strongly reflect the notion of Free Will.
OneChristianView 3 weeks ago
@OneChristianView Free will was a contested ideal among catholics, and one not even accepted by quite a few protestant sects. The originators of some of the more powerful non catholic sects would have a heart attack if they thought their followers believed in free will.
Just to clarify, the Declaration is not a founding document and is the one the Creator is mentioned in.
antipryzm 3 weeks ago
@antipryzm Without the concept of free will, a Christian is left with predetermination, which removes all personal meaning of life, and renders the concept of "decision" meaningless, as well. Such an idea reduces us to robots, and makes a great majority of the Bible pointless, as well.
Yes, I am well aware that it is the Declaration that makes reference to the Creator. I am also well aware that it IS, indeed, a founding document. It declares our status as an independant nation.
OneChristianView 3 weeks ago
@OneChristianView All it does is declare a separation from King George's government, and declare the 13 colonies as separate independent states. When the war was won, they wanted to make Washington king of America. The Constitution established the the US as an independent nation.
I've come to the decision that the founding fathers were all native "indians" since they used the term Creator... if they were true christians, they would've said Jesus son of God the Almighty I Am.
antipryzm 3 weeks ago
@antipryzm You say that as if separating from King George was of no consequence.
Separating from England and declaring our independence was the first step in the foundation of our nation. The Declaration of Independence is very much a founding document, in which are listed ideals that the Constitution seeks to preserve.
I suspect that the term "Creator" was used to appease Jefferson.
OneChristianView 3 weeks ago
@OneChristianView So, a modern christian admitting Jefferson wasn't a theist? Interesting. No need to appease him, he wrote it. I think we are using different standards for defining 'founding document'. The DOI is not a legal document and had nothing to do with the founding of the USA. It was the declaration that 13 of king george's colonies were seceding from the empire to form their own independent states. So, IMO, its not a founding document.
antipryzm 3 weeks ago
@antipryzm I've often heard Jefferson described as a Deist, Unitarian, or Agnostic (which are all close the same thing). I freely admit that he was not a Christian. No point in claiming that he was. The comment on appeasing him was tongue in cheek, btw.
I would suppose that you and I use different standards on a variety of topics, which is fine. While I disagree with your view that the Declaration is not a founding document, I will respect your entitlement to that viewpoint.
OneChristianView 3 weeks ago
@antipryzm Good google search! I can bust you even more. Amazing desperate Atheist coddled in liberties of Christians, to bite the hand that feeds it. You lie well. Picking little needles in the haystack of their Christian beliefs. Everyone of them went to church, Jefferson ran services on Sundays in Congress. Whose Bible? Ahhh... actually they're all very similar. Any will do, though I like the ESV & Apologetics ones... READ!!!
worldofgrim 3 weeks ago
@worldofgrim That's the thing with Bibles; I find it beneficial to review multiple translations of the Bible in order to gain a better idea of the meaning of whatever passage I am looking up. Though, I do avoid the version created by the Jehovah's Witnesses. There is no accountability in the translation.
OneChristianView 3 weeks ago
@worldofgrim As for Washington.. it was his choice to make the oath on the Bible, just like its peoples' choice to swear on a bible in a courtroom. The presidential oath does not mention god, and the 6th article in the constitution specifically prohibits religious tests for any office. the original pledge of allegiance was written by a minister, yet did not say anything about god that was added later by commie fearing mccarthyists.
antipryzm 3 weeks ago
@antipryzm
Personally, I believe that oaths of office should be sworn on a handwritten copy of the constitution and bill of rights, written down by the person taking office. Maybe the country wouldn't be in the crapper if both parties were forced to read and write the very words they're swearing to protect.
antipryzm 3 weeks ago 13
@antipryzm But then they would need to follow it exactly, which would mean not paying social security benefits, and this would be unfair to those like myself who paid into it all of their lives and will depend on it to keep from starving to death. Even Ron Paul said he wouldn't do that, so presumably he will be breaking his oath. If I were President, I would affirm.
zvi303 3 weeks ago
@antipryzm This, my Atheist friend, is something that I fully agree with. This should apply even if there swearing in for a second term. Or third. Or fourth. Etc.
OneChristianView 3 weeks ago
@antipryzm Whie I disagree with your attitude, it is true that ther constitution explicity allows affirmation instead of swearing (which would mean also no Bible and no "so help me..."); but this is because there were people (Quakers) whose religion frowned on swearing (as does mine, being Jewish).
People had good reason to fear Communists, being as they were atheist fanatics who killed 100 - 200 million people, more than all of the religions in all of history.
zvi303 3 weeks ago
@zvi303 Communists, like the imperial french, replaced religion with worship of the state. Worship is a poison that turns one human against another for nothing so much as belief without evidence.
antipryzm 3 weeks ago
I don't believe in any gods, due to a complete lack of evidence. I do believe in a republic form of government backed by free and equal humans engaging in free market capitalism to keep that republic strong... due to overwhelming evidence that supports it. I identify with the republican party, due to historical evidence showing the positive influence (most) of their positions have on american life.
antipryzm 3 weeks ago
@antipryzm OMG... you are using talking points. OMG!!! The 6th article was for fear of Baptists vs Lutherans vs Presbytarians but did you know Christians believe in tolerance and choice and limited Govt? So you Atheists think that means their non-religious!? Did you know every state Constitution even then, has 'God' in them, and that the Feds KNEW THIS. 'Blessings of liberty' what does that mean in Constitution? Thanksgiving proclamation by George Washington...LOOK IT UP. Commies hate God, yes!
worldofgrim 3 weeks ago
@worldofgrim If christians truly believed in tolerance and choice, there would not have been any need of Article 6, or the first amendment. Xians own bloody history proves you wrong. Religion poisons everything.
Commies may hate god, but atheists don't believe in it, so there's nothing to hate.
antipryzm 3 weeks ago
@antipryzm Christians do NOT commit violence AT ALL. Just because someone says they are a Christian, doesn't mean they are.
jabroni1223 3 weeks ago
@jabroni1223 So Simon Peter, the disciple of Jesus that chopped some poor guy's ear off in front of Jesus... wasn't a christian?
antipryzm 3 weeks ago
@antipryzm and what did Jesus say? did he say "Good job Peter?"
jabroni1223 3 weeks ago
@jabroni1223 Doesn't matter.. you claimed christians did not commit acts of violence, and I proved you wrong with your own god sitting witness.
antipryzm 3 weeks ago
@antipryzm Firstly, to my knowledge, Peter wasn't a Christian at the time, in fact the new testament did not exist until pentecost therefore your argument is flawed, he was learning how to be a Christian and was not exactly a Christian at that time.
jabroni1223 3 weeks ago
@jabroni1223 That's severely circular logic. Peter had just undergone THE sacrament, the very first one, with his Holiness (pun intended) himself doing the officiating. Are you telling me Peter had not been baptised in water? And had not undergone the sacrament? And did not believe Ieshua bin Ioseph was the living son of god?
Last I checked, those were what made someone a Xian, not the new testament. What about all those people who believed between the two times?
antipryzm 3 weeks ago
@antipryzm lol, pretending to know about the Bible... ACTUALLY somebody is not a Christian until they receive the Holy Ghost.
jabroni1223 3 weeks ago
@jabroni1223 I instinctively considered the same argument, but Antipryzm is correct; for all intents and purposes, Peter was a Christian at the time.
This doesn't mean that Peter was right to cut off the ear, though. You may recall that Jesus rebuked Peter.
Christians are human, as are non-Christians, and are, therefore, prone to commit sin. Peter was no exception.
OneChristianView 2 weeks ago
@antipryzm Some aniamls have better senses but unlike humans they don't have feelings or reason like we do.
peanutman5240 1 week ago
@peanutman5240 Its a pretty established fact that animals feel emotions, if you've ever owned a dog I don't see how you could claim different. As for reasoning, that's a matter of our evolution, our cousins can reason pretty well. Chimps even have limited tool use, hell even non primates can reason to an extent.
But I've already said our ability to reason and our thumbs are the only reason we're top of the chain.
antipryzm 1 week ago
@antipryzm
Actually, the very extent of our self awareness and cognitive ability exceeds all other creatures on this planet to an extent that makes your stance seem rather untenable. Seriously, why is their nothing else even remotely close? There are a number of apes that are at a similar stage of evolution but nothing even close to humans and our self awareness/cognitive ability.
alfimon 1 week ago
@worldofgrim How can atheism lead to "all gods but god?" You're not very intelligent are you?
eyeh8u1 3 weeks ago
@eyeh8u1 You worship many many MANY things, but you will never worship the one God of the Bible. You worship the god of success, of sexual liberation, of science, the god of Govt... but you will never ever worship the God, the one and only God who will have no other, the God of the Bible. You believe that unborn children should not be a burden and that marriage isn't that important, you believe Christians should not evangelize in public or have an influence in Government. You are an Atheist.
worldofgrim 3 weeks ago
@worldofgrim WOW!! Really? I believe all those things? Oh wait...I forgot the 10 commandments are more like guidelines for you guys to pick and choose and use to condemn others from your moral high horse, while not applying the same standard to yourself. Because if you did, you wouldn't have broken the 9th commandment in your last comment, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." Gosh darn it...theres that damn pesky, contradictory bible again. And you tried so hard too.
eyeh8u1 3 weeks ago
@eyeh8u1 Hey, you must know Jesus then, for he said exactly what you are saying. We are all sinners, and can never follow all the rules. So you are saying you are Pro-Life? And believe in traditional marriage only? And that Christians can speak morals as politicians in churches and govt offices as they see fit? Really? I got that wrong?
worldofgrim 3 weeks ago
@worldofgrim "you believe Christians should not evangelize in public or have an influence in Government. You are an Atheist." I'm sure those christian founding fathers you talked about, that absolutely detested the thought of religious interference in government, would be shocked to find out they're both FIRM BELIEVERS IN THE BIBLE and Atheists.
antipryzm 3 weeks ago
@antipryzm You mean the one's that started the presidential office with an oath on the Bible? That printed 10,000 copies of the Bible for schools? That declared Proclamations of Thanksgiving To God? That have had 2 official chaplains in Congress since day 1, to pray each morning???? Those Atheists?
worldofgrim 3 weeks ago
@eyeh8u1 You worship anything, ANYTHING, but the God of the Bible. You worship evolution, buddhism, Islam is a peaceful religion, movies, Lady Ga-Ga, Obama, science as ultimate truth...ANYTHING.
worldofgrim 3 weeks ago
@worldofgrim How can one worship evolution?I worship Buddhism and Islam? News to me. Sure I like movies. Don't you? Or does liking them mean worshiping them? Lady Gaga? Obama?I voted for McCain. Science doesn't deal in truth, only facts. Since obviously I dont worship physical things on Earth, why would I worship an invisible being with no evidence save for a 2,000 year old incomplete book of dubious origins written years after Jesus died and whose readers continually interpret as they see fit?
eyeh8u1 3 weeks ago
@eyeh8u1 "Science doesn't deal in truth, only facts". Contradictory statement. A fact is truth.
"... invisible being with no evidence..." The pursuit of science has provided the evidence. With out the Intelligent Design of a Creator, our existence is a mathematical impossibility. You see, without the presence of a Creator, there is only an impossibly long series of trillions of complete accidents and perfect mutations every day over the past couple billion years. Not possible.
OneChristianView 3 weeks ago
@OneChristianView The fact that you do not understand the difference between truth and fact helps explain why you so easily believe what you wrote next about creation. Science has not proven a creator. If it did, science would acknowledge it, well...real science anyway. Not creationists with made up credentials like Hovind. First you make the faulty assumption that the universe had to be created. Sorry,real science doesnt work like that. If you already know your conclusion why look for evidence?
eyeh8u1 3 weeks ago
@eyeh8u1 Provide a fact, any random fact, that is not truth. For that matter, please explain to me the difference between truth and fact. A Google search for "define fact" will show the word "truth" in the definition. Also, I did not say "Proven", I said "provided evidence". In other words, it provided convincing evidence to myself and others who have a concept of mathematical probability. You may recall that math is the language of science.
OneChristianView 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
eyeh8u1 3 weeks ago
@OneChristianView Heres a tip. Next time use at least half of your brain and search "difference between fact and truth."
eyeh8u1 3 weeks ago
@eyeh8u1 Ok. I searched that. I found some interesting word play, and some philosophizing that seemed somewhat marijuana induced, but nothing that firmly made a distinction between the two words. If a fact is not true, then it must be false. And, if it is false, it cannot be a fact.
OneChristianView 3 weeks ago
@OneChristianView "You see, without the presence of a Creator, there is only an impossibly long series of trillions of complete accidents and perfect mutations every day over the past couple billion years. Not possible."....Complete accidents and perfect mutations? You really have no idea what science actually says about the relevant subjects do you? Not possible? Why? Because you say it isn't? Because its too complex for YOU to understand, its therefore not possible? Oh dear...
eyeh8u1 3 weeks ago
@eyeh8u1 Yes, complete accidents and perfect mutations. If there exists no Creator, then everything is an accident. There is no other option. Either everything was created, or everything is an accident.
Mathematics says that current existence, happening by complete accident, is less probable than you jumping off of your house and successfully flying straight to the moon with out the aid of any contraption. So, yes, I read that to mean "impossible".
OneChristianView 3 weeks ago
@OneChristianView Ohhhh I see! So while you dont argue against the theory of gravity, germ theory, heliocentric theory, the theory of electricity, magnetic theory, etc. Science has got it hopelessly and completely wrong when it comes to the theory of evolution. Or could it be that, out of all those, evolution just happens to contradict your christian world view and therefore it cant possibly be right.
eyeh8u1 3 weeks ago
@eyeh8u1 I never said "hopelessly and completely wrong". The idea of evolution does not contradict my Christian world view, at all. Basically, the idea of my position is that an unplanned, and therefore accidental, evolution was mathematically impossible. However, a planned evolution would be mathematically possible. But, if it was planned, someone had to plan it. The only logical explanation would be a creator.
OneChristianView 3 weeks ago
@OneChristianView As for your little mathematic diatribe, evolution and the principle of natural selection are the complete opposite of chance or "accident" as you describe it. So yes, Mathematics would show that our "current existence" (ie we were created like this) is nigh impossible. Thanks for for refuting the existence of a creator. Tell you what, why don't you try and understand what you're arguing against. Until then, run along little boy, the adults are talking.
eyeh8u1 3 weeks ago
@eyeh8u1 Again, if it wasn't an accident, it had to have been planned. If natural selection isn't a complete accident, who planned it to be set in motion?
I do fully understand both what I argue against and in favor of. What's been apparent from the start, is that you clearly don't. This would be why you resort to personal attacks, and encourage me to leave the conversation.
OneChristianView 3 weeks ago
@OneChristianView Oh and I forgot to mention. Evolutionary Biologists discarded the evolution through mutation model decades ago. If you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd know that, instead of showing up with your creationist talking points that you learned at bible camp.
eyeh8u1 3 weeks ago
@eyeh8u1 Scientists are constantly discarding models in favor of new ones. Especially the atheist scientists. One reason for that is that scientists are human, and are therefore fallible. Another reason for it is that, absent a Creator, none of the models seem to make sense under close scrutiny.
Not that it's relevant, but I've never attended Bible Camp. I have no clue what their talking points would be.
OneChristianView 3 weeks ago
@bantyhenrants I totally agree talk about a sooo contradicting statement
ThingsFallApart08 4 weeks ago
Unemployment benefits is there because you've already paid into it. Damn conservatives are dumb.
rickrude757 4 weeks ago
@rickrude757 Did they also pay for it to be extended beyond what they normally would have received? NO! Those that are still working have higher taxes withdrawn to cover it.
Who sounds dumb now?
hellavadeal 4 weeks ago
@rickrude757 Well speaking of being dumb, you certainly fit the bill. Employees don't pay for Unemployent benefits, their EMPLOYER plays.
Obamination2001 4 weeks ago
awesome!!! Zo you did it again!
Sirile774 4 weeks ago
How can they claim to be mamma grizzlies and support abortion? Liberals can be so stupid. A mamma grizzly will kill to protect her young, not kill her young to protect her own selfish interests.
bantyhenrants 4 weeks ago
Both Neo-Con and Neo-Liberals are ridiculous. Need proof, look at this video then go watch MSNBC.
Joe11Blue 4 weeks ago
@Joe11Blue what you just stated made no since... As a matter of fact, I just wasted my time responding to you.
regdawgformerusmc 4 weeks ago
@regdawgformerusmc That's great. Should I be concerned with you not understanding something?
Joe11Blue 4 weeks ago
Liberal females are just life support for a vagina.
NAGGERNUTZ 4 weeks ago 19
I've missed new Zonation episodes!
CarpeMetus 4 weeks ago
wow
Belo118 4 weeks ago
Hi Zo, always making funsense!
tosstorm 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What about forced abortions in China? Do those women have the right to choose? If the left had any credibility they would be strongly against abortion in China if it's about "the right to choose." If telling someone they can't have an abortion is bad, telling someone they have to should be bad too. Abortion doesn't equal freedom. And abortion is also sexist. The overwhelming majority of aborted babies are female. Female abortions ordered as law by men in government. Where are you feminists?
chuck3668831 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
chuck3668831 4 weeks ago
I wonder if she can see the moon from her house.......
MWJEFF1 4 weeks ago
I gotta say I like Sarah Palin. I hate abortion. But when it comes to liberals eating their young, I'm not apposed to the idea !
hobo59 4 weeks ago 20
YYEEESS sir you got that right !! Who the hell would be dum enought to breed with them Great vid LOL LOL
RoflmaoAtSheepeople 4 weeks ago
What is the United States coming too? Liberals have to ruin everything. To bad my generation is so consumed with the left-wing media. And thinking against it would be bad. Peer pressure is alive, and not only for drugs.
stermister123 4 weeks ago
@stermister123 lol liberals ruined everything? CORRUPTION in our government ruined everything.
WhatsAfterThisPlace 4 weeks ago
@WhatsAfterThisPlace I understand where you are coming from. But lets face it. We are all human and have a price. At least we are not as bad as Mexico, for example. The question is, are we headed there?
stermister123 4 weeks ago
@WhatsAfterThisPlace Where there is corruption there is statism. Take the power and money out of D.C. and there will be nothing to lobby for.
fizzingwhizbeee 4 weeks ago
@WhatsAfterThisPlace Liberals have a corrupt ideology and actions from the get go, so ultimately yes while corruption has ruined everything, it's liberal corruption that has done so. Not that a Republican can't ever be corrupt, but it's the exception to the rule, while with liberals it's the rule to be corrupt. Just look at whenever Obama speaks. He's lying about half of what he says trying to dress his liberal corruption as slightly conservative.
leeuniverse 4 weeks ago
Ewoks need to die...
arivas713 4 weeks ago
What a would do to that woman in red.......oh boy.
BulldogsRule12 4 weeks ago
Saltpeter? I'm confused.
GermanConquistador08 4 weeks ago
@GermanConquistador08 Saltpeter is Sodium nitrate, the stuff that's in fertilizer and in explosives
hellomoto12354 4 weeks ago
@hellomoto12354 Generally when someone talks about saltpeter they are talking about Potassium nitrate which is and oxidizer in gunpowder and a food preservative. At one time the common belief was the military was putting it in the troops food so they could not get it up if you know what I mean. There is no actual proof of this and is likely false due to all of the negative side effects from a large enough dose to get the desired results.
srtowner 4 weeks ago
@GermanConquistador08 They used to use it on ships to keep the men's libetoes in check so they didn't to to homosexuallity.... for a while. They are saying they used it this time for Sara Palin's protection from a bunch of guys that would love to bang her. By making them as horny as Democrats and a tax cut.
TheHortond 4 weeks ago
this is good :D
SupaNami 4 weeks ago
this is good :D
SupaNami 4 weeks ago
Pretty good Zo, thanks.
penguinistas 4 weeks ago
loved the bear trap joke!
jesusmetal92107 4 weeks ago
you know what, fuck all these furry feminists,they need to shave,
quasimoto270 4 weeks ago
cool
belovedgirltoHim 4 weeks ago