No, you're right, a little persecution here and there, a dash of police brutality, hate mail, and death threats, nothing to worry about. It's all good, we can ignore it.

they aren't going to settle for the lesser preferred gender just because of a bit of persecution.

You're right, actually, quite a few people resort to suicide.

You're just saying "clearly" to make it sound like there's one side to this argument. Clearly there are two.

"yes it is clearly wrong if a baby is created solely for the purpose of science. a baby is a human- and although they cannot speak and tell you how they feel, they clearly have feelings- not only physical needs but a natural born need to feel love and affection from a mother."

It may be wrong from your moral standpoint, but what if the research that fetus is involved in goes on to save millions of lives in developing an HIV vaccine, and the only way that could have happened was through stem cell research? Are millions of people worth more than one child when the world is full of orphans needing clean water and enough food?

It seems selfish to me to say that crucial moments in the history of scientific development need to be stopped for the needs of a new child, which do not clearly have feelings, as you have so aptly cited. Have you ever been inside a child's brain to know what they feel?

How is the Christian god different from the Jewish god or Islamic god?

Let me answer that for you: they're supposed to be the same person. This verse from this book in particular may be referring to Christians, but what's this debate about again? Oh, right, THE BIBLE.

I see what you're saying, that everything abides by a set of laws at a higher level, and there seems to be a semblance of rationality there.

However, the pool analogy isn't relevant. And here's why:

If you give a pool ball the same input for two shots, choose the same angle, same force, spin, etc., you will have the same result.

If you ask a human to make a choice twice, will they come up with the same answer twice? It's possible, or even likely, but humans, dogs, animals, and any other sentient beings have the free will to act within their own system. They can make decisions rationally, weighing outcomes, and make a decision. So, they might answer the same twice, but that does not exclude the possibility that they could have or would have chosen differently.

I'm not saying humans are this super special magical master breed where laws don't apply, but if humans don't have the ability to do what they want, then why do they?

"While claiming that free-will somehow doesn't separate man from cause and effect, an essential characteristic of god(s) and other super rational entities in most conceptions of them. This is where free will is absurd in its implications, humans are not super natural entities."

So you're saying the only thing that can have free will is God because that's what most people think a god is? I don't understand.

I'm new here, and I figured that out pretty quickly. His profile picture gave him away.

He who hath no argument garners no respect. He who lies and speaks foul of a fellow man garners no respect.

What the hell are you even rambling on about now? There's nothing in their argument history that remotely mentions anything like any of what you're trying to say.

You didn't think I would actually check out their profiles here, did you?

They seem pretty rational and level headed to me. I see no mention of them having intentions to kill people that don't believe what they do.

Not sure if troll...

A pool ball does not "decide" anything; however, user input, geometry, and physics control predestined motions and actions for the pool ball, determining where it goes on the table. Applying the same cookie-cutter, clear-cut arguments with human existence and emotions is patently absurd and lacking in depth and forethought, as everyone makes their own choices, and is different.

BTW, I'll be going on a nude killing spree soon, so if you want me to stop by, just send me a message. I wasn't planning on it, although I chose to join this website of my own free will, I chose to pick up this argument of my own free will ,and I chose to respond to your comment of my own free will.

I believe you have superficial mistaken for another word. I find this argument:

" To suggest otherwise is to say that humans are super-natural and little gods not connected to cause and effect."

quite lacking of anything more than superficial conjecture. If you wanted to make a statement and call me superficial, don't "put anything simply," like you did in the next sentence:

"To put it simply, your analysis is superficial and a more indepth one will lead you to reject the existence of free will. "

How? Why? Where's your proof? I gave you examples of my free will and choices, where are yours? You don't seem to get the idea of a "debate," where you need evidence to back up your claims.

" the evidence for it is lacking and the definition absurd in its implications."

Once again, back up your claims! You haven't provided a single reason for me to believe you're anything more than one who does not understand what they're talking about, and trying to cover that up with poor formatting, hiding your real arguments, and making me dig for facts, eventually leading to a thought overload.

I highly, highly doubt they would actually pick up a gun and shoot anyone for not not believing in a god.

Where are these militant atheists that are bashing God? I don't hate what I don't believe in, how can you?

I think it's merely pointing out that the Judeo-Christian God is kind of an asshole in the Old Testament, which is pretty clearly evident.

It's like telling someone who believes unicorns are real that unicorns breathe fire and kill everything they come into contact with, when, from an objective viewpoint, that's what the unicorn is doing.

It's merely another side to a debate that shouldn't happen in the first place.

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make now. I don't know of anyone dumb enough to try and prove the non-existence of something. Proving a negative is well, impossible. You prove in positives.

I don't think they should be removed, but I think they're ridiculous when you obviously don't need facilities like that.

TAX THEM JUST LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE. NO EXEMPTIONS.

I must say I'm mortified by this part:

" being gay yes is a sin and also looking at another woman while married is a sin. we all should go to hell for are sins and die a horrible death."

Yeah, Macs are extremely versatile, while being able to run multiple operating systems with the new Intel-based Macs. There's a bit of a learning curve, but the functionality and ease of use, along with the fool-proofness is pretty astounding.

Immune to viruses (not Trojans), you can't quit Finder (Explorer in Windows), and everything is designed to work together, so there are no compatibility issues.

Why do atheists prove that God didn't exist? They're not the ones making the claims that supernatural, all powerful beings exist.

Atheists tend to take the Bible literally because it is supposed to be THE BOOK. The book that Christians get their morals from, the book that they worship.

Now, if you take one part of the Bible saying that Jesus loves everyone from the New Testament, and you take one part of the Bible saying homosexuals need to be put to death, and you look at it from an objective point of view, it seems a bit absurd on the surface.

How can you say that this part counts and not that? If biblical teachings were law (especially OT ones), there would be chaos, murder, rape, etc. You could rape a virgin and then give her father 50 pieces of silver for her hand in marriage.

Many Christians believe that their God and Jesus are this benevolent being, and that all they do is for a purpose. The Bible they claim to worship says differently. If you take a look at the OT god, he looks like someone who deals out punishment because it's fun, and not good for the human race. It's illogical to claim belief and ignore half the shit that your religion is supposed to be founded on.

You also chose to dispute that comment, another exhibition of your free will. Now, you may have felt inclined to do so because they were asking a question, but you didn't have to.

" We're equally subject to our influences as balls on a pool table."

That's like saying a human has their whole life planned out for them, which is a completely ridiculous idea.

However, that's not to say that our influences, rather our upbringing can cause us to have certain preferences or tend to lean a certain way. Ultimately, one can choose to break free from that.