Not at all. There are people who have the skills to do well at their intended career before even graduating High School, AND there are people who won't need Higher Education for the career they want: like for those going to the military (There is can HELP but you don't NEED to go necessarily)

And I don't think everybody has the opportunity to go, nor the drive.

I think that Post-High School education is almost needed these days though... in order to get your foot int eh door with most companies...

But it's not for everybody.

? That SO didn't help to refute the statement...

First of all: believing in something for reassurance isn't a question of intelligence more than a question of either how courageous they are, or how self-encouraging.

Second: It's hard to measure intelligence really. It's based too much on how much on many things.

Third: Intelligence however can include the ability to think abstractly Christians certainly are thinking abstractedly if your ides of God not existing are correct, AND emotional intelligence is also a part of it, and religion also has a bit part int he emotional attachment.

Forth: there is such a thing as an idiot atheist... I've met em.

Just sayin.

NAH! XD I think that it's just a joke really. There are some people wh you just happen to disagree with all the time, but I think that debate shouldn't CAUSE enemies: GOOD debate should help to bring two minds together, or even just help both sides understand both issues: seeing things better.

??? <__< Meh.

Although I can see where you're coming from, I actually don't mean it in a way to say I even want them separate:

I'm more stating why the heck they would WANT it period, and giving a way to make it easier 9___9

(If They WANT to get married then fine! Not my issue anyway XD)

But meh. Foot in my mouth on that one.

Everyone is deemed trolled these days: the problem is, sometimes it's understandable as there actually ARE many of them o__o

But not everyone who disagrees, argues, insults, or etc are trolls XD

Nah. I'm too selfish and possessive to share the person I love with someone else. It also tends to cause a lot of drama.

There was also how it used to be only acceptable for MEN to marry several women. It would be better if both sex could marry other people equally...

But in general: No. I personally wouldn't like the idea of sharing someone who should be devoting himself to me.

Nope. Some people deserve to be trolled if they keep feeding them.

They're only a bother when it comes to spamming regular people who realize them for what they are. I personally don't care if you're a troll or not, or if someone is trolling you: just keep it out of my face so I can find what I need >_<

But yeah: if you are weak enough to get trolled: Seeing as people learn from experience, you sorta need to learn how to deal with people who try to get under your skin. Otherwise you can't function in many situations. And Better on the internet than in real life.

Yes, I am evil.

I love myself enough to think that everyone who disturbs my peace with their trifling opinion and even existence should be stomped out and buried in whatever way I see fit.

I enjoy seeing others in a fit of chaos; upset and uppity and bothered by frustration and misunderstanding. Fear as well.

I laugh at the pain of others, especially if I am the one causing it.

If I deem you unworthy by my own standards, you becoming nothing more than a fly to be swatted when I so choose to smite you.

Pity is not my forte.

I don't give a d@#% about your pain, your needs, your history, your suffering as long as my ideals are met. If not you aren't worth thinking of.

Of course; I am evil.

However, I try my best to change it:

I rather be someone 'nice' or 'kind' than cruel and sadistic.

And for the most part, I appear to be :)

But I wonder: is it the actions that count?

Or the thoughts?

I think that answering to stupidity is stupid in itself.

The definition of stupid is:

Characterized by or proceeding from mental dullness; foolish; senseless: a stupid question.

Or

Tediously dull, especially due to lack of meaning or sense; inane; pointless

More on the side of pointless, senseless, and foolish is stooping down to someone's level.

You're basically telling them that they have the power to anger you, which is senseless.

It is pointless because, if you retaliate you don't exactly GAIN anything seeing as the people around you now know about your pettiness and vindictiveness; which is also foolish seeing as you aren't thinking things completely through, like how it is going to effect your image.

That is all.

Yeah: In scripture God does give those he put in power the ability to judge the people <__<: I think Death penalty is included: especially as also in scripture the community was given stoning rights for even petty crimes...

Yup. I think the death penalty is needed sometimes to keep people from doing the crime again, as well as scaring anybody else who gets the same ideas. I think people actually take lightly the crimes they commit because of how prison LOOKS like it's not a big deal, and the punishment sounds rather weak(weaker than it really is of course: as prison actually IS bad: people just don't seem to think so anymore)

Agreed. Otherwise it just shows they are too judgmental of their own members, and therefore hypocritical, as everyone DOES sin and no sin is greater or less than another. (The ideas that they have around sin already perplex me though: I never got how they believed that one can simply be prayed into heaven, or that their sins can just be erased by doing community service XD

But I DO agree that pick-and-mix religions are wrong at the foundation...

If you're going to use the title of a religion you need to commit yourself FULLY to it; the good and the bad. Otherwise it shows that the person is two-faced, and weak. <__< I wonder what arguments I shall get for this one

I am saying that there is a difference between reading the Bible and actually being a Christian:

Christians are SUPPOSED to read the Bible, and keep it: but reading the Bible and keeping it isn't what makes people a Christian.

It's the difference between studying the law and becoming a lawyer, or taking a science class and actually being a scientist.

That is what I'm saying.

But the main example I'm trying to put is how some people call themselves Christians because they read the Bible, but they aren't Christian because they don't believe in Christ.

Um... doesn't that mean that you're tagged as the wrong category then?

Nah: they're adding more patronage to the site: they just wont get any takers :)

<__< Although it might also depend on the dating site and how the people meet... if it's blind dating I might say yes .__.

And yeah... I hope people realize that being a Christian and following the Bible word for word are not the same thing, especially in certain Christian denominations.

Being a Christian as the name implies is about believing in Jesus Christ being the son of God and dying for out sins. Otherwise; there is not CHRIST in Christians. That would pretty much just make them theist of some other sort.

Um the commandment is "Thou Shalt Not Kill." Not "Thou shall not murder only!!"

shrug This opens up another argument about their killing other things but yeah.

Hmph. Unless you are saying them should stop campaigning ONLY because of their beliefs I would agree with you. But why should Christians be the only one to shut up? Not every christian is against abortion, and not every anti-abortionist/pro-lifer has their opinions on it based on their religion either.

I know I don't.

People have every right to form their opinions on something, just like others have the right to support something.

O__O I actually find it weird myself. I can understand sex not being shown to children because they'd get ideas in their head and we'd end up with more teen pregnancies. But I don't know exactly why torture is more acceptable. I guess because it's less realistic of someone trying torture? I guess because people know that torture has more painful consequences?

Idk..

I have my suspicions and I think she DID do it.

I can't see how a single mother could be partying when her only child is missing, and make up so many lies even to her parents who you'd THINK she would tell if she wanted to know where her child was. I also find it too suspicious of her moving out in the days after, having someone search on her computer how to kill someone, and her car being found with the stench of carcass.

It may be more subjective of evidence, but I think that ti was also how the prosecution never gave explanation of exactly what happened. I also am too suspicious of her lying about her father pretending it was an accident.

It's all too much to be coincidental

Umm to the question: I rather have a dead cow :|

I simply don't like the veggie foods. I've tried it all before, and I really just don't like it.

It's good that it's being more accepted though.

I agree with this actually:

as many friends as I've had that are non-christian, I only ever have had arguments with atheists ^^;

My Hindu, Muslim and Buddhist friends never seemed to care about my faith as long as I wasn't pushing it down their throat :o

Although it is very true that Christians can be from bad to worse sometimes, I actually perceive atheists as jerks when they call me a christfag for arguing against something even without even mentioning my religious beliefs. Although, it goes further than that: a lot of atheists I argue with automatically tell me that anything I say is invalid simply for believing in something they do not, and being ganged up on by a bunch of them several times in debates having nothing to do with religion is not exactly a peaceful look.

I'm all for thinking critically about something so important like religion. But if I'm going to be deemed a Bible-thumper or a Jesus-dicker for saying "I disagree because ___" then it's a problem of not being able to share my own opinion due to the oppression so many of them claim to be against.

But while I will agree it's not all of them: I'm just trying to if it's as much a majority as I think it is.

If Judaism is the real religion, then I would go to hell. If Buddhism or Hinduisim is correct then I'll just come back again, and I'm sure I'll still be well off because. of trying to be good in 'this life'. If Islam is correct: I'm going to hell seeing as I'll be an infidel to them. If Janism is true, I'm sure I'll be fine as I'm a relatively peaceful soul in real life. If Bahai is true, I'm sure I'll be fine, and if Confucianism, Daoisim, and the like are correct I will still be fine.

And XD I didn't say I choose the religion because of the afterlife: I'm asking why it matters in the end for people to argue about the beliefs being deemed wrong in their eyes.

1) And yet, half the people here were talking about how it's the woman's choice ONLY. The argument people ALWAYS make are that it's "the woman's body."

Interesting.

2) I actually can't agree with this. Rape is more iffy of course, but I don't think the child should have revenge taken out on them for being raped. The father who raped the women should suffer: not the child.

I somewhat understand that point, but I don't think it makes anything right.

I also think incest isn't much of a reason (Unless you're talking about the pedophillia related incest...) unless the women is AGAIN needing it for medical reasons. But consensual incest shouldn't equal death.

I don't condone incest, but it's a lesser evil to other things.

3) I can understand it if the baby has a deformity that WILL actually hurt them in the future.

5) the others; not much to argue I guess.

They can have sex, but they must be prepared to deal with the result of it. Since when was sex the only thing that kept together a marriage? The purpose of marriage is to start a family, which includes supporting each other in BOTH good times and BAD. If you aren't trying to start a family then GTFO :)

A childless couple isn't acting irresponsibly if they are prepared to take responsibility if they have sex.

Actually: I came up with my opinions of Abortion without the help of religion. I researched the topic independently, and tried to learn every angle that I could from BOTH sides. I'm pro-life in the definition of I think that every person should have equal opportunity to live, and that people should give the life as much chance to live as possible.

I think abortions that are NOT based on betterment for the woman or baby's health is wrong.

Why should eliminating someone's chance at life be an option just because it's CONVENIENT for the woman?

I care about all people in general having the chance to life their life to the fullest.

Not what people in the Bible said about it.

And abortion only prevents a child from being a 'bother' to their parents (unless it's for medical reasons). The parents decided to have sex knowing FULL WELL that they had the risk of having a child. But once they are met with the result of sex they want to bail out because they don't want to be inconvenienced with something THEY MADE.

If people are going to choose to do something, they need to take responsibility for their actions.

That's funny: she was so keen on 'evicting' when she had someone's dick up inside her C:

Arguments that say "Cause and Effect don't matter if you don't like it" are also ludicrous. The very purpose of sex IS to have children. That is fact.

I love how people like using things with no regard for the CONSEQUENCES and as soon as they are faced with the consequences they decide to take the easy way out. It's the same thing with people who abuse alcohol.

You get drunk: The result is a hangover.

That's science.

You CHOSE to get drunk.

You also CHOOSE to risk the hangover.

If you can't handle consequences, then don't act on the cause!

Abortion:

When life becomes subjective, and a killing an option.

Since when is it acceptable for people say that because it's not 'quite human' we can just do whatever the heck we want with it?

The logic of something needing to PROVE that it has a right to live is just sick. Why is it that we get to define when it's okay to exterminate something?

Why is it okay to kill an unborn child, period? It might be understandable in some situations, but it doesn't make the choice RIGHT.

I LOVE how a person can go to jail for killing their household pets, but then it's suddenly perfectly okay to kill an unborn child because it hasn't met someone's standards of "It deserves to livee~"

I can support a person's decision on the matter when it is completely necessary, but all the people who think abortion is all right and good is just sick :/

Abortion in general is wrong in the sense of life being erased. It may be less so if it's for a valid reason like health. But I think that abortions made for more reasons than that is the result of selfishness usually...

Yes. Jesus became a human. He was born as a human with God's spirit. <__<

I agree with this >__<

I'm friggin tired of Christian people actually doing the exact OPPOSITE of what Jesus said in the lords name.

I really hope that other people realize that not all Christians are like this...

I thought he said define it by your OWN standards, not someone else's?

Meh; of course there are exceptions, and of course the view is not complete. I realize that it's a multifactorial situation.

1) I should have added that the IF you are single. IF you are single period,then it would be harder for the mother. It's not at all uncommon for a couple to break up after having a child; I was simply commenting on this occurrence more than I was on the other occurrence.

2) I didn't say that you HAD to be a teenager or poor to have a child out of wedlock; I was referring to IF YOU ARE.

3) The differences are however, that you sorta NEED to go outside; sex isn't a necessity. You CAN get hurt anywhere, and there are risks for everything, yes. However it's different being unable to avoid risk and actually running headlong into it.

The analogy for having sex if you aren't prepared for it is closer to going outside and running into a busy highway and not expecting to be hit because you're wearing a padded suit. <__<

4) o__o I didn't say those listening to it have a lack of intelligence. People have preferences in what they like to listen to. The people WRITING the lyrics that show a lack of intelligence however have another story. XD If ignorance/stupidity is the only/major thing to come out of somebody's brain it's an indication of their intelligence.

I think I also mean in quality something more along the lines of wholesome sorry. For example: music that condones violence, illegal drugs, and lack of responsibility for actions (Blame it). Those would be things that a parent should teach their children about avoiding <__<

Huge argument is huge.

But yes: God can. I call it benevolent when a person gives up their own SON to save a bunch of people who betrayed him before. Because that IS what the first sin was: Adam and Eve decided to side with the Devil, then tried to hide the fact they did it from him.

Their betrayal separated them from God, which was/is hell enough, as well as caused them to deserve the punishment of hell.

And yet, despite it God sent Jesus to die for the very people who'd betrayed him just so he could save their nasty behinds.

It isn't very hard to get.

And I really love how a person cannot comment on here about their beliefs without the rift-raft showing that they are ignorant and bigoted :)

Thanks for being another stereotypical atheist, people.

You're pretty up what sin is. The problem of sin is that it does not only add up to couple of petty offenses. The problem of sin is what those petty offenses are an indication of what's really evil. The evil people of our world are an example of what sin REALLY is when you let it get out of control:

Hitler was murdering groups people. When he was a kid it looked like the general 'innocent' lying and stealing, but look what happened when he grew up?

That's the type of evil that all sin is.

Thank God that the majority of people actually have a WANT to be good: but imagine if we didn't have the standards of __ is wrong?

That neighbor who was just peeking one day would end up raping his neighbor the next week. This isn't a very uncommon occurrence is there? It happens on the news all the time.

The swearing at your parents when you were a kid was just mild rebellion: but what happens when one day that kid lets all his rage and indifference for his parents consume him? Kids kill their own parents all the time too.

That lying about your lovers whatever looked all nice and innocent then: but what happens when you start lying about sleeping that that other person? So many situations can sprout out of that type of deceit: STDs, pregnancy?

But it all looked all nice and petty and natural when you first started talking about it. But people don't realize that sin itself looks more innocent than it actually turns out to be.

But I love how people like to think that a 'lesser evil' argument works: becasue evil itself isn't evil period: it comes in LEVELS of evil.

And so no: it actually doesn't create a lottery: at some point everyone WILL have a point where they decide what they believe in, which is what the Christians now are supposed to be doing: making sure the word DOES get to other people.

It only included hell becasue of people who introduced themselves to sin. Hell was made for the Devil to punish him for HIS sin: the humans actually exposed themselves to it though by disobeying God. God had actually created the garden of Eden for humans to stay before the first sin, and that's what started our path to hell: human nature. Heaven is ACTUALLY a second chance for people to redeem themselves. it now up to people to choose to redeem them self or not.

Actually everybody DOES at some point come across Christianity. It doesn't matter how; they still will at some point in their life have that opportunity. (Except for babies that die before, although it's thought that he has a place for them.)

Yes. He can't save people who will reject them becasue they will be covered in sin, and God is not compatible with sin. But you can't say he's still not benevolent becasue even despite that he gave up his very SON so that we could have a way to escape sin and hell.

I think that stupid teenagers and even older women who decided to have sex when they KNEW they couldn't afford a baby should be restricted from it unless there is a medical problem with the mother.

It shouldn't be banned, but restricted to ONLY the women who really need it for something like Medical purposes.

You aren't EVEN being attacked for believing in Christ. You're being attacked for attacking others instead of show the love and kindness that you SHOULD be showing other people if you really are one of God's disciples. Stop representing Christians are hateful and bigoted jerks. I'm really tired of being put in the same boat as Christian jerks who can't accept other people.

You want to know the real reason atheists attack us? Because we've been attacking them for hundreds of years. 9__9. Buddhists are very peaceful people unlike the christian majority. That's why.

Umm... why is that the only point you seem able to get across in this argument .__.

You DO realize that Sex is defined differently be different people right? There is not real definition of it since everyone really does have different ideas of morality when it comes to sex.

They are entitled to think that it isn't and to them it wont be. But you trying to attack them for their OPINION is morally wrong by Christian standards you know?

Are you not to show love to your neighbor? They why are you attacking him and jumping down his through for an OPINION. You aren't going to get anybody to think more of you with bad behavior, and God doesn't like his children acting heinous to other people. Do you really think that Jesus would be doing what you're doing? Jumping down somebody's throat for SPEAKING?

No, he wouldn't. He would be ashamed for your hypocrisy.

It's fine that you disagree, but your turning the disagreement into nothing more than an attack.

Instead of dragging this out simply say what you NEED to say and stop trying to mock people for revenge on arguing with your views in the first place.

If vengeance is God's then you shouldn't even have to resort to this pettiness.

Not faith~~ <__< Faith is literally something that you can't mix science in with XD

cough You do realize that the definition of sex is subjective right??

It mean different things to different people.

but in general: if you can get an STI then it would be sex.

Just the fact you are making yourself vulnerable enough to get infected with something.

Oral is really only there so people can feel better about doing it XD

"Look into your heart! You know it to be true!" -Darth Vader

1) I actually think it's part that as well as how people don't really respect the idea of making a commitment. There ARE some exceptions of course but in marriages, people wont fight for it; if they go through ANY type of season of trouble they bail out, OR they have the grass is greener mentality, and see that becasue their marriage isn't as glamorous as they though they bail out again to find something better.

2) The problem of out of wedlock children is how the Mother would have a much harder time raising the child by itself. Especially if she was a teen. At least when you have a father who is (supposed to be as marriage doesn't mean this very much anymore) obligated to stay no matter what, it's easier for the mother to take care of the child. There is also how when out of wedlock you have problems like not being able to support a baby, again especially when it's a teen mom.

It's just not a very stable position for a family.

3) It only becomes a problem, I think, when people start dropping baby's everywhere when they KNOW they aren't ready for a child. The problem with being 'careful' is that it isn't 100%. If you know you can't handle a kid, then really you shouldn't be giving yourself the risk at all right?

4) Agreed. and ewww on the next one,

5) The parents are probably working becasue they had the teen when they were too young to handle them without an extra job.

That or they're just in the other room, unaware of what's going on behind their backs.

6) Meh. I partly agree with this: I only think the producers should have QUALITY music. It's insulting to the original musicians in the last centuries... as well as my human intelligence -__-

7) Not commenting on the hero worship of celebrities. I already thing celebrities shouldn't be making as much money: that money should be going to our TEACHERS, POLICE, and MILITARY OFFICERS. People who actually GIVE BACK. Not some stupid perverted idiot who's just going to waste it on crap.

8) Umm... ewww but this >__<

They just letting their children get ready to be hookers ,__,

9) Parents really should be more interested in teaching their children about FINDING the quality stuff. Or just teaching them basic life skills... like writing a check?

10) Meh. Everyone has a different idea of what sex is. I think that as long as you can get an STI then it's sex. I guess becasue of the idea that in sex you're making yourself vulnerable, so you need to be careful of what sexual activities you're doing. Therefore, by my definition Oral is sex. You can get an STD from it.