Science makes claims of string theory and parallel universe; that is just as spiritual as any book.
Those are just two different theories, science itself has achieved so much more than religion could ever do. If the world were wiped out right now, and every human died off as well as every shred of humanity, when civilization rebuilds, science will be rediscovered, while Christianity will not. This is because we can prove science, while religion is just a belief with no factual evidence whatsoever. There is no shred of evidence whatsoever to prove Christianity; the shroud or Turin and many others like it are proven falsities.
A little hypocritical huh?
I'm sorry, but I honestly think if you're really trying to say I'm hypocritical then you must have some sort of disability. You believe in a man in the sky, with no proof to back him up, who killed around 25 million humans according to his book, in which several falsities exist such as the bat, which we know is not a bird. It's all a lie, it's no more intelligent than Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny.
Stop right there, give me a form of accurate dating test that can get behind 10000 years and I will believe you.
Key word being accurate I'm guessing. I could name many, although you'll just shoot them down for being "inaccurate". Fossils, including those of homo erectus and homo neanderthalensis, the dinosaurs, various forms of geography such as Canada's Appalachian mountains, which have slowly eroded away over the millions of years, the fact that corals have been growing at the coral reef for 25 million years and that their structures have existed for at least 600,000 years. Simple facts like this. Want me to go further? Fission track dating, carbon dating, amber from sap, layers of ice, craters, and so forth. I could go on all day.
I never said it was safer, I am just equating the Big Bang and any religious belief.
It's a theory, yes, but so is gravity. Is gravity also a huge lie? We might as well compare gravity to a religious belief, because it's also a theory.
Everytime you find a flaw, an apologist who actually has legitimate credentials gives an explanation.
Explain the Bible's self-contradiction. Such as Genesis 32:30, which states, “…for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” However, John 1:18 states, “No man hath seen God at any time…”. This is just one of many featured within the book.
As I am an atheist, I will try and answer this in a neutral perspective; God doesn't help everyone because he's an asshole. Let's go back to the scriptures and point out some instances in which God did not bother to help at all:
Genesis, 17:14 "And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant."
A boy who is not circumcised should be cut off from his community according to God. A rather fair punishment for a child who did not do anything wrong. Despite the fact that it was the child's parents' faults for this "sin", the child is apparently the one to be punished by God because he simply doesn't care about the child.
Genesis 19:26 "But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt."
In an angry rage, God murdered everyone and everything in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah with the exception of Lot and his family. Despite how everything they've ever known, owned and met is now being burned alive, God says not to look back. His wife does look back, and she is instantly killed. Now, would a helpful God really impose this on a family? He spared the family, but not anything else, and then murdered Lot's wife over such a small deed? I do not think God helped Lot in this case, or his children for that matter, or everyone else that was just burned alive. He may have spared their lives, but as he has just destroyed everything they've owned and loved, and now the childrens' own mother, I am not willing to believe he helped them very much.
Leviticus 19:31 "Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God."
God commanding his people not to be around wizards and people with familiar spirits, showing just one of many groups of people he refuses to help.
Numbers 16:32 "And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods."
For having a different view and not wanting to follow Moses, Korah, his men and their families, as well as everything they own are swallowed up by the Earth. Very helpful to Korah, isn't God? In other words, "do not disobey your government's every orders".
Numbers 25:16-17 "And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Vex the Midianites, and smite them"
Yet another group of people God refuses to help.
Joshua 11:21 "And at that time came Joshua, and cut off the Anakims from the mountains, from Hebron, from Debir, from Anab, and from all the mountains of Judah, and from all the mountains of Israel: Joshua destroyed them utterly with their cities."
Joshua, with God's permission, goes on a killing spree with his men and destroys four different groups of people, all of which were not spared because God did not favor them. They may have sinned, however I doubt that every single person, including women and children, were needful of a horrific and painful death at the hands of a "loving God".
As you can see from the above scriptures, God has been excluding people from his love and assistance from the times of the book itself. I may have only been using Old Testament scriptures, however as they are from the same story, it shouldn't matter. This is just to prove that God doesn't help everyone and will never, and only helps those he favors. Through all the bloodshed and killings, we can see God's true unhelpful intentions towards others.
Science has never tested the parameters of God because it is a spiritual belief backed-up by only a single book (or more depending on your beliefs). There is no science involved with the Bible, only pseudoscience at best.
Considering we've got this far and we now know that the universe is quite a bit older than 6000 years, I think your argument on how it's a safer bet to belief in God is flawed, as we have been able to point out a large amount of flaws hidden within the various spiritual books.
While cartridges cost more to make, I believe they are better. A cartridge can't break as easily as a disc can, and they (at least in the 90's) had very few problems with load times when compared to rivaling systems. A cartridge also varies per system, creating a new design mold per console, allowing the games to be easily differentiated. You can tell a Genesis game from behind easier than trying to tell a PS1 game from behind. They also prevented the need for multiple discs for one game. Overall, for their durability, efficiency and general overall appearance, I believe cartridges are better in gaming.
Assuming that by atheist you are referring to a lack of religion, you aren't born with any specific religion. You may be raised with a religious view from a young age, but you aren't directly born with a religion as you haven't been introduced to it yet.
Pardon my language beforehand.
You're a piece of shit, idiotic, annoying-ass retard, but enough about RandomDude, I'm here to roast bemagic. There's only one way to roast bemagic, and it's in an oven. Adalia Rose has more balls than bemagic, despite their similar diseases. The car that best describes bemagic's appearance is the Pontiac Aztek. The most positive thing in bemagic's life is HIV. I hope one day bemagic can finally fall into something comfortable, hopefully a coma.
To be fair, most of these are jokes I wrote in my spare time about RandomDude. No offense to you meant.
While we're on the same side here, I feel I have to point out you're a little mistaken here. No one in Canada is allowed to possess a firearm with the exceptions of the police, government, hunters and so on. We also happen to be extremely safe, safer than the US I'd say. Just because we don't have immediate access to guns doesn't make us unsafe in this case, as we're under no real threat at all.
Guns don't kill people, more often than not the government kills people. What they're trying to do is take away guns from innocent people just trying to protect themselves, while they get to keep and use any guns they want. It's an attempt supposedly to reduce murders after Sandy Hook, but in all honesty, I doubt the criminals out there would just give up their guns to the government. Once again, this whole ordeal is just another way of stripping the people of their constitutional rights.
The show's gotten to be quite tired over the past few years, especially when they put Ellen DeGeneres as a judge.
I also agree that Nicki Minaj and Mariah Carey need to go, just adds unnecessary drama to the show.
So, you believe bats are birds? You believe it's right to sell your children for cash, or to own a slave? Do you believe Jonah was swallowed by a whale and was regurgitated after three days of being inside the whale's stomach? There are some parts of the Bible even the most hardcore Christians will dismiss, saying you believe it's all true it a rather difficult thing to say.
I wasn't wrong for entering a debating website, where you are allowed to enter any debate you want if you have something to say. You may have never corrected his spelling before he did, however you corrected his spelling without even taking a look at your own. I wasn't doing anything wrong by pointing that out.
I'm not the one getting overly angry and swearing at you, now am I. Too bad you can't block me here either.
Not only did you forget the comma, you didn't even heed my recommendation to remove the unnecessary space in "douchebag".
If you're going to attempt to knock someone, don't do what you're knocking them for. I'm not an idiot, I'm pretty sure most people here think I have more common sense than you.
I'm not going to waste my time with such an angry, obnoxious child anymore.
"Oh, and you say that I don't know how to spell, yet you spelled douchebag as two words."
It doesn't feel too good, now does it?
Oh! And....
You would know how to use proper grammar if you managed not to start a sentence with "and". Case closed, thanks for being a hypocrite.
He corrects others for their grammar quite frequently, usually also featuring poor grammar and spelling. Despite this, he had the nerve to say "As I've said a million times I DON'T CARE ABOUT FUCKING GRAMMAR OR SPELLING". A perfect example is listed here:
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/
In short, this guy's a bit of a hypocritical nutjob.
It has? Please direct me to the evidence of this happening, as I was not aware of this. I require proof because I cannot believe something if there's not evidence to back it up. If my daughter was molested by my uncle, it's a different category as that is a personal depiction, where as the Bible is a written depiction. If my daughter is showing signs of molestation, I'd know.
No worries on the punctuation, I'm not one to judge. Just a year ago I would have had similar grammar to RandomDude. As long as I can read it, I'm not overly concerned. I'm not sure what the last statement is referring to, however I don't think love to one another is provided by telling gays what they can or cannot do. Please provide the link to the Noak's Ark discovery as I am very curious.
Noah's Ark is scientifically impossible. There is no way an old man and his family could have placed two of each animal on one boat. How did the penguin get there, how did the kangaroo get there, we're left not knowing. Unless the animals were just beamed out of the sky, there's no way that two of each animal could have got there. Musk oxen require cold environments, alongside many others. How did he manage to get proper temperatures for the animals without causing deaths of others? Some animals cannot take the cold, while some cannot live without it. Food is another issue I have with this story. A good example of this is the koala bear. The koala bear only eats certain eucalyptus leaves, and basically nothing else. With an animal as picky as the koala bear, did Noah go out on a hunt for all the food for every animal? What about the animals that eat other animals, how did he manage to get a fox from not eating moles or rabbits? This story requires a LOT of faith to actually believe it happened.
The one major problem I have with this story are the dimensions of the ship. An estimate I found says Noah's Ark was believed to be 45x450x75 feet and made of wood. How is it possible that within that small of a dimension that Noah was able to cram his own family and two of every animal, including elephants, giraffes, lions and other massive animals, and enough food to last them on their long trip. The likelihood of the boat even staying afloat that long with all that cargo is slim to none, but it's also impossible to carry that much cargo on this tiny boat.
If he was skilled in creating such a big ship, it's likely others would have also had boats at the time. What happened to them, did they all forget how to use their boats? If Noah and his family were the only survivors, it's possible someone else could have also survived at least the flood itself.So, in short, the story doesn't match up to its claims. It's impossible he got two of every animal at the time, even if it was a considerably smaller amount, it's impossible he was able to feed himself and the animals and make sure none of the animals died, it's impossible the boat was even able to float so long, it's impossible that all of the animals lived, and so on.
Just to clear up a couple things, I am not stupid. I am of average intelligence. The reason for my grammer issues and spelling things wrong is because of typos and not proof reading. I probably won't make much of an effort to improve this as I don't think the content I add to the internet is really that important. Also, I am currently in therapy for anger management issues. I was not forced into the therapy, it is completely voluntary. Can I get a second chance?
Stop bothering others based on their grammar when you can't be bothered to do a better job. When this happens, I will think about it.
Personally, I believe evolution has opened new doors to us disproving incorrect statements found in the holy scriptures. With evolution, we now know things were around long before the initial estimated 6000 years and many other facts that can actually be backed up using evidence.
This probably has nothing to do with the given description, however I'm responding to the title of the debate here.
jesus was just a jew and he is in hell right now
'u' should be spelled 'you' and that is a sign of laziness. Also, there should be a comma after 'Honestly', 'Quit' shouldn't be capitalized, and 'ass hole' should be one word, not to mention that is a run on sentence and the structure is terrible.
You have the balls to comment on others' grammar when your grammar is worse than more than half of the people here. Please, before you go off telling people to put commas in, add some on your own sentences first, you hypocrite.
well isnt this some hilarious shit! im sick and tired of telling you jack wagons on this site that i type fast and i dont proof read. why? because its the internet so who gives a shit. im not taking some damn test am i? get a life maggot brain and consider yourself reported!!!!!!!
i almost forgot, youre going to hell (no period here either?)
Well then.
"actually i dont and that should be "and plays too much angry birds looks like youre the moron!
No, you spelled 'elementary' wrong and spelled 'too' wrong and then called me a moron? ironic, isn't it?
Maybe you should just stop throwing stones because obviously my grammar and spelling is better than yours. As I've said several times, I type fast and don't check for errors because who really cares? This isn't a test jack-wagon!
talking about yourself again? pathetic.
Still makes you look pretty stupid for calling someone a moron yet you constantly spell things wrong and make grammatical errors.If you want to play grammar Nazi that's fine, I accept the challenge. I'll start going through your argument waterfall and dispute EVERYTHING you ever spelled wrong, EVERY grammatical error, EVERY missing comma and period, is that how you want to play this out?
Not including all the commas you forgot to include. Hypocritical fuck.
You can't go to hell for insulting someone who deserves it most of the time.
No, I've actually never heard that one before. Homosexuals are a definite minority on the planet, and if they were allowed the same decency and respect as us, the population wouldn't change at all. Even so, we're overpopulated as it is, it wouldn't even be a bad thing.
You didn't answer any of the questions I asked, showing you don't really know how to rebut an argument.
So I can't use my bible as a resource but you can use Darwin's book as a resource to throw evolution at me how is that fair.
No, you can't, as there is no proof to back-up the Bible. The Romans kept very detailed records of what happened in their times, and none of it relates to the Bible. If it was as big of a movement as it was in the Bible, you would think someone would have it on record, but no, it's not. Is there any way to prove that we were put here in seven days by a deity in the sky 4000/6000 (depending on which story you believe) years ago, or that this "loving god" flooded the Earth, killing everything but two animals per species (which in itself is impossible) and a small family? Is there any way to prove any of this happened? I'm waiting.
God is like love it's just there you can't see love but you just know its there
Proper punctuation would have been great to help follow what you are referring to here. Just because you think it's there does not mean everyone does ("you just know its there"). Since I can't help you realize you're somewhat hallucinating here, I'm not going to go further on with this particular sentence.
that's why all women regret it later on in life
Not all women regret having an abortion, I'm not sure where you came up with this statistic.
doctor may say that giving birth to this child would be life threatening but doctors aren't always right
So, the doctors are wrong by saying the baby could be life-threatening? There are many cases where this happens, and mothers die in child-birth on occasion, so you can't say the doctors are wrong by addressing the facts.
If I was in college and working a part time job and i got pregnant that is my fault and I have to deal with my consequences
That would be your choice now, wouldn't it? It wouldn't be someone else's choice, it would be yours.
I have no right to punish that baby
Within the first stages of pregnancy, it is not even a baby yet, it is merely what will become a baby, and not actually a baby yet. There would be no "punishing", if you can't have the baby, can't afford the baby, don't want the baby, experience unneeded stress or other consequences from the baby, or could die from having the baby, then there wouldn't be any punishing towards the fetus. It doesn't even know it's alive yet at early stages.
God did create marriage because it all started when he created Eve from Adam
First of all, start your argument off with proper grammar ("did create"). Second, what does this have to do with marriage? Even if he did exist and he did create Eve from Adam's rib, then how does that have anything to do with marriage? You're not proving anything, you're only stating what you believe happened. By the way, how do you know a man up in the sky created a woman from a man's rib, is there any way you can prove to me that this happened without using the Bible as a source?
God has to be the third member of a marriage or it will crumble.
This statement is not true at all. Plenty of non-religious, athiest, agnostic and others not worshiping a deity have had successful and long-lasting marriages. There is no third member of a marriage unless you're a polygamist, either. Explain to me how your God, over any other God, is a part of everyone's marriage and how if you don't invite him between you and your wife that your marriage will crumble.
Also, God does exist because he created the world and he created humans
You are not proving anything, you are not providing any logical explanation for this. God exists because he created the world and humans? Does the Stay-Puft Marshmallowman exist because he was in Ghostbusters? No, we know he doesn't exist because he's a fictional character in a story and doesn't exist outside of fiction. Does God exist because he created humans and the world? He technically didn't create humans as we naturally evolved from our predecessors to be the way we are, and not just in a split second by some God. We also know through science that the world wasn't created in seven days by a God either. So, how does your God exist? Please explain using proper facts and evidence or else your claim is dismissed as false.
how is he not worthy of worship? What has God done to deserve any less
God hasn't done anything to anyone at all. People spend countless hours praying to nothing, only to have nothing happen at all. What has he done, you cannot attempt to prove that he's done anything without the use of the Bible as evidence, which it is not.
In short, your brief "rebuttal" was a weak attempt to prove you're right and a strong attempt to prove you're mildly insane.
Not necessarily. Just because religion would be left out of politics, doesn't mean that religious people would be too. Religion is waste of time, and people who use it in politics are just asking not to be voted for. Religion needs to be kept out of politics.
Great to see some Ron Paul supporters here!
I wouldn't blame Republicans for unwinnable wars, I would moreso blame the government. While Bush and his father created many wars, some of which still going on, the Democrats have done little to stop them. Obama has kept them in all wars, but pulled out of Iraq. America is still fighting in Afghanistan, the Philippenes, the Horn of Africa and Pakistan today, and Obama hasn't done anything, because it makes him and the other corporations money.
While I overall agree with you in some points, I don't think it's just the Republicans to blame. Clinton had troops in four battles still.
"Los Zetas is a powerful and violent criminal syndicate in Mexico, and is considered by the U.S. government to be the most technologically advanced, sophisticated, and dangerous cartel operating in Mexico" - Wikipedia
Al Qaeda poses no threat to the United States whatsoever, they can't do damn thing to them. They're being slowly hunted to extinction right now. What honestly could they do? Airport security is a lot better (minus TSA) now, and it would be much harder to get Al Qaeda into the US than us getting to them. However, Los Zetas also poses no real threat to America. The real biggest threat to America is its own government, banks and corporations. I would have liked an "other" option instead of Los Zetas, since you're asking us who is the biggest threat but only give us two choices.
Out of the two choices though, it's more likely that drug-trading violent Mexicans, which are closer, are a bigger threat than people hiding over in the Middle East. America doesn't seem to be doing much about Los Zetas.
I did use turn signals and i went test driving yesterday with my farther ; and i stopped at lights,stop signs,i slowed down on turns and everything
Well, I'm sure you don't know how to use everything yet, and neither will nearly all the 14 and 15 year old drivers.
iam very responsiable i have been helping my mother , with my sisters for 6 years SO DONT TELL ME I AM NOT RESPONSIABLE
I never said you were not, however, just because you help out your family does not make you responsible enough to own and drive a car. Grade 8's can be 14, does some Grade 8 sound responsible to you? There is no need for someone just entering puberty to own and drive a car.
and if i chose to have a baby at this age ; i would be ready to be a mother but like i said in my other debate i got other tjhings to worry about
When did I talk about you having a baby, I don't remember this. What does this have to do with anything? As it stands, you're just someone who wants things your way, and the world can't revolve around you.
Karl Marx had an idea to improve the world, while it may not have worked out very well. He wasn't a prophet, that would indicate a religious message. He was just a man with a plan to make the world a better place.
While the Liberal Party of Canada is going through a similar "dead phase", I don't think the Republican Party will be gone for good. The reason why Obama is still in power is because of an avalanche of idiotic nominees from the Republican side (Romney, Perry, Bachmann, Gingrich, Santorum, etc). Despite this, I would hope that the Libertarian Party would gain power (people like Ron Paul, not Paul Ryan), as I am a strong supporter of the Libertarian movement for obvious reasons.
GOD IS REAL HOW DARE YOU SAY HE ISNT I AM AFFENSIVE BECAUSE HE IS AN AMAZING PERSON HE IS THE ONE WHO MADE THE WORLD. IF HE DIDNT MAKE THE WORLD WHO DID EXACTLY STFU AND READ THE BIBLE AND YOU WILL LEARN SUMTHING.
*Isn't, offended, didn't, something. Once again with the all caps, wonderful to see.
GOD IS REAL HOW DARE YOU SAY HE ISNT
Maybe because there is no real proof for the existence of God.
I AM AFFENSIVE
...
HE IS AN AMAZING PERSON HE IS THE ONE WHO MADE THE WORLD
Apart from the Bible, give me one reason why this is true. I'd like to hear it.
IF HE DIDNT MAKE THE WORLD WHO DID EXACTLY
The Big Bang is a commonly-cited alternative for the God story, more logical too. A combination of several factors is the reason why the world was created the way it was, simple as that. Over a long process, it slowly formed the way it was through various ways.
STFU AND READ THE BIBLE AND YOU WILL LEARN SUMTHING
The Bible cannot be used as a source as there is no proof to back it up. It is merely a story giving an example of how we might have been created, however since it is outdated and can be proven wrong, we don't need to use it.
I'm pretty sure you're either an 11-year old troll or a duplicate account of someone looking to annoy others. Either way, you're getting on my nerves.
WHEN YOU GO TO HELL AND BURN TO ASHES DONT SAY A THANG YOU WILL BE NDER GROUND WHILE US CHRISTIANS WILLL BE IN HEAVEN ON GOLDEN STREETS,LIVING THE LIFE EATING GOLDEN APPLES,GOLDEN STEAKS,FLYING AND DRINKING WONDERFUL WATER.
Love the capitals on every letter. Anyways, where to begin.
WHEN YOU GO TO HELL AND BURN TO ASHES
According to the Bible, if Hell existed, I would estimate that 99.9999% of the population that ever existed would be there. I'd also be willing to guess you would be there too for some rather minor sin. Also, Hell is where you burn forever, not just instantly burn to ashes. Once you are dead, your body is either buried or burned, so it doesn't matter, the chances are, you're going to burn to ashes anyways.
DONT SAY A THANG YOU WILL BE NDER GROUND WHILE US CHRISTIANS WILLL BE IN HEAVEN
*Don't, thing, underground, will. Very fair, I would say, that because I have different beliefs from you, I deserve an eternity of suffering. May I ask, what about the other religions, do they also burn for an eternity? What about Judaism, based on the early iteration of the Bible, do they burn for an eternity? What about all the countless sects, do they burn for an eternity for not picking the right one which you have just suddenly declared as correct?
ON GOLDEN STREETS,LIVING THE LIFE EATING GOLDEN APPLES,GOLDEN STEAKS,FLYING AND DRINKING WONDERFUL WATER
If I wanted to go on golden streets, eat apples and steak while drinking wonderful water, I would go to a fancy restaurant. This is a vague description of what you perceive to be Heaven, although no one on this planet has been there to witness it, so you have no idea and are really just talking out of your ass right now.
In short, you're an angry troll with poor grammar and spelling.
NO they as I say again in my terms if you have sex and your under 17 your in the terms they call a H8
What?? They being who, and what is an H8?
you should save you virganity ; and your cherry for your husband and no body els
Why, why do we need a restriction on when sex is allowed? This sounds rather biblical to me, I believe you should have the choice to engage with someone if you want to. There is no reason to specifically wait until you're married to have intercourse, unless for religious purposes.
you never know if they have std's, herpies,HIV's,Aids,or any thing else you never know keep your private parts to your self until you and your husband get checked for dieces
Your awful grammar and spelling astounds me. A wise choice would be to have blood tests, and be checked/vaccinated for the diseases, however it is likely if it's both parties' first time, then the chances of contracting a disease (while wearing a condom) will be very little at all. Once again, confused as to what "dieces" is as well.
You're basically offering no real reasons why not to have sex until you're 17, apart from that you should be married (unlikely to happen at 17), religious or disease-wary (which can happen for anyone's first time, under 17 or not). The chances of getting a disease if it's both you and your partner's first time, and you're using protection, is basically none. Apart from religious reasons, there is no real need to tell a kid they can't screw until a certain age. Mind you I don't really agree with anything below 15, but 16 and 15 year olds should have the choice whether or not they want to do this.
Also, please next time read over the title before you post it.
I disagree with this i drove myself at 12 just down the street because my farther was teaching me how to drive as long as you know how to steer,you can push the peedle , and you can take directions it shouldn't be that hard
If you disagreed with it, then I would have liked a rebuttal to my arguments, which was not provided. The fact is, even though you may think you're a responsible driver at 14 for driving down a road, there's a lot you have to learn before being able to drive. I'm assuming you didn't use turn signals, or lane indicators? The fact of the matter is, you would be a serious hazard on a highway. You don't have the experience to be driving at 14, which is why you need to be older to drive.
So yes 14 year olds should be able to drive. You just have to know what your doing.
Because you drove up a street means 14 year olds should be able to drive? In all likelihood, the chance of a 14-year old passing a driver's test and getting a license is slim to none without serious practice. The age restrictions are there for reasons which I have provided.
Yes ; every body recks even 30 year old , mature adults reck to
Yes, adults also cause car crashes, however like I said, the chances of a 14-year old crashing is much higher than, say, a 25 year old. There are too many distractions in a child's mind that could occur at any time, too many tight situations (parking would be a nightmare), and overall it is just a big waste of time for such a small result.
Well, when it comes to the fact that our world is controlled by the corporations, where countries' water supplies have been bought by corporations, where Walmart has more money than many countries do, where the United States has over 16.3 trillion in debt, where the richest 2% of the population in the world own more than half of the global household assets, where countries have gone completely bankrupt, where six members of the Waltons family owned more money than the bottom 30% of American citizens combined, where our world is swamped by advertisements, where American rights are slowly deteriorating, where rapid inflation by the Federal Reserve diminishes what value left our dollar has, where our gas prices continually rise only because corporations want more money, where our politicians continually screw us citizens, and constant wasting of our Earth's natural resources, we're not that better off right now.
They're borderline terrorists. Ignorant people who are a prime example of extremist religions. For picketing funerals, harassing homosexuals, harassing every country in the world on their website (www.godhatesfags.com), and overall deserving to be locked up and beaten in prison, yes, they should.
A nuke will not create anything good for either countries. It will result in plenty of bloodshed, hundreds of innocent families dead, and yet another reason for the American government to step in and create another war, the last thing any country needs.
I find Family Guy much funnier than the Simpsons. I think it's way funnier for a variety of reasons, including the fact that it actually talks about adult humor and isn't afraid of adding controversial matters. It's a show I laugh at every time, while the Simpons just bores me.
14-year olds should not have the ability to drive due to many reasons. For one, the likelihood of a crash would be increased highly, as most 14-year olds are not very responsible. The laws are put there for our protection. If a 14-year old were to get a ticket from the police, or accidentally hit someone/something, it would be money coming from the parents/insurances pockets. The 14-year olds do not have steady jobs yet, so they would not be able to afford filling up, insurance and other costs. The last thing we need is casualties from car crashes involving an inexperienced 14-year old, whether the child kills someone else or is killed. This is a common-sense debate, the laws are here for a reason. Just because a few children may be responsible doesn't make it a good option to have.
Now that Sandy has occurred, the United States Government thinks they have an excuse to pass anti-gun laws and take away yet another right from the American people. Just like in the past, this is yet another opportunity the American Government is taking to remove citizens' rights in the name of protection.
If religious people attack other religious people because of having a slightly diffrent texts then why am i not killing anyone right now?
You are attempting to push aside religious wars by saying that because you don't kill, that they don't kill? The majority of religious people would not kill someone, however an extremely high amount of wars and deaths have been created due to religion.
or maybe its because some of what you said is false
He was speaking the truth. Religious people have started many wars, many controversies, many assaults and deaths and so on. Just because you don't believe it doesn't make it wrong, as it has been proven throughout history that the religious have started many wars and battles, and caused millions of deaths.
I will admit though that some religious people take it to the extreme where they would kill. Also im not mad at all its just its funny to me how every athiest says that religious people always try to shove thier religion down peoples throats but now you guys are beggining to do the same.
What I'm beginning to see is that you are hypocritical and cannot figure out how to proofread. It's completely fair that you think only some religious people would kill ("when taken to the extreme"), yet every atheist tries to harass the religious. Do you not see how backwards-ass you seem right now? You're denying that religious people have started the vast majority of wars, yet you think every atheist tries to go out of their way to bother you. If that's not hypocritical, I'm not sure what is.
Who knows what the future will hold, maybe athiests will kill someone for having diffrent beliefs than them
I hope in the future we can abandon religion and advance in society, as it exists as none other than a setback today. Very fitting how you say that atheists will kill people who have different views in the future, yet you seem to have no problem with the religious killing others in the name of their different deity.
