crazyvdo.net

chronoblip (November 28th, 2008 @ 4:14 am)

Please do not insult me further. You have no clue as to what I believe and you have no clue what you are talking about. Your points are about as valid as claiming a car can't be fast because it doesn't have racing stripes. Stop copy-pasting and use your head for once.

chronoblip (November 28th, 2008 @ 3:59 am)

Are you being serious? I would rather assume you are just failing to be funny as that would mean you were intentionally acting ignorant.

adolthitler (November 26th, 2008 @ 7:00 am)

Ask the altar boys this question. Celibacy is a crime. Nuns should be made to shag the priests till the priests are half dead before they get near children. You can say its childish and not moral however the alternative is less moral.

adolthitler (November 26th, 2008 @ 6:56 am)

Well you believe in him from a book that claims the world is flat. The initial couple only had male children who found wives from under rocks to produce children. Or was it a case of gayogenesis, two men breeding for the first time ever?

AntEyeTheist (September 28th, 2008 @ 12:46 am)

The most hopeful atheist view Ive seen. Thank you so much for this positive view of our predicament. My geography at present offers no hope. I know for certainty that I would be discriminated against for not believing. My job and my livelihood would be in jeopardy. Religious bigotry abounds me. I feel repression like Ive not felt before. I feel YouTube is my only sanctuary. Thank you so much for this positive reflection.

chronoblip (September 3rd, 2008 @ 2:43 am)

If an individual is seeking approval of an important figure in their life and in order to obtain that approval they need to be homo/heterosexual, does the individual still "sense" a choice about their sexuality? Or is the choice they "sense" only whether to seek out the approval of that important figure while sexuality is the means to an end? Would that individual still "sense" they had a choice or would that "sense" be lost in making the primary decision?

chronoblip (September 3rd, 2008 @ 2:40 am)

Because the machinist was created with the ability to act independent of the engineer, a customer of the part can correctly verify that the machinist can completely describe the parts and define the rules he follows to create them, with no specific need to mention the engineer. Genesis is awfully vague as to the "how" when it says "God created ______", and who knows whether the "days" are "days" or "eras". I don't, and I don't like making it an issue of contention where it doesn't belong.

chronoblip (September 3rd, 2008 @ 2:39 am)

Sorry, was on the wrong account, wasn't paying attention to what was signed in. The recent posts by 1of00t570rk were "me" but on the wrong account.

1of00t570rk (September 3rd, 2008 @ 2:34 am)

If an engineer creates a blueprint and hands it off to a machinist, the engineers' only role at that point in the creation of the part is providing the rules for the machinist to follow in creating the part. I believe God created nature as completely independent of God, "setup shop" with all the tools, designs, and rules for everything that nature would ever need, and then left the machinist of nature do it's job. The engineer is not then required by the machinist after the originating event.

1of00t570rk (September 3rd, 2008 @ 2:33 am)

Where have I asserted God for as a substitute for anything natural? I am not a "creationist" per se. I am perfectly fine with science and the natural explanation of how things work. Science is awesome at that. Where I begin to assert God is in the design of the way things work together. I find no problem in believing that God could design systems that would not need him actively involved to keep functioning once they were started. I will expand in an attempted analogy in my later replies.

1of00t570rk (September 3rd, 2008 @ 2:32 am)

It was you who first modified the meaning of a part of the APA's recent statement to what you needed, after the APA cite refuted your biological evidence. When I point out why your modifications were less than reasonable, I am arguing semantics instead of evidence? That was your most recent point, what evidence am I supposed to address? As for my question, I was asking how you would differentiate between the majority who do and minority who don't "experience a sense of choice."

Killua2001 (September 1st, 2008 @ 10:05 pm)

Actually I'm curious, how does a supernatural all powerful entity design everything without being the cause of it? How does it design everything without then asserting that god is also the explanation of physical phenomenon? (I really don't know the answer to this, I'm curious what you'll say)