Mac

Hear me out.

I have a few points to offer to support the validity of my question.

Point one.

One of the most basic arguments I hear is the right to life. Now I understand the viewpoint that someone who is an adult and kills someone has in your eyes had the opportunity for life and has thrown it away. So how do you answer to the fact that every serial killer and murderer on record has either had a sever mental illness or grew up in an environment where such behaviors were taught to them since childhood? Can you give me any evidence to the contrary?...try to find me one murderer who mental health specialists have said there was not a thing wrong with them.

Point two is a caveat to point one.

If you do think that a person who is a serial killer needs to die then how do you justify that? Isn't that akin to punishing a deaf child for not listening to you? If they are born without the mental faculties to understand the value of human life how do you justify robbing them of their most basic right for it?

Point Three.

Abortion should not be used as a matter of convenience. This is another argument. well isn't the death penalty a measure of conscience? It is used to keep the public from having to house and seclude those that are dangerous to society. So why is it right to deny someone the choice for abortion on the grounds of conscience, yet proper to kill an adult for the same reasons?

And if you adhere to the Bible how could you possibly rectify the act of killing someone? Because isn't that what it is in God's eyes, according to the Bible?

I have a laundry list of examples..but I think this will suffice. thoughts?

Hear me out.

I have a few points to offer to support the validity of my question.

Point one.

One of the most basic arguments I hear is the right to life. Now I understand the viewpoint that someone who is an adult and kills someone has in your eyes had the opportunity for life and has thrown it away. So how do you answer to the fact that every serial killer and murderer on record has either had a sever mental illness or grew up in an environment where such behaviors were taught to them since childhood? Can you give me any evidence to the contrary?...try to find me one murderer who mental health specialists have said there was not a thing wrong with them.

Point two is a caveat to point one.

If you do think that a person who is a serial killer needs to die then how do you justify that? Isn't that akin to punishing a deaf child for not listening to you? If they are born without the mental faculties to understand the value of human life how do you justify robbing them of their most basic right for it?

Point Three.

Abortion should not be used as a matter of convenience. This is another argument. well isn't the death penalty a measure of conscience? It is used to keep the public from having to house and seclude those that are dangerous to society. So why is it right to deny someone the choice for abortion on the grounds of conscience, yet proper to kill an adult for the same reasons?

I have a laundry list of examples..but I think this will suffice. thoughts?

I have to ask this question because I am getting rather tired of being given Bible or Torah or Qur'an quotes when asking for evidence of the existence of God.

I do not need science or a text book to prove to you that a rock exists...I simply have to hold it out to you to see and feel.

With that being said; can anyone explain why some seem to think that holy books, which were written by men and have failed empirical testing and historical referencing, (and to those of you who want to list the Roman historian who is credited as being an accurate recorder; just remember that he lived hundreds of years after the supposed death of Jesus), can be considered proof?

If you hold this view I have to wonder how effective you think quoting a book I have read cover to cover several times over, as have many atheists I know, can be considered proof?

If I were to write a paper explaining that the Earth was formed by a giant space ant vomiting; and then tried to have it considered scientific proof, I would be laughed out of the room.

I had to kind of borrow someone else's formula for a moment.

I have to ask this question to all theists. I have heard many claims about the evidence of God being the order and purpose that exists within our universe. So, it would seem a logical progression along that line of thinking to ask if the other planets were "trial runs"?

You tell me if I am right then nothing happens when I die; if I'm wrong then I go to hell..or at least I don't get to go to heaven.

have you ever considered that if I use your logic...and if I ask you to use your own. Then I have thousands of Gods and Goddesses to be afraid of making angry?

Have you considered that, when making the argument to me?

BQ: If you use whatever holy book your religion prescribes to as evidence. Doesn't it concern you in the slightest that there are others that hold the same claim even today?

How do you explain that some of the most peaceful people in existence are Buddhists? And remember, Christianity and the Bible weren't even known when it was founded in that part of the world.

If the theists are right they get to have the last laugh. But if we atheists are right we won't get the chance....gotta love the irony.

If you do...then you have to admit that God made me with the knowledge that I do not believe in him. He would also know he gave me the intellect and critical thinking skills to not believe in something that has no empirical evidence. So therefore he would once again know I would not believe in him. So if he made me the way I am; why bother trying to tell me I should believe? And while I am on that subject...doesn't that include gays? God made them who they are....even if they chose to be, even though its been proven that there are biological signatures that create homosexuality, if they choose to be gay then God made them with the desire to be so. I mean lets be honest here, It isn't a choice, I somehow doubt anyone would choose to be of a minority that regularly faces persecution and hateful speech by God touting bigots.....just a thought. And I in no means am attempting to insult or degrade homosexuals. I understand you are born that way; and I have the utmost respect for your personal strength to let the world know you are proud.

oh...and if you try to say it's the devil doing it just remember....God made the devil. So that means God made evil, if you don't then I guess that means the Devil is a god...or simply existed without God's creation.

Just curious what theists think.

Do you honestly believe that telling me I will go to hell, or that Jesus died for me will really make me believe in God? I'm not trying to be snide...I am honestly asking. Do you really think it will work?

if not...why bother?

so this is actually a question. I am curious how one reconciles the existence and encouragement of slavery within the Bible? And for those of you who claim this is like an "employment contract" how do these versus reflect what we know..and therefore God would know...of basic human rights?

Exodus 21:1-4 "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."

This sounds nothing like a "employment contract" as many arguments I have heard. That the master will still own the wife and child? How is this just?

Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."

this condones the beating of a slave with a rod as long as they don't die. Once again..how is this like an employment contract? And yes...the notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished:for he is his money; would directly mean that as long as the slave lives, then since he is the property of the master, there will be no punishment.

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her."

so if you win a war with another country, and see a woman you think is pretty, then she will become your wife. why give her a choice?

Deuteronomy 20:14 "But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself"

this is pretty straightforward.

and to be fair...the Bible DID allow churches to get involved...so they were not the ones to bring it about:

Numbers 31:28-47 "And levy a tribute unto the Lord of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep: Take it of their half, and give it unto Eleazar the priest, for an heave offering of the Lord. And of the children of Israel's half, thou shalt take one portion of fifty, of the persons, of the beeves, of the asses, and of the flocks, of all manner of beasts, and give them unto the Levites, which keep the charge of the tabernacle of the Lord."

or perhaps I am misinterpreting?....and if that is your claim...what makes you think I am the one not interpreting it correctly?

So I just took a 150 question test about aspergers. The range was out of 200 and I scored a 185, pretty much a guarantee that I have it from what I can gather. Now of course I'm going to seek out a professional diagnosis. But I was wondering if anyone on here has any good information or references; so that I can study this condition a bit more to understand myself, the benefits and liabilities that are associated. I of course have looked a bit into it and have been able to surmise the various ways that I have been limited in social interactions and day to day operations, I would just like more information. If the information helps at all I am 30 years old and just found out about this today.

Thank you.

To a woman who has to bare the child that is a result of her rape?

it might not be a high statistic..but you realize without abortion she is forced to not only endure the nine month pregnancy...but the birth of a child as a result of her abuse.

in modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. In this modern scientific context the distinction between theory and practice corresponds roughly to the distinction between theoretical science and technology or applied science.

A common distinction made in science is between theories and hypotheses. Hypotheses are individual empirically testable conjectures, while theories are collections of hypotheses that are logically linked together into a coherent explanation of some aspect of reality and which have individually or jointly received some empirical support.

If it is a theory then it has not been falsified.....in other words....IT HAS NOT BEEN DIS PROVEN OR GIVEN ANY REASON TO HOLD IT AS FALSE.

a theory is not a educated guess...that is a hypotheses.

If you are going to try to rebuke a Scientific standpoint at least understand the definitions of the terms used.

Lets just suppose for the sake of argument that the Bible is fact.

I mean he claims to be an infinitely loving deity. Yet he rains fire down on people. He dropped a mountain on a city! That's pretty violent. He floods the world. Kicks Adam and Eve out of paradise for the first transgression they commit. But at the same time he is always talking about loving and caring for you...promising eternal paradise if you obey his every word and command.

And to top it off he sent his only begotten son down to get murdered by the very people he professes to love.

But the honest point to my question is how exactly does one rectify the brutality of a supposedly infinitely loving being that commits such acts? I just felt it proper to preface my question with some honest and true to the bible examples.

Another question on here made me think. As a soldier I was already an atheist (and still am). I fought for many years in Iraq and Afghanistan. I watched faithful soldiers with wives and children at home die before me and around me. My question would be, if you truly believe that God reaches down to save people, why was it me and not them?

I am curious about this one.

I also decided to expand my question.

I ask this also because I was in a Humvee with a chaplain...a priest if you don't know. Who died when a IED detonated. He and two of his faithful died while I lived. Where was the hand of God?

Another question on here made me think. As a soldier I was already an atheist (and still am). I fought for many years in Iraq and Afghanistan. I watched faithful soldiers with wives and children at home die before me and around me. My question would be, if you truly believe that God reaches down to save people, why was it me and not them?

I am curious about this one.

what color is the sky?

Also, there are no ex-christians, so even if you think you were, you weren't.

this is the statement used by a christian in one of my previous questions where I mentioned I am an atheist that was once catholic.

now I am not quite clear what this statement implies. does it mean that I can't stop being Christian?....because I don't even believe in the existence of Jesus so he is certainly not my savoir. Or does it mean that I was never really a christian; even though I had accepted the ideas and myths?

I'm just really curious now.

you understand that a christian is nothing more than someone who accepts Jesus Christ as their savior right? I'm personally an atheist. But if your going to believe in something at least understand the definitions. And yes...for most of my young life I was catholic....and they DO believe in and worship Christ.