Funny Pictures, Funny Videos

Richard Dawkins "In Favour of...
- And what of Samuel and Isaiah? What kind of argument are you going to pull out to say that doesn't promote infanticide?
- Jun, 13 2013 07:50pm

Richard Dawkins "In Favour of...
- (sorry got cut off) one takes his place on the throne is beyond me.
- Jun, 13 2013 06:47pm

Richard Dawkins "In Favour of...
- So Matthew and Exodus both talk of killing children because they might take the place of a king. So that somehow makes it ok? That somehow makes it not fit the description of infanticide? If a ruler today claims that he was told by his god to kill all newborn children in a region because they might usurp his throne, you don't think we would consider that infanticide? And on the note of Samuel and Isaiah, you would really have killed all children born to the Nazis? Really? Those children have no inherent evil in them. They would have had to have been taught to hate all the same things that Nazi's hate. As long as the children wouldn't have been brought up in a Nazi environment, there would be no reason to kill them at all. So what does all this show? That you are incorrectly, defending abhorrent bible verses that talk about killing young children, when they have done absolutely nothing wrong. How you can honestly say it isn't infanticide if a king kills all the children so no
- Jun, 13 2013 06:46pm

Richard Dawkins "In Favour of...
- Matthew 2:16-18. 1 Samuel 15:3. Exodus 1:16. Isaiah 13:16. All of these bible verses specifically mention killing children
- Jun, 13 2013 06:16am

God is real right?
- What about the Mayans? You know, the ones who had the near perfect calendar well before the time of christianity? I believe they were also excellent astronomers. All you would have to do is ask someone who has been to Chichen Itza during the summer solstice to see that they positioned one of their pyramids so perfectly that a shadow of a snake appears on the side of it during the solstice even to this day. Not to mention the fact that thery were able to build huge pyramids and complex cities without modern technology such as metal, or the wheel. That seems pretty scientific to me, and they definitely weren't christians.
- Jun, 12 2013 06:24am

Three Good Reasons to Believe in God...
- And how can you say that there is no evolutionary explanation for being kindly to elderly people? There are plenty of examples of senicide in both ancient times, and modern times. It is still regularly practiced in some places. Like in Tamil Nadu, which is in India. In 2010, the government actually had to set up teams of officers to monitor senior citizens, to try to stop people from doing this. If god wrote his law on everyone's heart, then how does this still happen? Or what about the overpopulation problem in China? Where families will actually kill baby girls because they would rather have a baby boy? I guess Asia just got skipped over when he was putting his law on everyone's heart?
- Jun, 10 2013 03:48am

Three Good Reasons to Believe in God...
- And I will admit that the religious scientists have played large roles in the advancement of certain areas of science. But the problem lies when a scientist starts studying things that disagrees with religious doctrine, or challenges the churches authority. For an extremely well known example of this, I would refer you to the Galileo Affair, where Galileo challenged the geocentric model of the universe used by the church in favor the now proven heliocentric model. He was tried as a heretic, forced into house arrest for the rest of his life, and forced to recant his position on the matter. And even religious scientists came to conclusions that went against what the bible taught. Lamarck developed Lamarkism, which was basically the first coherent theory of evolution. Gregor Mendel is the father of genetics for his work in studying inherited characteristics. Both religious men, whose scientific study led them to conclusions that differed with what the church teaches.
- Jun, 10 2013 03:47am

Three Good Reasons to Believe in God...
- Well, if you don't like the wikipedia definition, I encourage you to look at the countless other definitions of Atheistic Agnosticism available on the internet. You can say it's evidence for god all you like, but it doesn't make it true. How many other things used to be "evidence for god" that have been proven wrong? Almost every belief that ancient people had has been proven different by modern science. It used to be common knowledge that the earth was the center of the universe, which was the catholic church's stance, by the way. And on that point, I would refer you to Occam's Razor. In case you don't know what that is, it is the principle that the theory with the least amount of assumptions should be selected. Assuming that an all powerful deity that has never been seen did all these things, is a pretty big assumption.
- Jun, 10 2013 03:46am

Three Good Reasons to Believe in God...
- And you seem to have completely skated over my argument about not killing each other as a survival instinct. You know, something that all animals have. The only difference is our instincts have evolved to the point where we know it's not good for our species as a whole to kill each other every chance we get. Please tell me you at least aren't a young earth creationist, because if you are, this argument is going to go right over your head. How you can say that morals come from god, when there were people around before the old testament claims there were? Where did their morals come from?
- Jun, 9 2013 10:22pm

Monday Morning Randomness