borz_kriffle

Egg on my face, I mixed up being charged with being convicted. That’s a little better, but I still find it stupid that we feel the need to have a far more severe punishment for migrants than we would for natives who commit a crime. They already commit less crimes than us, why are we trying so hard to paint them as rapist criminals who also do drugs?

Also, Wylted, why on earth would you consider DJT’s case to be rigged because it’s politicized and not think about the effect that people’s political opinions could have on a migrant on trial for any crime ever? Half of conservatives would deport them for shoplifting.

To clear things up for you, I actually read the bill, and it covers more than just rape. It covers all sexual offenses (which, to be fair, you probably could have guessed), child neglect/abuse/abandonment, and stalking. While I am not in favor of any of those, it allows deportations from convictions, meaning that there’s a high possibility that innocent people could be deported. If I may remind you, the president-elect has many convictions himself, so it seems a little goofy to say that we should deport migrants for the exact same thing.

this is so stupid, I’m not entertaining you any more.

Read the literal reply you have in your reply, the one I just wrote. It’s not FOR my nonexistent pet (why would I want to know something for the sake of informing an unlikely pet about it?), it’s for me. Just me. No animals, no translators, nothing. Please just read what I’m saying.

Are you suggesting that things only matter if we can understand them? Because while I may not be able to tell a millipede that it has free will, they will still have it. I just want to know if they do, according to Christian’s at least.

I’m not going to talk to a millipede, you’re the only person who mentioned talking to animals at all.

I don’t have a pet, I literally just said that

I was asking for myself, actually. I’ve never liked the idea of owning an animal, though I may try for a pet someday if I can genuinely convince it that it’s living in nature. I’m looking into millipedes, but I gotta sort out my housing first :/

Is this a joke? I’m confused.

If you’re doing it next week, I can wait! It’s not vital to my life or anything, so feel free to take your time.

I’ll preface with the fact that I am very much an atheist. That said, I’m a fan of learning what Christian’s think, so I’m gonna ask a question that bugs me as someone who cares for animals.

Do animals have free will? If not, what is free will defined as? If so, can they sin, and did Jesus die for them as well?

The reason I ask this is because I see a lot of Christian’s with a very human-centric mindset, and it’s odd to me that someone who supposedly cares so much for life has no problem with harming animals in any way. I’m wondering if they possibly see themselves as superior, and if free will is the determining factor here.

You do have evidence that you will wake up tomorrow. You have woken up every other day of your entire life, you likely are sleeping in an environment you know is safe, you know you don’t have any illnesses, et cetera. If you didn’t have evidence you would wake up tomorrow, you’d be fucking terrified of sleep, given that you have no experience or knowledge on the subject. Not to mention that you might even assume sleep is death itself, though I suppose you could know of death still if you erased your knowledge of sleep.

And while you could technically explain away all the contradictions and bullshit in the Bible and say no one has ever “disproved it”, no one has proven it either. Or even been able to present a single piece of non-anecdotal evidence. 

And finally, yes, there is technically evidence for miracles. That isn’t a “gotcha!”, that’s just the truth, as we have written down multiple stories from witnesses to miracles. That’s what we call “anecdotal evidence”, and it’s actually quite hard to weigh in many situations, such as: should I treat the word of a direct witness with a GED or a secondhand witness with a related PHD with more weight? But this is not one of those situations. These people are objectively dumber than 80 percent of the US population, I’m sure, and I honestly wouldn’t even trust the word of the dumber 40 percent of the US without some cursory google searches. 

ok you’re trolling now. I take rage bait far too often lol. Go jack off to the idea that you made me waste 30 minutes of my time, or whatever you guys do when we stop responding.

Superfluous…. Means…. Unnecessary, often due to abundance. That’s high school level vocab, if I’m being quite generous.

As for your shitty little argument:

I wasn’t talking about those people. I was talking about the insistence that most Christians have that Jesus himself rose from the dead, idk if you’ve heard of that story, it’s only the most well-known resurrection story of the modern day. But even if I was talking about that, why does it matter? Some people still claim Jesus resurrected others, you said so yourself. So no, I don’t believe in their religion, and I most certainly don’t believe in your version, which seems to pretend that the utter nonsense in the Bible makes any sense at all by claiming it was entirely metaphorical or some shit.

Redundancy means unneeded due to being repetitive. Each of my examples were useful and different in key ways that illustrated my point, if a little out there in terms of connection to reality. Still, if you failed to understand them, that is much more on you than me, because you are not my intended audience and (more importantly) are likely 14, given your obsession with age.

Now, I don’t owe you anything, but I’m intrigued to see how much more shit you can spew, so I’ll bite. Yes, Stephen. Such as raising the dead.

Since you seem to have failed to comprehend any of the last 2 paragraphs, I’ll spell it out for you:

We have found explanations for almost everything in this world. With research, we continue to find more. The evidence always points away from the supernatural. The only people who recorded miracles did so on paper and had the education of a 12th grader at most, not to mention that they didn’t have glasses. That is the reason that I don’t believe in a god, and actively assert his nonexistence. Because everything leaves evidence except for him.

Wow, thanks for refusing to interact with me on any meaningful level. I’m 20, and I don’t give that much of a shit about how court works. Maybe if you took that stick out of your ass you might be able to understand where I’m coming from, but I can tell you like the prostate stimulation.

And that’s a helluva claim to throw in there, are you about to contingent me to death? Because… not necessarily lol.

“No evidence” is actually the main way we dismiss everything in this world, and it works pretty great. Let’s give some examples:

Your phone glitches out randomly, becoming unresponsive for a couple seconds. You are worried it might do this again, so you check the WiFi connection to make sure that didn’t mess up. There’s nothing wrong with your WiFi, the router seems normal, so you go to your friend who works as a technician at the local phone repair place, and he does a free evaluation. He says it’s a touchscreen issue, and offers to repair it for a beer.

Tell me, would you still insist that it could just be the router?

You’re the judge for a murder case, and you have a bad feeling about the defendant. However, once you need to deliver a verdict, there’s only 2 pieces of evidence, and both seem to point towards his innocence. Not to mention that many character witnesses attested to his gentle and loving personality.

Would you still say he’s guilty?

Finally, you’re enjoying a hot cup of joe when your 8 year old runs into the room and says that he saw a unicorn outside. When you go to its supposed location, there is no trace of anything. 

Would you even entertain the thought that there’s a unicorn in your backyard?

All of these situations illustrate different situations in which you lack evidence for a conclusion. In the first, you have an expert telling you the true cause of something and have seen nothing that might prove them wrong, much less you right. Very similar to the evolution “debate”. In the second, you have a pre-existing belief with no real evidence backing it. Then, you receive some imperfect evidence to the contrary. Still, no rational person would stick with their prior feeling, especially with human suffering on the line. Reminds me of the homophobic rhetoric the Christian’s regularly support. Finally, in the final example, we have a truly supernatural occurrence witnessed by a less-developed human, and there appears to be no evidence behind both belief or disbelief. So why, then, do most people choose disbelief in this situation? The answer is quite simple: in some cases, the lack of evidence for an event is actually evidence for the contrary. It may seem like neither side has solid footing here, but the lack of hoofprints, droppings, or hairs from the unicorn actually count as evidence against it, due to the fact that we have never observed instances in which an event in our realm left no evidence of itself behind. Not to mention the innate fallibility of your source here, which leads me to the disbelief of all holy books that describe effectual supernatural events.

To conclude, the Antitheist position that I hold, which asserts that there definitively is no god and if there is they are not worthy of worship, is admittedly a very strong stance to take on something widely debated. But the experts have explained the events, the many tiny flaws in most religions show its unlikeliness to be true, and the fact that the only evidence we have for miracles is anecdotal and reliant on comparatively uneducated witnesses just makes it easier and easier for me to definitively state that god does not exist.

possibly a hot take: I’d kill Trump at any time if I could get away with it. It’d greatly benefit Americans and arguably the world. Also it would keep some women from being sexually assaulted so… bonus points!

The correct decision here is to consider actions the creator of enemies. A person is only an enemy based off the actions they take, and nothing else. If they cease that action, treat them as a past enemy and future friend.

Jesus Christ I’m done with this. I’d imagine any sane observer can recognize the flaw in this reasoning, so I’m out. Just try to think things through for a change.

Why try to adapt to something you may possibly never be able to fully adapt to, when you could instead attempt to stop it? I can attempt to ignore pain, but I will only ever do so if there is light at the end of the tunnel that I mustn’t do anything but survive to reach.

If I was driving a knife into your heart, would you stop it the second I pricked your skin? Or do you not consider me an enemy whose destruction is needed, and instead simply let me slowly kill you as you attempt to ignore the growing pain?

Are you someone who likes pain? I think it’s hard to not care even a little, if not impossible.

Ok, let’s make this personal: do you consider lifelong pain and suffering your enemy?

And no, the water didn’t tell me that. Did it tell you that it has none? No. Because it doesn’t have a brain.

Now, admittedly, it’s hard to assign enemies to an aspect of nature, but I’ll try: Water’s enemy is not the rock, it is the dam. The dam restricts water, keeps it from moving at all and exerts its control over it. When water destroys the dam, it has destroyed its enemy, and may be free once again. However, if water remains still, it will never escape the dam’s clutches. Therefore, water attempts to push against its confines, and though it can succeed, due to its innate pacifism it will most often fail against one familiar with it.

I tried to talk to you like a human, because I’m sure that you won’t accept any of the current evidence as even a little incriminating. The fact of the matter is, you “think” he’s innocent, just like I think he’s guilty. Certainly I have taken the far more reasonable stance given his past and the present actions of his legal team, but there’s always a chance I’m wrong, so I hesitate to say that I know anything quite yet.

Oh and by the way, I don’t think the current prison system is moral and I certainly don’t believe that drugs should be illegal to possess or use. Just wanted to appeal to your hatred of drug users, which, by the way, Trump most certainly is/was. Businessmen back then weren’t typically angels.

Is this the argument you’re making? Really?

I’m unsure whether you mean “crucified because he lied” or “crucified because someone lied about him”, so I’ll tackle this from both angles:

If you meant the former, Trump lied in an illegal way. It’s that simple. You can lie about what you had for breakfast, but there’s a scaling to the punishment, right?

If you meant the latter, do you genuinely believe that he would delay the case this long if he was innocent? He has been stalling and stalling, and I find it hard to believe that he’d do that if he was truly innocent. Eventually you’ll get enough proof to change your mind, I hope. Or maybe you’ll die thinking he was innocent, I don’t understand cult think.

Finally, why compare prison time to crucifixion? I thought republicans were chill with the prison-industrial complex. If you can get time for possession, I don’t think it’s fair to let Trump off the hook, and capital punishment isn’t even necessary.